Next Article in Journal
The Influence of the Backfilling Roadway Driving Sequence on the Rockburst Risk of a Coal Pillar Based on an Energy Density Criterion
Previous Article in Journal
A Decision Framework under a Linguistic Hesitant Fuzzy Set for Solving Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Problems
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 10
Issue 8
10.3390/su10082610
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Organization Sustainability through Human Resource Capital: The Impacts of Supervisor Incivility and Self-Efficacy

by
Uju Violet Alola
*,
Turgay Avci
and
Ali Ozturen
Faculty of Tourism, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, North Cyprus, PO Box 99628, via Mersin 10, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2018, 10(8), 2610; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082610
Submission received: 5 April 2018 / Revised: 19 May 2018 / Accepted: 31 May 2018 / Published: 25 July 2018
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The hotel business is globally acknowledged to significantly contribute to the tourism industry. Over time, supervisor’s incivility continues to be a serious issue where cases of the uncivil act are known to be costly to the organization and creating negative effects on employees’ health and organizational continuity. Human capital has also been highlighted as one of the key variables to organizational sustainability. Using convenience sampling method, this study adopted a total of 329 respondents’ perception to test the study variables. The effect of supervisor’s incivility was assessed against employee’s self-efficacy, turnover intention, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. The study employed data gathered from four and five stars hotels in Nigeria using Analysis of a moment structures (IBM AMOS) software to analyze the hypothesized relationships. Empirical evidence shows that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between supervisor incivility, turnover intention, and job satisfaction. The results show that evidence of supervisor’s incivility negatively affects hotel employee.

1. Introduction

The increasing rate of workplace incivility in the 21st Century has constituted a ridiculous negative effect on both employees and organizational sustainability. The pool of studies from the host of scholarly researchers, academician, and policy institutions has constantly paid attention to incivility in the hotel industry and its effect on employee well-being [1,2]. The frequent occurrence of incivility results in a toxic work environment that is detrimental to the employee mental health [3]. People’s management and practices have been positively linked to organizational outcome and performance. Sustaining human capital increases productivity. Therefore, the close proximity of frontline employee to customer heightens the significant need to reduce incivility in order to promote organizational sustainability. Workplace incivility has been accepted as a global challenge; hence, a serene working environment is of importance for both organization and employee [4,5]. Eccles, Ioannou, and Serafeim [6] and Lee and Ha-Brookshire [7] defined organizational sustainability as the dynamic process that is necessary for achieving effective performance in short-term and not necessarily undermining long-term achievement. Workplace incivility (customers, supervisors, and co-worker) is a “low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect” [8] (p. 457). Incivility if not checked according to Reio and Ghosh [9], will have a devastating effect on the employee level of job satisfaction, which further leads to turnover intention, employee physical health [10], and a reduction in organizational commitment [11]. Although supervisor’s incivility is said to be heavily felt by the employee because, according to Abubakar and Arasli, [12], employee longevity is at the mercy of the supervisor. The destructive nature of incivility has led several researchers to encourage human resource managers to find a lasting means to reduce disrespectful behavior and maintain conducive working environment to sustain the organization [11,13]. Although very limited research has been conducted on how human capital affects organizational sustainability [7,14], this study is based on the existing literature to add a significant contribution to the pull of the existing knowledge in diverse ways.
One of the aims of the present study is to empirically confirm the proposition that human capital is a key antecedent of organizational sustainability. Further, the detrimental effect of tolerance to incivility is ravaging the hotel sector of the Nigerian hospitality industry, yet there are no empirical studies to proffer solution to the menace of incivility in the industry. Accordingly, the second purpose of the current study is to underscore the impact of incivility on the industry and empirical offer preventing and a corrective mechanism for dealing with incivility.
Finally, we test a conceptual model that investigates the mechanism through which self-efficacy mediates the relationship between supervisor incivility and employee behavioural outcomes of emotional exhaustion, turn over intention, and job satisfaction.
The remaining part of the present study is arranged such that, Section 2 discusses the research model and hypotheses, research methodology is the content of Section 3. The analyses of the data are contained in Section 4, while the results of the estimates, discussion, and implications are discussed in Section 5. The last section highlights the limitation of the study and a concluding remark.

Structure of Nigerian Hotel Industry

The population of Nigeria is approximately 173 million people [15], and it is one of the less developed countries in West Africa. The hotel industry in Nigeria to an extent is the fastest growing sector [16], with over 7000 hotels with more than 245,000 rooms in all. The industry has added tremendously to the socio-economic growth and development [17], and also in the structural growth and human capital of the country [18], according to statistics published by the National Bureau of Statistics [19]. The tourism industry in Nigeria has contributed to the GDP by N1.56 billion, that is equivalent to 1.7 percent and will rise to 5.8% in ten years to come.
Despite all of these contributions to the economy, the hospitality industry is still facing several challenges. One of the major challenges [20] is human capital. In other words, getting access to a large pool of qualified staff that will manage the industry is a mirage, long working hours, job insecurity, and low wages. Olusegun and Olusola [21] pointed out that dearth of human capital is a major challenge for investors. Furthermore, the lack of contemporary human resource practices in the industry still remains a major challenge in Nigeria [22]. Therefore, the current study will focus on the effect of supervisor’s incivility on employees in the hotel industry and its effect on organizational sustainability. Despite a lot of academic contribution on incivility in different industries, ranging from engineering firm [23], customer service [24], and retail sales employees [25], evidence from frontline employees in Nigeria are very minimal. Furthermore, investigating the effect of supervisor incivility in Nigerian context and validating the findings requires more empirical findings. Also, the current study will contribute to existing literature in testing incivility in Nigeria since several studies have indicated that incivility is a global problem. However, cultural context might likely have an effect on an employee in relation to behavior. Therefore, the current study will also aid in the understanding of incivility and its effect on the cultural background.

2. The Theoretical Underpinning of the Study

The study adopts Affective Event Theory (AET) [26] and the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory [27] to develop the hypotheses in relation to the study variables. According to Weiss and Cropanzano [26], AET explains the effect of emotional depilation at work and the effect on employee and organizational outcome. This theory points out that self-regulation is the ability to react to a situation either positively or negatively. Furthermore, Carlson, Kacmar, Zivnuska, and Ferguson [28] explained the effect of organizational activities on employee mood and the role of effective formation of work attitude on the employee, stating that the accumulation of enriched event will enhance employee job performance. Effect of emotion on employee behavior is realized either directly through actions or indirectly through attitude [29]. In instances where there is any trace of uncivil act by the supervisor, the employee will term the act as a threat. This action will likely result to negative emotional display that will result in deviant behavior, and this is consistent with COR theory.
The second theory applicable to the study is the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory. The COR theory postulates that employees are inclined to acquire, maintain, and preserve certain resources that are needed to pull through with job task. The COR theory explains the process of employees coping ability and the responses to work stress. The theory acknowledged four types of resources: the object (e.g., Tangible benefit that individual invests), social support (e.g., which adds to the employees’ better condition), employee personal characteristics (e.g., Skills), and energy resources (e.g., Money and knowledge) [27]. According to the COR theory, individuals become stressed when they are not capable of gaining resources that are invested in the workplace, risk of losing resources, or loss of resources occurs. Also, because of the long working hours of hotel employees, they are susceptible to strain that results to depression [30], emotional dissonance [31,32], and emotional exhaustion [32] more than any industry due to the nature of their work. Therefore, customer-contact hotel employees are likely to become stressed and risk losing their accumulated resources while trying to create a welcoming environment, control their emotions, and appear pleasant in the process of service delivery.
Applying the theory of AET and the COR theory to supervisor’s incivility suggests that self-efficacy, which is a positive employee resource, will mediate the study variables. This is essential in human capital sustainability. Our model is hung on the effect of supervisors’ incivility on the organizational outcome [33]. The rationale behind these theories is evident in employee working in an un-conducive environment. With a positive self-efficacy, the employee is likely to exhibit positive or negative behaviour. The combination of both theories, COR and AET, suggest employees’ reaction to being either positive or negative considering that the resources invested cannot be gained back. In line with AET, emotion and moods affect employee performance; therefore, frontline employees are more likely to be stressed in an industry with an abusive supervisor, losing accumulated resources. The employee may decide to quit (turnover intentions) or to remain at work by controlling their emotions and appear to be pleasant. We further explain the variable relationship in the literature review and hypothesis development.

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1.1. Supervisor Incivility and Self-Efficacy

We draw from Affective Events Theory (AET) [26] and Conservation of Resource theory (COR) [27] for the present study. These theories provide significant and useful framework for the study. Workplace negative events (supervisor’s incivility) erupt in an organization, which triggers negative emotions and results in organizational deviant behavior [34,35]. Negative emotions interrupt work process, and as such, feelings of exhaustion and intention to leave the organization may occur [36]. Although these negative effects that emanate from an organization (COR theory) could be managed or cope through psychological strength to sustain the employee in the organization. In the same effect, Fida, Laschinger, and Leiter [37] pointed out that a self-efficacious employee has the capability to manage work-related issues and cope with job stressors; perceived ability in managing the relationship with another employee (Co-workers, Supervisors). Specifically, self-efficacy is a task and situation-specific construct. For instance, employee’s psychological factors and employee capabilities [38] are essential in both employee and organizational sustainability. We proposed that supervisor’s incivility would have a negative effect on self-efficacy; therefore, we developed the hypothesis thus:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Supervisors incivility has a negative relationship with self-efficacy.

2.1.2. Supervisor Incivility, Emotional Exhaustion, Turnover Intention, and Job Satisfaction

Emotional exhaustion is a “state caused by psychological and emotional demands made on people” [39] (p. 44). Pull of notable literature have linked negative organizational outcomes to emotional exhaustion, thereby linking emotional exhaustion to resource lost and decreases in organizational citizenship and commitment, turnover intention, job performance, and quality of life [40,41,42,43]. Supervisor’s incivility is more harmful than any other form of incivility, and this is as a result of the power differential that is experienced in the dyadic relationship between supervisors and the employees [44,45]. Some empirical evidence on incivility has largely focused on employee-employee interaction as the consequences of such an interaction on work outcome. Organisational work outcome includes turnover intention [10], satisfaction [46], and absenteeism [1]. Applying the COR theory [27] points out that employees acquire, maintain, and preserve their resources, but lose these resources, or are unable to gain them back when there is a strain in the workplace. Understanding the effect of incivility is vital because it operates as both causes and outcomes. Following the trend of research on incivility, scholars have found out that incivility causes more harm than good [47,48]. According to the work of recent researchers Taylor & Kluemper [49] and Sakurai & Je [2], the call to increase the search and ending supervisor’s incivility in the workplace is on the increase. Job satisfaction is a positive assessment of employee from working environment. It is arguable that self efficacious employee is more satisfied with the job outcome. A sequential phase is observed from job satisfaction to employee motivation and increased both quality and quantity of work [50]. Hence, we hypothesize, as follows:
Hypothesis 2a (H2a).
Supervisors incivility has a positive relationship with emotional exhaustion.
Hypothesis 2b (H2b).
Supervisors incivility has a positive relationship with turnover intention.
Hypothesis 2c (H2c).
Supervisors incivility has a negative relationship with job satisfaction.

2.1.3. Self-Efficacy, Emotional Exhaustion, Turnover and Job Satisfaction

COR theory opined that an efficacious employee completes task effectively and efficiently within a given time frame [51,52]. From this perspective, Bandura [53] maintains that employee with high efficacy achieves a given task despite challenges. The enhancement of efficacy is linked with favorable work-related outcomes [51]. Employees with a high level of efficacy are likely to mobilize, motivate, and exhibit energy, accept challenges, and exert additional efforts to achieve goals. Several pieces of research have linked self-efficacy with organizational positive outcomes. For instance, Van, Dochy, and Segers [54] related the effect of self-efficacy with work engagement, Brown, Hoye, and Nicholson [55] linked efficacy with job satisfaction, while Feltz, Short, and Sullivan [56] linked efficacy with performance. Efficacy unraveled its influence over developmental processes, thus making it a relatively more well-established part of the psychological capital that is necessary for organizational sustainability and employee confidence [51]. It has been globally accepted by several researchers that happy workers are more productive [57]. Organizations strive for employee job satisfaction as one of the attributes of a happy worker. Although employee job satisfaction cannot be associated with a single factor. This includes both internal (supervisors support, pay, flexible working time) and external factors (environmental factors, social factors, economic factors). On the other hand, employee stress comes from diverse source, for example, long working hour [58] and contact with other employees [59], which drains employee psychological strength and trigger organizational negative deviant behavior [60] and turnover intention. Incivility targets in most cases leave the employee [61], emotionally distancing themselves from the organization by reducing their active contribution to resources in order to get rid of the frustration. Karatepe and Uludag [62] opened that emotional exhaustion evokes turnover intention and lowers efficiency [63] and quality of life [42]. On this premise, we develop the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3a (H3a).
Self-efficacy has a negative relationship with emotional exhaustion.
Hypothesis 3b (H3b).
Self-efficacy has a negative relationship with turnover intention.
Hypothesis 3c (H3c).
Self-efficacy has a positive relationship with job satisfaction.

2.1.4. Self-Efficacy as a Mediating Variable

Drawing from the conservation of resources theory (COR), we monitored employee reaction in regards to favourable and unfavourable occurrence in the hotel industry. This rule is applicable to regulating one’s behaviour towards an unfair treatment. Self-efficacy is a positive psychological capital that can be developed. The self-efficacious employee withstands the emotional absorption in an industry that results from supervisor incivility. Hospitality industry employees are at the core of the depression in service delivery [30]. Although, Shao & Skarlicki [64] carried out a research on the application and effect of stress; on how employee customer services behave during service delivery and found a positive link between stress and employee behaviour. Nevertheless, stress emanates from diverse sources, long working hours [58] and organizational negative outcome [59,60]. This theory prostituted that employees with self-efficacy will protect their resources since the theory is based on resources depletion [65]. Self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between supervisor’s incivility and emotional exhaustion, turnover intention, and job satisfaction. Therefore, applying the COR theory to our model, we propose thus;
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between supervisor’s incivility and emotional exhaustion.
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between supervisors incivility and turnover intention.
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
Self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between supervisors incivility and job satisfaction.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Data Collection

The data was collected from four and five-star hotels in Abuja, the capital city, and Lagos, the commercial city in Nigeria. Using a face-to-face meetings with the respondents, and a convenience sampling technique, the data were collected. Choosing these cities for data collection is as a result of the fact that most internal and external tourists are found within this region. Customer contact employees were used for the study. The data were collected between April-September 2017 using a self-administered questionnaire. A total of 500 questionnaires were administered to the participants. Before the study, a sealed letter was sent to the hotel management seeking permission and assuring them of the confidentiality of the research. The questionnaires were sealed after collection in order to reduce the potential threat of common method bias [66]. There was no need for back translation because the questions were written and administered in English. Prior to the collection of the data, a pilot study was conducted with 30 participants at random in order to verify the quality of the questionnaire, by checking the clarity and the understandability of the scale items stipulated out for the study and to obtain and establish face validity [67]. A total of 329 responses were retrieved and used for the analysis representing a response rate of 65.8%. The data collected were analyzed through the process of confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling (SEM).

3.2. Measurement Scales

Quantitative research methods enable researchers to test the set of propositions using predetermined theories. For the current study, building on AET and COR theory, the researchers proposed 10 hypotheses that require survey administration to gather the opinion of study’s respondents as shown in Figure 1. This approach has been validated in human resource focused studies and workplace behavior studies [33].
Supervisor incivility: Supervisors incivility was measured with five items from the study of Cho, Bonn, Han, and Lee [68]. The scale measured the relative frequency of supervisor’s incivility on the employee. For example, “supervisor remarks were demanding about me”.
Self-efficacy: Self-efficacy was measured with five items from the study of Paek, Schuckert, Kim, and Lee [69]. For example, “I feel confident in presenting my work in the meetings with the managers”.
Emotional exhaustion: Emotional exhaustion was measured with five items from the study of Moore [70]. For example, “this work drains me emotionally”.
Turnover intention: the Turnover intention was measured with three items from the study of Karatepe [71]. For example, “I often think about quitting”.
Job satisfaction: Job satisfaction was adopted from the work of Lee and Hwang [72]. For example, “I feel satisfied with this job”.
All of the items were rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”).

4. Results

Demography of the Respondents

The demographic profile of the respondents was presented in Table 1 below, out of the 329 employees 223 (67.8%) male and female 106 (32.2%), with the ages ranging from 18–50 and above. More than half of the respondents were either married or single 157 or 154, respectively, the divorced 15 (4.6%) and the widow/widower 3 (0.9%). Very few of the respondents have either primary or secondary certificate 4 (1.2%) and 40 (12.2%). The total number of participants that were graduates and masters holders were 285 (86.6%). Concerning the organizational tenor, the respondents that have worked less than a year were 45 (13.7%), from 1 to 3 years 93 (28.3%), more than three years but less than six years were 119 (36.2%). The rest of the respondents have worked for seven years and above 72 (21.9%).

4.1.1. Reliability Scale

The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in Table 2 shows that the convergent validity of the measure has a strong proof; all of the loadings exceeded 0.5 and were significant. The AVE according to Fornell & Larcker [73] should have a cut-off point of 0.5. The composite reliability constructs ranges of between 0.799 and 0.881, the exceeded the cutoff point of 0.70. [73], and therefore, the constructs shows discriminate validity. This indicates an acceptance that the overall properties were acceptable. The structural model reported acceptable model fit to be DF = 179; CMIN/df = 2.67; CFI = 0.94; IFI = 0.93; GFI = 0.88 PNFI = 0.76; RMSEA = 0.072; SRMR = 0.057. For the Table 3 above, the result shows that supervisor incivility is negatively correlated to self-efficacy and job satisfaction (r = −0.20 **, p < 0.01), (r = −0.21 **, p < 0.01), respectively as shown in Figure 2. While a positive significant correction exists between supervisor incivility, emotional exhaustion, and turnover intention (r = 0.31 *, p < 0.01) and (r = 0.24 *, p < 0.01) respectively. Self-efficacy is negatively correlated with emotional exhaustion and turnover intention but positively corrected with job satisfaction (r = −0.12 *, p < 0.01) (r = −0.19 *, p < 0.01) and (r = 0.22 *, p < 0.01), respectively. According to Baron and Kenny’s [74], the first three conditions were met.

4.1.2. Hypothesis Testing

In testing the hypothesis from Table 3 and Table 4, Hypothesis 1 posited a negative effect of supervisor’s incivility on self-efficacy. The analysis shows that the result was significant (b = −0.203, p < 0.01); therefore, we accept H1. Hypothesis (H2a) assessed the positive effect of supervisor incivility on emotional exhaustion. The analysis shows a significant result, therefore Hypothesis (H2a) was accepted, which posited that supervisor incivility has a positive relationship with emotional exhaustion (b = 0.310, p < 0.01). Hypothesis 2b assessed the positive effect of supervisor’s incivility on turnover intention. The analysis shows a statistically significant result, therefore H2b was accepted (b = 0.244, p < 0.01). In testing for Hypothesis 2c, the result shows that the relationship was statistically significant, therefore H2c was accepted (b = −0.208, p < 0.01). In testing for Hypothesis 3a, a negative relationship exists between self-efficacy and emotional exhaustion and the analysis shows that H3a was accepted with a statistically significant result (b = −0.115, p < 0.01). Hypothesis (H3b) which assessed the link between self-efficacy and turnover intention was found to be negatively significant and it was accepted (b = −0.187, p < 0.01). Hypothesis 3c investigated a positive relationship between self-efficacy and job satisfaction. The result of the analysis shows a statistically significant relationship (b = 0.221, p < 0.01). Therefore, H3c was accepted.
The result above in Table 5, represent the mediating effect of self-efficacy. For the mediation between supervisors incivility, emotional exhaustion and self-efficacy, as shown in (Table 5), a significant reduction was evident, in addition to the mediating variable (β = 0.30) and a significant increment in R2. The Sobel test result show that self-efficacy has no mediation on the study variable (emotional exhaustion) (z = −0.9989). We reject Hypothesis 4.
On the other hand, as shown in Table 5 above, self-efficacy was influential in the association between supervisor incivility and the study variable (turnover intention). There was a positive significant reduction in the model (From β = 0.24 ** to β = 0.21 **), showing a significant increment in R2. Sobel test results were stated as (z = −2.2097). However, self-efficacy was shown to be statistically significant between supervisor incivility and turnover intention. Therefore, the finding supports the initial argument that self-efficacy will be a mediating variable between supervisor incivility and turnover intention. We then accept Hypothesis (H5).
Finally, self-efficacy mediates the relationship between supervisor incivility and job satisfaction. When self- efficacy was introduced in the model, there was a negative reduction in the model (From β = −0.21 ** to β = −0.17 **) and the R2 increment was also significant. The Sobel test also was used to confirm the result (z = −2.3055). Therefore, Hypothesis 6 was supported. Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between supervisor incivility and job satisfaction.

5. Discussion and Implications

The present research attempted to explore and understand the consequences of supervisor incivility by examining emotional exhaustion, job satisfaction, turn over intention, and the mediating roles of self-efficacy. By combining both AET and the COR theory in our conceptual framework, we found supervisor incivility to be positively related to emotional exhaustion and turn over intentions, while it is negatively related to self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Our findings are consistent with COR theory, that employee experience emotional exhaustion when they are unable to regain the resources invested and this further leads to turnover intention. Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between supervisor incivility and turn over intention and job satisfaction. Thus, our finding validates the existing results from scholarly studies on incivility [75,76]. Surprisingly, self-efficacy does not mediate the relationship between incivilities and emotional exhaustion. This finding may be interpreted in the light of study context. (1) The high unemployment rate and the lack of alternative job offers in Nigeria could be the underpinning reason behind emotional exhaustion. (2) Irregular working environment and long working hours that are associated with front-line-employees in the hotel industry as in the case of Nigeria hotel industry.
Given the long working hours of customer-contact employee and the rate of frequent turnover intention, and the negative effect on organisation sustainability, this paper investigated the link that exists between supervisor incivility, emotional exhaustion and turnover intention in line with the work of Lim, Cortina and Magley, [10], and Mathisen, Einarsen, and Mykletun [77]. The constant economic expansion has given rise to the value and impact of human capital to organizational performance and sustainability [78]. A high level of human capital has a positive effect on organizational sustainability, especially in the hotel industry. It is expected that service industry requires motivated employee for organizational sustainability since human capital is the core key to the industrial growth. Hence, notable researchers have called for more attention to human capital as an essential factor for sustainability [79]. However, a question still remains on how to encourage employees to contribute towards organizational growth. In line with the question, human resource management should involve the employee in decision making, which increases employee competencies and commitment Scully-Russ [78]. Also, the study of Scully-Russ [78] is of the opinion that committed employee is a useful asset to organizational innovativeness, which transcends to sustainability. In line with that, Brown and Duguid [80] found out in their study that organization with highly motivated human capital will establish a satisfying relationship with external partners. Ties to external partners, grant firm valuable resources needed for sustainability. Human capital, in line with our study is the key success to any organization sustainability, according to social and human capital theories [43,81]. This is likened to the link between human activities and environmental sustainability [82]. Therefore, this study pointed out that negative effect of supervisor’s incivility would decrease organizational sustainability through frequent employee turnover intention. Also, our findings show that there is a positive relationship that exists between job satisfaction and the study variables, which is in line with the findings of previous studies [25,83]. Job satisfaction is one of the significant contributors to organizational commitment, which is a positive contributor to organization sustainability [84]. The present study suggests possible ways to reduce employee frequent turnover intention, which is in line with the study of Alola and Alola [43] on human resource sustainability. Therefore, supervisors and managers should reduce to the barest minimum cases of employee turnover intention; employee self-efficacy is a strong antecedent, contributing to the significant findings of the study, and fully mediates the relationship between supervisor incivility and job satisfaction and turnover intention, employee self-efficacy should be developed. Additionally, a self-efficacious employee is not affected [85] by an uncivil act in the working environment.
Moreover, the study highlighted the significance of the demographic variables (as listed in Table 1) on the study model. From the variables, more than half of the respondents are master degree holders. This could be attributed to the high rate of unemployment in Nigeria making masters degree holders willing to accept the offer of subsided employment. Another justification for self-efficacy in playing a no mediating role in emotional exhaustion can be seen from the demographic variables. A large number of the employees have worked for more than three years and above. The result shows that the hypotheses were all accepted, excluding one of the mediating Hypothesis (H4). From the findings, almost all of the employee has witnessed supervisor incivility in one form or the other. Out of the total employees of 329 that was used for the study, 172 respondents admitted to the question “The supervisor action was condescending to me”. In addition 153 of the respondents admitted that “supervisor ignored or excluded me from professional discussions”. Apparently, all of the employees have witnessed workplace incivility.
The practical implication for the present study is the importance of employee training by the human resource management. Training will develop employee resistance to any form of uncivil behaviour in the industry, which increases organizational productivity and sustainability. The study of Alola and Alola [43] opined that employee training is vital and aids in reducing turnover intention making employees stand the ever-stiff competition in the industry. Most researchers have pointed out the significance of employee training and the effect on both the employee and the organization [86,87]. The cost of training is lesser than the adverse effect of turnover intention. Therefore, human resource managers can adopt a form of training through seminars, symposiums, videos, or displaying a billboard in strategic areas that are visible to all employees [88]. This will constantly remain the supervisors on workplace etiquette.

Further Research

Since this study employs a cross-sectional design, another research could advance the work by making use of longitudinal design method. In addition, a study could be conducted by exploring the relationship between personality and supervisor incivility and cultural differences [87,88]. This study can be extended with job embeddedness and workplace incivility [89] in order to test the effect of human resource capital on organization sustainability.
Furthermore, an expansion of this work could be similarly carried out in another service-related industry, like restaurant, health sector, and airline industry.
In addition since the study made use of front-line employees, another study could advance by including other employees from different departments of the organization.

6. Conclusions

The result shows that human capital plays a major role in organizational sustainability and the protective role of self-efficacy on supervisor’s incivility, turnover intention, and employee job satisfaction. The result obtained in the study is encouraging because to sustain any organization, the human capital which is the most vital aspect of organizational sustainability should not be neglected. Additionally, self-efficacy which is a malleable interpersonal resource that can be developed should be supported by a proactive human resource manager.

Author Contributions

All the authors have contributed equally to the paper. U.V.A. and A.O. developed the model, designed the research and the questionnaire. U.V.A. distributed the questionnaires and wrote the manuscript. T.A. helped to revise the manuscript and provided several useful information for the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sliter, M.; Sliter, K.; Jex, S. The employee as a punching bag: The effect of multiple sources of incivility on employee withdrawal behaviour and sales performance. J. Organ. Behav. 2012, 33, 121–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sakurai, K.; Jex, S.M. Coworker incivility and incivility targets’ work effort and counterproductive work behaviours: The moderating role of supervisor social support. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2012, 17, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ghosh, R.; Dierkes, S.; Falletta, S. Incivility spiral in mentoring relationships: Reconceptualizing negative mentoring as deviant workplace behaviour. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 2011, 13, 22–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lim, V.K.; Teo, T.S. Mind your E-manners: Impact of cyber incivility on employees’ work attitude and behaviour. Inf. Manag. 2009, 46, 419–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Reio, T.G., Jr.; Sanders-Reio, J. Thinking about workplace engagement: Does supervisor and coworker incivility really matter? Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 2011, 13, 462–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Eccles, R.G.; Ioannou, I.; Serafeim, G. The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Manag. Sci. 2014, 60, 2835–2857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lee, S.H.; Ha-Brookshire, J. Ethical climate and job attitude in fashion retail employees’ turnover intention, and perceived organizational sustainability performance: A cross-sectional study. Sustainability 2017, 9, 465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Andersson, L.M.; Pearson, C.M. Tit for tat? The spiralling effect of incivility in the workplace. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1999, 24, 452–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Reio, T.G.; Ghosh, R. Antecedents and outcomes of workplace incivility: Implications for human resource development research and practice. Hum. Resour. Dev. Quart. 2009, 20, 237–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lim, S.; Cortina, L.M.; Magley, V.J. Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 93, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Porath, C.L.; Pearson, C.M. The cost of bad behaviour. Organ. Dyn. 2010, 39, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Abubakar, A.M.; Arasli, H. Dear top management, please don’t make me a cynic: Intention to sabotage. J. Manag. Dev. 2016, 35, 1266–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Walsh, B.M.; Magley, V.J. Workplace civility training: Understanding drivers of motivation to learn. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gond, J.P.; El-Akremi, A.; Igalens, J.; Swaen, V. Corporate Social Responsibility Influence on Employees; International Center for Corporate Social Responsibility: Nottingham, UK, 2010; Volume 54. [Google Scholar]
  15. World Bank. Open data. 2015. Available online: www.worldbank.org (accessed on 15 October 2015).
  16. Agusto and Co. Hotel industry report. 2015. Available online: www.agustoresearch.com/2015- Hotels-Industry-Report (accessed on 4 November 2015).
  17. Samson, A.J.; Gungul, T. Effects of Human Resource Training and Development on Productivity in Nigerian Hospitality Industry. Int. J. Public Adm. Manag. Res. 2014, 2, 80–87. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ajake, A.O. Influence of Marketing Strategies on Tourists’ Choice of Destination Area in Cross River State, Nigeria. Am. J. Tour. Manag. 2015, 4, 61–76. [Google Scholar]
  19. National Bureau of Statistics. Nigerian Gross Domestic Product Report 2016. Available online: http://nigerianstat.gov.ng/download/398.
  20. Esu, B.B. Transforming the Nigerian tourism industry entrepreneurial development. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2015, 9, 569–580. [Google Scholar]
  21. Olusegun Adedipe, C.; Olusola Adeleke, B. Human capital development in the Nigerian hospitality industry: The imperative for a stakeholder-driven initiative. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2016, 8, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Karatepe, O.M.; Olugbade, O.A. The mediating role of work engagement in the relationship between high-performance work practices and job outcomes of employees in Nigeria. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 28, 2350–2371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Adams, G.A.; Webster, J.R. Emotional regulation as a mediator between interpersonal mistreatment and distress. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2013, 22, 697–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Diefendorff, J.M.; Croyle, M.H. Antecedents of emotional display rule commitment. Hum. Perform. 2008, 21, 310–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wilson, N.L.; Holmvall, C.M. The development and validation of the Incivility from Customers Scale. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2013, 18, 310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Weiss, H.M.; Cropanzano, R. Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. In Research in Organizational Behaviour: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1996; Volume 18. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hobfoll, S.E. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol. 1989, 44, 513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Carlson, D.S.; Kacmar, K.M.; Zivnuska, S.; Ferguson, M. Do the benefits of family-to-work transitions come at too great a cost? J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2015, 20, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Reich, T.C.; Hershcovis, M.S. Observing workplace incivility. J. Appl. Psychol. 2015, 100, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Pizam, A. Depression among foodservice employees. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2008, 27, 135–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Phillips, B.; Tsu Wee Tan, T.; Julian, C. The theoretical underpinnings of emotional dissonance: A framework and analysis of propositions. J. Serv. Mark. 2006, 20, 471–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Karatepe, O.M.; Aleshinloye, K.D. Emotional dissonance and emotional exhaustion among hotel employees in Nigeria. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2009, 28, 349–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hershcovis, M.S.; Barling, J. Comparing victim attributions and outcomes for workplace aggression and sexual harassment. J. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 95, 874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Pearson, C.M.; Andersson, L.M.; Wegner, J.W. When workers flout convention: A study of workplace incivility. Hum. Relat. 2001, 54, 1387–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rhee, S.Y.; Hur, W.M.; Kim, M. The relationship of coworker incivility to job performance and the moderating role of self-efficacy and compassion at work: The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Approach. J. Bus. Psychol. 2017, 32, 711–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Schat, A.C.; Kelloway, E.K. Effects of perceived control on the outcomes of workplace aggression and violence. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2000, 5, 386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Fida, R.; Laschinger, H.K.S.; Leiter, M.P. The protective role of self-efficacy against workplace incivility and burnout in nursing: A time-lagged study. Health Care Manag. Rev. 2018, 43, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Sung, S.Y.; Choi, J.N. Do organizations spend wisely on employees? Effects of training and development investments on learning and innovation in organizations. J. Organ. Behav. 2014, 35, 393–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Bacharach, S.B.; Bamberger, P.; Conley, S. Work-home conflict among nurses and engineers: Mediating the impact of role stress on burnout and satisfaction at work. J. Organ. Behav. 1991, 12, 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shirom, A. Feeling vigorous at work? The construct of vigour and the study of positive affect in organizations. In Emotional and Physiological Processes and Positive Intervention Strategies; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bradford, UK, 2003; pp. 135–164. [Google Scholar]
