Study identifies customer incivility's negative impact on nurses’ psychological well-being, suggesting ethical leadership moderates this relationship.
Purpose Drawing on expectancy violations theory (EVT), this study aims to identify a linking mechanism and a boundary condition of the association between customer incivility (CI) and employees’ psychological well-being in healthcare organizations. Specifically, the study examines the mediating role of person-organization (PO) fit on the CI-psychological well-being link and the moderating role of ethical leadership on this mediated relationship. Design/methodology/approach Time-lagged data were collected from 345 nurses working under 33 supervisors in a district-level public hospital in Malaysia, and generalized multilevel structural equation modeling in STATA was used to test the proposed moderated mediation model. Findings The results showed that CI impaired nurses’ psychological well-being by reducing their sense of fit with the organization. Moreover, when ethical leadership was high, this negative relationship between CI and well-being via PO fit disappeared. Practical implications Given the negative effect of CI on nurses’ PO fit and psychological well-being, healthcare organizations need to take proactive steps to reduce the occurrence of incivility and protect employees. Nurturing ethical leadership could also be beneficial and will help satisfy employees’ expectations about organizational care and dignity at work. This, in turn, will restore employees’ sense of congruence with their organizations and promote well-being. Originality/value The study introduces EVT as a new lens to analyze the association between CI and well-being. It also extends the CI literature by establishing PO fit as a linking mechanism of the CI-well-being association. Additionally, by identifying the role ethical leaders can play in reducing the negative effects of CI, the study addresses calls for research on the moderators that attenuate the harmful effects of CI on employee well-being.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mostafa et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: