Incivility and Organisational Commitment

Introduction

According to Lucey (2017), incivility is a social interaction between two and even more parties where the dynamic interchange has the potential of escalating into an exchange of actions that are coercive within organisations. What that implies is that one party’s negative actions would bring about a second parties negative reaction. That goes a long way in increasing behaviours that are counterproductive where harm is he obvious intention. To be specific, incivility as a breach of mutual respect`s norms creates a negative affect and also stimulates reciprocity against the act that is perceived as being unfair (Moser, 2018). This study will explore the Leader-member Exchange theory for out groups with specific interest on lack of control as a consequence of the Leader-member Exchange theory. We examine organisational commitment (OC) as an affective mediator that is untested. OC is defined the relative strength of the identification of an individual with and involvement in a particular organisation (Jiang, 2019). It is a construct that is multidimensional and that is made up of three dimensions principally; commitment to value, willingness to exert effort on the organisations behalf and intention to maintain an organisations membership.

Commitment to value refers to a strong belief coupled with the acceptance to the values and goals of an organisation. From this, it is clear that OC is representative of a positive and active social exchange relationship in which there is commitment in employees towards the success of an organisation (Chen, 2018). Incivility, can however, precipitate affective reactions which would minimise the willingness to exerting effort on the leaders behalf. Additionally, organisations and supervisors tend to play the role of targets that are independent in the formation of identity and also commitment through the relations they have with their subordinates which are quite unique.

There is an inherent interconnection between the two commitment targets as organisational goals are enacted and promoted by supervisors. In line with this, it is important for supervisors to embody the organisation to their subordinates who would then lay blame on the organisation for the incivility of the supervisors. That goes a long way in reducing the attachment and intentions of maintaining leadership in organisations.

Research questions

Does the Leadership-member exchange bring about lack of control in organisations?

What type of relationship exists between social loafing and incivility?

What is the relationship between incivility and organisational commitment?

Literature review

The review of the broader texts (Arnolds 2010, Woods & Wests 2012) have served to inform the research about the five wider traditions within the study of leaderships studied at four levels—intra-individual, dyadic, group and organisational—originating from the Trait-based theories focussing on specific aspects of an individual’s ability or personality that predicts presence of leadership potential (Terman 1916; Kleisser 1923; Stodgill 1948), to the Behavioural approach-based theories of the Ohio (1940s) and Michigan (1950s) studies resting on the axes of structure and consideration or later person and task (Fiedler 1967), to the Contingency-based approaches focussing on the situational aspects as a precondition to effective leadership (Blanchard 1977) to the more contemporary Dyadic approaches (Weber 1922; Haga 1975) contemporary and Transformational (Bass & Avolio 1994) and Charismatic Leadership (Conger & Kanugo 1998). Of these, we have explored the Dyadic approach to Leadership, first introduced as the Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) exploring the relationship between Leader and Member Exchange as opposed to the traditional Average Leadership Styles (ALS) the latter based on two assumptions that all members of the work group were homogenous and leaders treated all members equally. The VDL approach chose to move away from the traditional focus of leadership behaviour and focus on member and leader relationship within vertical partnerships or dyads largely basing their findings on the perception of the exchange from both employee and member and leadership or supervisor/superior perspectives. The first study carried out in the reorganised Administrative department of an educational institution, which produced 90 percent new vertical dyads with at least one new member. Data was collected in a staggered mode through four phases of interviews—at the ends of the first, third, sixth, and eighth months from 60 members about their situation and 17 superiors who had members within the teams regarding four key aspects of Negotiation latitude, Superior's vertical exchange, Member's vertical exchange, and Outcomes of the exchange. A key finding of the study was the emergence of the IN and OUT groups early in the reorganisation phase which was reflected in the Negotiation Latitude measuring the willingness of the superior to allow further role development and influence of the member and consisting of two extreme behaviours from unwilling (low negotiation) to willing (high negotiation)—which showed signs of an important distinction that performance was not the guiding factor in the leaders’ choice of the in or out groups.

Subsequent studies by Haga (1978) projected that effectiveness of individual performance and that of the organisation depended largely on the flow of information and/or resources from these dyadic relationships; with an individual team member’s position and greater commitment to the organisation being decided by the resources bestowed upon them. Extrapolating the lack of resources for and lack of control in the formation of “out group” members, we delve into research to identify further antecedents for formation of “in groups” and “out groups” to find evidence for lack of control as a possible consequence resulting from LMX, along with absence of equity and organisational justice. Jiang (2019), in a recent study on incivility posited that majority of the studies on the issue dwelled on the investigation of the outcomes of incivility in workplaces instead of its antecedents. The focus of the few studies that have been carried out on incivility has been on dispositional antecedents. This have proven that different individual difference variables like neurotic and disagreeable behaviour, gender and age have a close relationship to incivility in workplaces. Schuh et al., (2018) established that that incivility is predicted by behavioural antecedents like interpersonal and organisational counterproductive behaviour. The focus of contextual antecedents was on the norms of workgroups for civility and those role stressors that minimise experienced incivility. From these studies, it is evident that the reason behind certain dispositional personality characteristics bringing about higher incivility levels.

Contemporary LMX approaches have been observed to increasingly rely on the theory of social exchange and further make assumptions that the relations fall on single continuums that range from low-quality economic exchanges to social exchanges of high qualities. According to Fisher, Strider and Kelso (2016), there is a close association between reduced work performance and economic and transactional LMX relationships. Additionally, it has been argued by researchers of social exchange that affective commitment is affected by high economic exchange and that goes a long way in increasing turnover intentions. That is achieved through the emphasis on contractual and formal relations and that is especially because in contrast to social exchange, economic exchange does not involve putting into consideration the needs of employees together with their preferences. As such, followers in LMX relationships that are transactional are motivated by the satisfaction of their personal interests giving zero regard to the groups good. Additionally, it really is not reasonable to make assumptions that those followers who do not meet performance and also do not put into consideration the groups good bring about frustrations and disappointments upon their supervisors. Consequently, there is a perception among supervisors that such type of employees are not easy to work with and they react with behaviour that is incivil. From these empirical findings, we can conclude that those supervisors whose relations are of a low quality with the employees under them are more inclined to portray incivility. With higher LMX levels, conversely, this would lead us to our first hypothesis:

H1: LMX relationships that are more transactional have a positive association with the incivility of the leader.

Martin et al., (2018) argue that the relationships between employees and their immediate supervisors is shaped by the relationship between the employees and the organisation. From this we come up with the hypothesis that;

H2: There is a negative association between incivility and Organisational commitment.

According to Herman and Dasborough (2016), the negative affect that comes about from the incivility of leaders reduces the attention of employees to the conduct organisational norms and further reduces their focus on the cost of different retaliatory actions. There are studies that have established that there is an association between perceptions of injustice with different negative behaviours like retaliation and also interpersonal deviance behaviours. Additionally, social loafing is a social behaviour that involves reductions in cognitive, perceptual and physical effort that ends up leaving others to pick up the slack. In line with this, employees who are subject to the incivility of their supervisors need to reciprocate negatively through reduced commitment to organisations and also social loafing. There is also an argument advanced by Khorakian and Sharifirad (2019) that the social exchange relationships formed by individuals in workplaces have the potential of mediating the relationship between perceptions of both distributive and interactional justice and social loafing. As such, OC is a probable reflection of the quality of social exchange between employees and their organisation. OC should as such, be regarded as a mediator that is potentially important of the existing relationship between incivility and social loafing (Thompson, Buch and Glasø, 2018). With no doubt, social loafing is one of the many ways through which employees get to react to exchange relationships whose quality is low with their respective organisations. That is because there is the possibility that they do not have the necessary motivation for exerting full efforts that would be of benefit to their organisations. In contrast, those individuals who are in social exchange relations are of a high quality and who have commitment and also care for the organisations fate are very much likely to reciprocate through not engaging in social loafing. This leads us to our third hypothesis:

H3: There is a positive relationship between social loafing and incivility.

Methodology

This study will explore the Leader-member Exchange theory for out groups with specific interest on lack of control as a consequence of the Leader-member Exchange theory. To get the most relevant data for this study, we will make use of questionnaires for collection of data. Questionnaires present researchers with an opportunity for reaching larger number of people and deriving relevant information from them that could help in the making of decisions (McGuirk and O`Neill, 2016). Questionnaires are flexible, convenient and scalable. We will notify the respondents of our study and its goals through email one week prior to the administration of the questionnaires. There will be a cover letter attached that will seek to inform the respondents that the design of the study was solely for data collection, the respondents will also be given an assurance of confidentiality and the research will only use aggregate data. For purposes of increasing the response rates of the questionnaires, we will seek endorsements of the project from top level managers. Dyadic data will be collected at three different time points. At the first instance, all demographic information that is relevant for instance tenure, gender and age and LMX, which in this instance will be the independent variable will be collected from those holding supervisory positions. It will be required of them to complete a single survey on behalf of their subordinates after which they will have to seal the surveys completed in return envelopes that will be attached to the surveys. On every survey, the supervisor will need to provide the name of the subordinate they will be evaluating. Then, after the collection of the surveys from the supervisors, every supervisor will be matched with their subordinate and they will then be assigned a matching control number before Time-2 deliveries for the identification of matching supervisor-subordinate dyads.

It is worth noting that while the subordinates control numbers will be assigned with those names that their supervisors will have provided, the supervisors control numbers will only be assigned not with their names, but with their office numbers. What this implies is that the number 21 will be assigned to a supervisor in office number 21 while the first subordinate on the supervisors list will be assigned the number 21-1.

After 2 weeks from Time 1 (Time 2), performance ratings will be collected from the supervisors. From the subordinates, all other dependent variables which include satisfaction, commitment, impression management, stress and turnover intention will be collected. The control numbers will guide the delivery of subordinate and supervisor surveys. This study will control for factors that could have an influence on either the dependent or independent interest variables. We will identify individual factors as potential correlates of the study variables on the basis of literature review. Different studies point out that the perceptions of men and women of disrespectful behaviour are different and women have a higher likelihood of considering uncivil behaviours to be more offensive. We will also control age as the abilities of coping with incivility have the potential of increasing with the age of employees. Additionally, that time period that a follower works with the same leader, known as the dyad tenure has the capability of influencing the hypothesised relationships. Dyad tenure which is measured in number of months, for instance, has the probability of influencing the incivility of leaders and even the social loafing of employees and their commitment to the organisation.

Measures

Quality of LMX: The LMX 7 will be used for the assessment of the quality of the leader-member relationship. There are seven different items on this instrument which all have responses on a five-point scale. Some of the sample items that we will include are: “how would the working relationship with your manager be described?” and “How well do you feel that your manager understands the problems and needs of your job?”

LMX Differentiation. To capture the degree of LMX differentiation, we will use the variance in the individual LMX scores for every team.

RELATIVE LEADERSHIP-MEMBER EXCHANGE. For assessment of RLMX, we will be following the operationalization that was outlined by Hu and Liden (2013) and also Epitropaki and Martin (2013). The LMX scores will be used to produce the LMX scores and these scores will further be operationalized as individual-LMX within teams minus the LMX team mean. We have already ruled out the use of the polynomial regression analysis and this is informed by Herman, Ashkanasy and Dasborough (2012) original critique of difference scores that extensively addressed those problems that were associated with difference scores between different perceptual variables. It is however, worth noting that this is never an issue whenever researchers go about subtracting the mean from individual LMX scores for single variables, which is done with the intention of calculating the RLMX.

Physiological safety. Assessment of psychological safety will be done using a 3-item scale. This study views psychological safety as the psychological perception of individuals. Sample items will be as follows: “I feel safe taking risks on my teams.” A 5-point Likert scale will be used by the participants for the completion of the measures.

Team cohesion

For measurement of the perception of individuals of team cohesion we will use the 4 items in line with the Perceived Cohesion Scale of Bollen and Hoyle 1990. Examples of sample items we will use are “I am very happy to be part of this team.”

Individual performance. We will make use of the performance appraisal scores of employees to measure the performance of individuals. This will be assigned to supervisors. We will ask the supervisors to rate the performance of their staff members through the use of a scale from 0 for poor performance to 10 for excellent performance. We will inform the respondents the need of them putting into consideration the following criterion for the determination of an overall performance rating: efficiency, technical knowledge, and efficiency.

We will carry out a pilot test with the intention of pretesting the survey contents validity together with the validity of the testing procedures. The pilot study will produce results and feedback which will help us with the identification of areas that will need adjustments, for example on the wording of items deemed as hard to comprehend and even survey formats that lack smoothness (Faux, 2010). This adjustments will be necessary to ensure that the final study will produce responses that will be valid and effective. Paper questionnaires will be distributed to different bankers and food producers during their work time. We strongly believe that this will go a long way in helping us to achieve greater participation and even acceptance. The researcher will distribute to participants surveys and also collect them personally. Procedures that are identical will be adopted in the collection of data from every different participant who will consist of supervisors and also their subordinates. The sample will be drawn from full time employees drawn from banking and food production industries. In terms of demographics, there are several similarities between these employees. For instance, they are drawn from both genders and have varying levels of education. The setting presented by these businesses we chose is for profit setting characterised by profound changes, increased time pressure, and even overload of information.

We will first have to obtain the consent of the participants before the presentation of the questionnaires and we will also assure them that their responses will remain anonymous.

Data analysis

The data we will collect will be analysed statistically using Microsoft excel and also through discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is a qualitative method of data analysis that derives meaning from the use of language and different communications, the contexts of the meanings and the practices such meanings bring about (Silverman, 2016). Discourse analysis is intended at perceiving and categorising different procedures for derivation of meaning. Discourse analysis, as a practice of analysis, includes different applications that are discipline specific. For example, there are variations that stress analysis of language that is coherent and strict. Other variations emphasise on the intertextuality of meanings and the relationship of genres in situations of interactions in addition to also situations and social processes that are broader (Wodak and Meyer, 2015). We will also code and enter data into computers and analyse it statistically using Microsoft excel. The results will be presented through charts and tables and descriptive statistics will be used for summary of raw data. The descriptive statistics will take the form of percentages. Through close exploration of the data, we will seek to develop an ethnographic understanding. Closely exploring different sources of data is the best source of ethnographic understanding. The understanding of ethnographers is generated through representation of emic perspectives that, usually, are described as the insiders view point.

References

Bollen, K.A. and Hoyle, R.H., (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination. Social forces, 69(2), pp.479-504.

CASHMAN, J., DANSEREAU, F., GRAEN, G. and HAGA, W. (1978). Organizational Understructure and Leadership: A Longitudinal Investigation of the Managerial Role-Making Process. 15th ed.

Chen, Z., (2018). A literature review of team-member exchange and prospects. Journal of Service Science and Management, 11(04), p.433.

Dulebohn, J., Wu, D. and Liao, C. (2016). Does liking explain variance above and beyond LMX? A meta-analysis. ELSEVIER Human Resource Management Review.

Epitropaki, O. and Martin, R., (2013). Transformational–transactional leadership and upward influence: The role of relative leader–member exchanges (RLMX) and perceived organizational support (POS). The Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), pp.299-315.

Faux, J., (2010). Pre-testing survey instruments. Global Review of Accounting and Finance, 1(1), pp.100-111.

Fisher, J.M., Strider, S.H. and Kelso, M.G., (2016). Leader-member exchange and its relationship to quality of work and stress among information technology (IT) workers. Human Resource Management Research, 6(2), pp.23-39.

Herman, H.M. and Dasborough, M.T., (2016). Leadership and leader–member exchange (LMX). In Encyclopedia of Human Resource Management. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Herman, H.M., Ashkanasy, N.M. and Dasborough, M.T., (2012). Relative leader–member exchange, negative affectivity and social identification: A moderated-mediation examination. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), pp.354-366.

Hu, J.I.A. and Liden, R.C., (2013). Relative leader–member exchange within team contexts: How and when social comparison impacts individual effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 66(1), pp.127-172.

Jiang, J., (2019). Authoritarian Leadership and Subordinates’ Performance: The Mediating Role of Leader–Member Exchange. Available at SSRN 3453817.

Khorakian, A. and Sharifirad, M.S., (2019). Integrating implicit leadership theories, leader–member exchange, self-efficacy, and attachment theory to predict job performance. Psychological reports, 122(3), pp.1117-1144.

Lucey, P.A., (2017). Leadership Style and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Community-Based Mental Health Facilities.

Martin, R., Thomas, G., Legood, A. and Dello Russo, S., (2018). Leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation and work outcomes: Conceptual clarification and critical review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(2), pp.151-168.

Moser, J.E., 2018. Leadership Member Exchange Theory: A Predictor of Team Member Cohesiveness (Doctoral dissertation, Keiser University).

Schuh, S.C., Zhang, X.A., Morgeson, F.P., Tian, P. and van Dick, R., (2018). Are you really doing good things in your boss's eyes? Interactive effects of employee innovative work behavior and leader–member exchange on supervisory performance ratings. Human Resource Management, 57(1), pp.397-409.

Thompson, G., Buch, R. and Glasø, L., (2018). Low-quality LMX relationships, leader incivility, and follower responses. Journal of General Management, 44(1), pp.17-26.

Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-Level Multi-Domain Perspective. Lincoln: DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.