  41. Cropanzano, R.; Rupp, D.E.; Byrne, Z.S. The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviours. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Korunka, C.; Hoonakker, P.; Carayon, P. Quality of working life and turnover intention in information technology work. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 2008, 18, 409–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Alola, U.V.; Alola, A.A. Can Resilience Help? Coping with Job Stressor. Acad. J. Econ. Stud. 2018, 4, 141–152. [Google Scholar]
  44. Michel, J.S.; Newness, K.; Duniewicz, K. How abusive supervision affects workplace deviance: A moderated-mediation examination of aggressiveness and work-related negative effect. J. Bus. Psychol. 2016, 31, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Viotti, S.; Essenmacher, L.; Hamblin, L.E.; Arnetz, J.E. Testing the reciprocal associations among co-worker incivility, organization inefficiency, and work-related exhaustion: A one-year, cross-lagged study. Work Stress 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Lim, S.; Cortina, L.M. Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Schilpzand, P.; De Pater, I.E.; Erez, A. Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. J. Organ. Behav. 2016, 37, S57–S88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Itzkovich, Y.; Heilbrunn, S. The role of co-workers’ solidarity as an antecedent of incivility and deviant behaviour in organizations. Dev. Behav. 2016, 37, 861–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Taylor, S.G.; Kluemper, D.H. Linking perceptions of role stress and incivility to workplace aggression: The moderating role of personality. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2012, 17, 316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Shin, I.; Hur, W.M.; Kang, S. Employees’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility and job performance: A sequential mediation model. Sustainability 2016, 8, 493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Luthans, F.; Youssef-Morgan, C.M. Psychological capital: An evidence-based positive approach. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017, 4, 339–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Breevaart, K.; Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; Sleebos, D.M.; Maduro, V. Uncovering the underlying relationship between transformational leaders and followers’ task performance. J. Pers. Psychol. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bandura, A. Going global with a social cognitive theory: From prospect to paydirt. In Applied Psychology; Psychology Press: Abingdon, UK, 2012; pp. 65–92. [Google Scholar]
  54. Van Dinther, M.; Dochy, F.; Segers, M. Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy in higher education. Educ. Res. Rev. 2011, 6, 95–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Brown, K.M.; Hoye, R.; Nicholson, M. Self-esteem, self-efficacy, and social connectedness as mediators of the relationship between volunteering and well-being. J. Soc. Serv. Res. 2012, 38, 468–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Feltz, D.L.; Short, S.E.; Sullivan, P.J. Self-Efficacy in Sport: Research and Strategies for Working with Athletes, Team, and Coaches; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  57. Robbins, S.P.; Judge, T.; Tran, V. Comportements Organisationnels; Pearson: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kensbock, S.; Bailey, J.; Jennings, G.; Patiar, A. Sexual Harassment of Women Working as Room Attendants within 5-Star Hotels. Gend. Work Organ. 2015, 22, 36–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ineson, E.M.; Benke, E.; László, J. Employee loyalty in Hungarian hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 32, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lee, J.J.; Ok, C.M. Understanding hotel employees’ service sabotage: Emotional labour perspective based on conservation of resources theory. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 36, 176–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Karim, J.; Bibi, Z.; Rehman, S.U.; Khan, M.S. Emotional intelligence and perceived work-related outcomes: The Mediating role of workplace incivility victimization. Pak. J. Psychol. Res. 2015, 30, 21. [Google Scholar]
  62. Karatepe, O.M.; Uludag, O. Role stress, burnout and their effects on frontline hotel employees’ job performance: Evidence from Northern Cyprus. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2008, 10, 111–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Podsakoff, N.P.; LePine, J.A.; LePine, M.A. Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behaviour: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Shao, R.; Skarlicki, D.P. Service employees’ reactions to mistreatment by customers: A comparison between North America and East Asia. Pers. Psychol. 2014, 67, 23–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hodges, A.J.; Park, B. Oppositional identities: Dissimilarities in how women and men experience parent versus professional roles. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2013, 105, 193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Trochim, W.M. Non probability sampling. Res. Methods Knowl. Base 2006, 1, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  68. Cho, M.; Bonn, M.A.; Han, S.J.; Lee, K.H. Workplace incivility and its effect on restaurant frontline service employee emotions and service performance. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 28, 2888–2912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Paek, S.; Schuckert, M.; Kim, T.T.; Lee, G. Why is hospitality employees’ psychological capital important? The effects of psychological capital on work engagement and employee morale. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 50, 9–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Moore, J.E. Why is this happening? A causal attribution approach to work exhaustion consequences. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2000, 25, 335–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Karatepe, O.M. High-performance work practices, work social support and their effects on job embeddedness and turnover intentions. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 25, 903–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lee, J.J.; Hwang, J. An emotional labour perspective on the relationship between customer orientation and job satisfaction. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 54, 139–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Van Jaarsveld, D.D.; Walker, D.D.; Sharlicki, D.P. The role of job demands and emotional exhaustion in the relationship between customer and employee incivility. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 1486–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Koon, V.Y.; Pun, P.Y. The mediating role of emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction on the relationship between job demands and instigated workplace incivility. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Mathisen, G.E.; Einarsen, S.; Mykletun, R. The occurrences and correlates of bullying and harassment in the restaurant sector. Scand. J. Psychol. 2008, 49, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Scully-Russ, E. Human resource development and sustainability: Beyond sustainable organizations. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 2012, 15, 399–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pfeffer, J. Building sustainable organizations: The human factor. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2010, 24, 34–45. [Google Scholar]
  80. Brown, J.S.; Duguid, P. Organizing knowledge. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1998, 40, 90–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Leana, C.R.; Van Buren, H.J. Organizational social capital and employment practices. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1999, 24, 538–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Alola, A.; Alola, U. Agricultural land usage and tourism impact on renewable energy consumption among Coastline Mediterranean Countries. Energy Environ. 2018. In Print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Walsh, B.M.; Magley, V.J.; Reeves, D.W.; Davies-Schrils, K.A.; Marmet, M.D.; Gallus, J.A. Assessing workgroup norms for civility: The development of the Civility Norms Questionnaire-Brief. J. Bus. Psychol. 2012, 27, 407–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kwantes, C.T. Culture, job satisfaction and organizational commitment in India and the United States. J. Indian Bus. Res. 2009, 1, 196–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Roberts, S.J.; Scherer, L.L.; Bowyer, C.J. Job stress and incivility: What role does psychological capital play? J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2011, 18, 449–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Eisingerich, A.B.; Bell, S.J. Perceived service quality and customer trust: Does enhancing customers’ service knowledge matter? J. Serv. Res. 2008, 10, 256–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Bowers, M.R.; Martin, C.L. Trading places redux: Employees as customers, customers as employees. J. Serv. Mark. 2007, 21, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Torres, E.N.; van Niekerk, M.; Orlowski, M. Customer and employee incivility and its causal effects in the hospitality industry. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2017, 26, 48–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Milam, A.C.; Spitzmueller, C.; Penney, L.M. Investigating individual differences among targets of workplace incivility. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2009, 14, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 10 02610 g001 550
Figure 1. Research Model.
Figure 1. Research Model.
Sustainability 10 02610 g001
Sustainability 10 02610 g002 550
Figure 2. Result of the study Model.
Figure 2. Result of the study Model.
Sustainability 10 02610 g002
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of respondents.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of respondents.
CharacteristicsFrequencyPercentage
Gender
Male22367.8
Female10632.2
Total329100.0
Age
18–254012.2
26–3312237.1
34–4113841.9
42–49267.9
50 and above30.9
Total329100.0
Marıtal status
Sıngle15747.7
Marrıed15446.8
Divorced154.6
Widow/widower30.9
Total329100.0
Educatıon
Primary41.2
Secondary4012.2
Graduate9930.1
Masters18656.5
Total329100.0
Organization tenure
Less than a year4513.7
1–39328.3
4–611936.2
7 and above7221.9
Total329100.0
Note: gender was coded with binary 1 = male, 2 = female.
Table
Table 2. Scale items and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results.
Table 2. Scale items and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results.
Scale ItemsLoadingsCRAVEα
Supervisor Incivility 0.870.570.8
Supervisor action was condescending to me0.71
Showed little interest in my opinion0.76
Made demanding remarks about me0.85
Addressed me in unprofessional terms, either publicly or privately0.74
Ignored or excluded me from professional discussions0.72
Self-Efficacy 0.890.600.86
I feel confident analyzing a long-term the problem to find a solution0.73
I feel confident in presenting my work the area in meetings with management0.89
I feel confident contributing to discussions about my hotel’s strategy0.82
I feel confident helping to set targets in my work area0.84
I feel confident contacting people outside my hotel to discuss problems0.53
Emotional Exhaustion 0.90640.90
I feel emotionally drained from my work0.72
I feel used up at the end of the work0.80
I feel fatigued when I get up in the morning and have to face another day on the job0.85
Working all day is really stain for me0.81
I feel burned out from my work0.82
Turnover Intention 0.890.730.89
It is likely that I will actively look for a new job next year0.81
I often think about quitting0.94
I will probably quit this job next year0.80
Job Satisfaction 0.890.820.88
My job gives me feeling that I am accomplished0.81
I find real enjoyment with my joy0.91
I feel satisfied with this job0.81
Model fit statistics: CMIN = 479.36; DF = 179; CMIN/df = 2.67; CFI = 0.94; IFI = 0.93; GFI = 0.88 PNFI = 0.76; RMSEA = 0.072; SRMR = 0.057. Note: All loadings are significant at the .001 level. CMIN (Minimum discrepancy); DF (Degrees of freedom); CFI (Comparative fit index); IFI (Incremental fit index); GFI (Goodness of fit index); PNFI (Parsimony normed fit index); RMSEA (Root mean square error of approximation); and, SRMR (Standardized root mean square residual). *Item scale fixed at 1.00.
Table
Table 3. Means, standard deviation, and correlations.
Table 3. Means, standard deviation, and correlations.
VariablesMeanSD12345678
1. Gender1.30.47-
2. Age2.50.84−0.10
3. Organizational Tenure 2.70.960.11 *0.44 **
4. Supervisor Incivility2.60.85−0.080.02−0.09
5. Self Efficacy3.70.750.09−0.020.12 *−0.20 **-
6. Emotional Exhaustion 3.20.91−0.040.030.17 **0.31 **−0.12 *
7. Turnover Intention3.10.89−0.06−0.01−0.070.24 **−0.19 **0.21 **
8. Job Satisfaction2.91.00.060.090.16 **−0.21 **0.22 **−0.23 **−0.55 **-
Note: ** Correlations are significant at the p < 0.01 level (two-tailed) and * p < 0.05 level (one-tailed) SD = standard deviation.
Table
Table 4. Results of Path Analysis.
Table 4. Results of Path Analysis.
ParameterStandardized Estimatet-ValueR2
RelationshipDirect/Indirect effect
SUP → EFF−0.203−3.744 **0.041
SUP → EMO0.3105.906 **0.096
SUP → TUR0.2444.542 **0.056
SUP → JOB−0.208−3.845 **0.040
EFF → EMO−0.115−2.099 **0.013
EFF → TUR−0.187−3.448 **0.035
EFF → JOB0.2214.096 **0.046
SUP = supervisor incivility; EFF = self efficacy; EMO = emotional exhaustion; TUR = turnover intention; JOB = job satisfaction. ** Correlations are significant at the p < 0.01 level (two-tailed).
Table
Table 5. The Hierarchical Mediation effect of Emotional Exhaustion.
Table 5. The Hierarchical Mediation effect of Emotional Exhaustion.
Emotional ExhaustionTurnover IntentionJob Satisfaction
Step 1Step 2Step 1Step 2Step 1Step 2
Independent
Supervisor incivility0.31 **0.30 **0.24 **0.21 **−0.21 **−0.17 **
Mediator
Self efficacy 0.06 0.14 ** 0.19 **
R2 at each step0.100.100.060.080.040.07
∆ R20.100.000.060.020.040.3
F34.89 **17.96 **20.63 **14.02 **14.79 **13.52 **
Sobel test resultZ
SUP → SEF → EMO −0.9989 → SUP → SEF → TUN −2.2097 ** SUP → SEF → JOB −2.3055 **
Note: One-tailed test (t > 1.65), and two tests (t > 1.96). ** Correlations are significant at the p < 0.01 level.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alola, U.V.; Avci, T.; Ozturen, A. Organization Sustainability through Human Resource Capital: The Impacts of Supervisor Incivility and Self-Efficacy. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2610. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082610

AMA Style

Alola UV, Avci T, Ozturen A. Organization Sustainability through Human Resource Capital: The Impacts of Supervisor Incivility and Self-Efficacy. Sustainability. 2018; 10(8):2610. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082610

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alola, Uju Violet, Turgay Avci, and Ali Ozturen. 2018. "Organization Sustainability through Human Resource Capital: The Impacts of Supervisor Incivility and Self-Efficacy" Sustainability 10, no. 8: 2610. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082610

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop