Analysis shows workplace bullying increases enacted incivility via anger and shame in employees, highlighting the need for emotion regulation strategies.
Purpose Despite extensive research on workplace bullying within organisational research, the mechanisms through which workplace bullying translates into enacted incivility remain underexplored. This study employs affective event theory (AET) to investigate how workplace bullying leads to incivility through the emotions of anger, shame and fear and the moderating role of trait self-control. Design/methodology/approach Multi-wave survey data were collected from 328 hotel employees in Jordan. Hypotheses were tested using partial least squares structural equation modelling. Findings We found that workplace bullying has a pronounced impact on victims' enacted incivility and that impact is mediated by the negative emotions of anger and shame but not via fear. Trait self-control moderates the impact of bullying on shame and anger. Research limitations/implications This study extends workplace bullying literature by linking it to enacted incivility, examining inwardly- and outwardly-focused negative emotions as parallel mediators and investigating trait self-control as a boundary condition, adding to prior contextual or personality-focused moderators. Practical implications Organisations need clear anti-bullying policies and training on emotion regulation and conflict management. Targeted interventions and counselling are crucial to address bullying's emotional impact, enhance self-regulation and reduce absenteeism. Originality/value The finding not only bridges a research void regarding a lack of understanding of the mechanisms underlying the nexus between workplace bullying and low intentional acts of harm such as enacted incivility but also provides crucial insights to the parallel mediating effects of inwardly- and outwardly-focused affective processes underlying such a nexus. Self-report data from a single hotel chain in Jordan is a limitation of the study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gunasekara et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: