An impact of internet-related
communications on employee’s good practices in corporate sector
Abstract
The
prime target of this research article is to investigate the impact of internet-related
communications on employee’s good practices in the corporate sector in Sri
Lankan context. With the rise of the internet-related communication system,
electronic mailing method was widely spread among corporate entities. While
email has been seen as a method for expanding authoritative coordination and
responsiveness, the utilization of electronic correspondence has a dim side to
it.
This
survey examined cyber incivility in the workstation of Sri Lanka and also
examined its impact on employee job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
quit intention. Data were collected from 65 employees. Results of the study displayed
that male boss/supervisors engaged in active forms of cyber-incivility while
female boss/supervisors engaged in passive cyber incivility. Regression analyses
also displayed that cyber-incivility was negatively related to organizational
commitment and employees’ job satisfaction. Employees who suffered cyber
incivility were also more likely to quit their jobs. Thus, cyber incivility has
negative consequences on both organizations and individuals.
Key Words: Internet related
communication, Cyber communication, Workplace incivility
1.1
Background
of the study
The beginning of the Internet over a decade ago has
revolutionized the way we interact and communicate at the workplace. More
specifically, electronic communication systems have been credited with
diminishing temporal and physical interactional constraints. Email, instant messaging, websites,
blogs, text messaging and voice mail are a few examples of electronic
communication and this leads to increase horizontal and vertical communication
in organizations. As well E-mail is a beneficial communication method that
directly delivers messages between computers. Hence there is no requirement of
using paper communications. As per our studies, it is suggested that emails are
the best and widely used the form of electronic communication at the workplace
as they facilitate to speed and efficiency communications.
Although emails have reaped various benefits for
individuals and organizations, using emails to communicate may also be a two-edged
sword. Indeed, the increased reliance and dependency on email systems at work
have opened up and provided new opportunities and Paths for individuals to
engage in incivility at the workplace. This survey has been done to examining
the impact of internet related communications on employer’s good practices in
the corporate sector. According to the national study over 60 present of Sri
Lankan workers reported using emails. Thus the possibility of work-related
incivility occur is high.
In this study, we define the impact of internet
related communications on employer’s good practices as a cyber-incivility which
we can further elaborate as a communicative behavior that are exhibited in the
context of computer-mediated interactions and that violate workplace norms for
mutual respect. As well, consistent with the definition used in previous incivility
research (e.g., Cortina, Magley, Williams & Langhout, 2001; Pearson &
Porath, 2005), there might or might not be a target on the part of the
perpetrator of the cyber rudeness to cause harm. Though the intent to harm may
be vague, the spillover effect of an uncivil interpersonal workstation
encounter on others as well as the organization should not be underestimated.
Cyber-incivility may easily occur at the workplace,
but only a few studies have examined workstation cyber incivility so far,
resulting that, the knowing percentage about its role in employee outcomes are
very few. Hence, this survey aims to analysis experiences of cyber incivility
among employees who use email for work. As per the Anderson and Pearson (1999) almost
94% of the populations they researched defined their incivility encounters to
somebody else at the workplace or external party. Apart from that, employees
who perceived themselves to be hurts of workstation incivility apparently reduced
work efforts, reduce the contributions to the workstations and unwilling to contribute
assistance to newcomers.
1.2
Objective
of the study
Mainly focus two objectives in this research study.
There are,
·
To find
out the organizations existing email communications procedure firm the top to
bottom.
·
To find
out the relationship between internets related communication and its impact on
employee performance.
According to First objective, this research is proposing
to find out the organizational communications process and its effectiveness.
For that we plan to use several communications method such as, Face to face
communications, mobile phone communications, and internal telephone line and
email communications.
1.3
Scope
of the study
We study the effect of cyber-incivility on organizational
commitment, intention to quit, workplace deviant behavior and employee’s job
satisfaction. We also studied the influence of supervisor/boss gender on their
type of cyber incivility. With an awareness of these factors, the Top level of
the organizations can develop and implement effective and efficient
organizational policies and intervention programs to limit or prevent the
occurrence of cyber rudeness behavior. At this point, we acknowledge that cyber
incivility can take many forms. In our survey, we emphasis mainly on the actual
email content and message. As well as for the purpose of this research the
scope has been limited to the corporate sector, due to the access limitations
to information. The study was carried out by using views and responses of 80
employees.
Civility helps to form connections through
understanding and regard and incivility weakens relationships and avoids
individuals from involving positively and working efficiently with each other
(Hartman, 1996). Civil behavior implicates treating others with dignity, acting
in regard to others’ state of mind, and protect the social norms for mutual
admiration (Carter, 1998). Disclose of common politeness which contains
sensibility and dignitary behaviors of others will be the basis for civility
(Wilson, 1993).
Incivility
suggests impoliteness and dismissal toward others. All the more particularly,
incivility has been characterized as low-force interpersonal abuse conduct that
damages working environment standards for shared appreciation, with or without
a cognizant goal. (Pearson & Porath, 2005). Despite the fact that standards
may differ crosswise over associations, researchers by and largely concurred
that a common good comprehension exists as to standards of admiration for
individual hierarchical individuals in each work environment (e.g., Andersson
& Pearson, 1999; Donn & Sherman, 2002). Demonstrations of incivility
abuse these interpersonal standards. A few cases of work environment incivility
incorporate being overlooked, being cut off while talking, being censured
freely, being barred from a meeting, being scolded for activity in which one
had influence and having one's validity undermined before others (Andersson
& Pearson, 1999; Pearson, Andersson & Porath, 2000; 2005).
It is essential that incivility, as a reasonable
build, is particular from different types of working environment interpersonal
abuse in a few ways. To start with, while representative abnormality (e.g.,
Bennett & Robinson, 2000) and organizational reactive behavior (e.g., Skarlicki
& Folger, 1997) comprise behaviors in contradiction of individuals, they
also embrace behaviors aimed at the organization. Incivility, however, contains
only behaviors directed at another individual (Pearson & Porath, 2004).
Second, linked to violence (e.g., Kinney, 1995), and aggression (e.g., Baron
& Neuman, 1996) which involve physical interpersonal behaviors, incivility
is less powerful and eliminates any forms of physical contact (Andersson &
Pearson, 1999).
Third, a recognizing highlight of incivility is that
the goal to damage is equivocal (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). In exploration
that analyzed more extreme types of interpersonal abuse, for example, work
environment violence (e.g., Kinney, 1995), harassment (e.g., Bjokqvist,
Osterman, Hjelt-Back, 1994), anger (e.g., Baron & Neuman, 1996), and deviance (e.g.,
Bennett & Robinson, 2000), the regular part of these types of interpersonal
abuse is that there exists a conspicuous purpose to mischief or harm somebody
physically or mentally. However, in demonstrations of incivility, the aim to
damage or harm somebody is uncertain and may not be self-evident. In
particular, an individual may display uncivil acts purposefully to hurt the
objective, or may carry on uncivilly as a consequence of obliviousness or
oversight, without a conscious expectation to bring about damage (Andersson
& Pearson, 1999).
On the other hand, as said in the past section, later
studies that analyzed working environment incivility (e.g., Cortina et al.,
2001; Penney & Spector, 2005; Salin, 2003) have suggested that the target’s
own insights, as opposed to the goals of the culprit, form an important element
in the survey of rude behaviors at the workplace. Therefore, in accordance with
past studies, this exploration concentrates on people's view of digital
incivility experiences at the work environment.
Since incivility is low in power and exists according
to the viewer, research on work environment incivility is gradually picking up
acknowledgment as an interesting type of interpersonal abuse (Pearson &
Porath, 2005). However, as the work environment incivility develop is genuinely
new to the authoritative conduct writing, observational examination on work
environment incivility, specifically, has been so far constrained. Nonetheless,
research on work environment incivility has been rising and an examination of
surviving writing uncovers that studies have investigated this wonder as far as
the profiles of culprits and focuses, and in addition the potential reasons and
outcomes of working environment incivility. In the following area, we talk
about past exploration that concentrated on work environment incivility.
The
Perpetrator & the Target
Past studies that concentrated on working environment
incivility recommended that incivility is regularly a top-down phenomenon. More
specifically, accessible narrative confirmation uncovered that immediate
supervisors were the most common perpetrator (60%), followed by peers (20%) and
subordinates (20%) (Envisionworks, 2000). This is same as findings from
scholarly research (e.g., Cortina et al., 2001; Pearson & Porath, 2005),
which clarified that strategic maneuvers a focal part in the showcase of
uncivil practices at the working environment. In fact, these studies have
reliably found that a casualty is considerably more prone to be of lower
hierarchical status than the culprit.
Discoveries with respect to culprit sexual orientation
were uncertain. Pearson et al., (2000) proposed that the culprit will probably
be a male while Cortina et al., (2001) found marginally a greater number of
females than guys participating in uncivil practices at the work environment.
As well, men will probably show incivility on somebody of lower status than on
somebody of higher status (Pearson & Porath, 2004). On the other hand,
female culprits were similarly liable to carry on uncivilly toward their bosses
as they would toward their subordinates, however were less inclined to be
uncivil toward their companions (Cortina et al., 2001).
Surviving exploration has likewise
yielded blended discoveries relating to qualities of casualties of incivility.
Pearson & Porath (2004) found that men were general as liable to be forced
to bear working environment incivility as ladies. On the other hand, Cortina et
al., (2001) found that women testified having to endure more frequencies of
incivility as men. However, studies recommended that objectives had a tendency
to be more youthful and have shorter employment residencies than their culprits
(Cortina et al., 2001; Pearson et al., 2000).
Causes of Workplace Incivility
An analysis of prevailing literature suggested two
main causes of workplace incivility, namely, (1) social relative shifts; and
(2) organizational pressures (Pearson et al., 2005). Pearson (2005) and
colleagues contended that social logical movements are reflected in societal
disrespectfulness, modified mental work contracts, and moving demographics,
while authoritative weights allude to corporate change activities, compacted
time and deadlines, and the surge in innovation use. Based on previous
research, these experiences have been connected with nurturing incivility
between individuals at work.
First, far reaching societal movements may have
prompted the undeniably uncivil atmosphere in the working environment. In
particular, respondents from Pearson et al’s., (2005) study reported that
possibilities, for example, truant child rearing, incapable educating, negative
media impacts, and a persevering mission for singularity have added to the
obscuring of the line in the middle of suitable and improper association.
These adjustments in standards at schools and in the
general public could have discovered its way into the work environment,
cultivating uncivil working environment conduct. In fact, this viewpoint has been
upheld in worker interviews, where respondents remarked that “there seems to be
a rub-off effect from what goes on in schools and the society; people come to
the business world with little or no sense of what is right or wrong” (Pearson
et al., 2000: p. 129).
Second, modified mental contracts have likewise been
referred to as a reason for the ascent in incivility at the work environment.
Whether from the viewpoint of the business or worker, long haul authoritative
venture has been step by step declining (Johnson & Indvik, 2001). These
progressions are reflected in movements in worker duty, maintenance,
qualification and in addition authoritative transient productivity. With
insignificant authoritative responsibility and trust in the long haul, representatives
have gotten to be conceited, dismissing the needs and cravings of their
collaborators. In reality, such 'me first' or 'me only' states of mind have
disintegrated signs of appreciation in a few associations (Andersson &
Pearson, 1999).
Third, the increase in diversity and shifting
demographics at work could have contributed to workplace incivility (Pearson et
al., 2005Since interchanges with different others may require extra time and
exertion, it is conceivable that people may insult others unwittingly when
esteem contrasts leak through our words and deeds (Pearson et al., 2005).
As well, organizational compressions have been allied
with workplace incivility (e.g., Johnson & Indvik, 2001). First, corporate
change activities, for example, scaling down, rebuilding, and mergers have been
ascribed to the ascent in working environment uncivil practices. The
instability connected with these corporate activities may make sentiments of
unreliability about one's occupation and status. In that capacity, workers may
get to be strained and dreadful, bringing about less consideration paid to act
deferentially toward others. Also, work environment inconsiderateness may be
encouraged by weaker associations with the association because of low
maintenance, interim and sub-contracted status.
In reality, representatives reported that it is
superfluous to “treat lowly temps with any respect as you only have to see them
for a week or two” (Pearson et al., 2000: p. 129). In addition, the fleeting
way of agreement work, outsourcing, and outsourcing may render these low
maintenance and impermanent laborers unwilling and reluctant to disguise
hierarchical values or stick to standards for shared admiration.
Lastly, the surge in the utilization of innovation at
the working environment has made up close and personal communication pointless.
Thus, a chief, through the utilization of email, can send antagonistic and
disparaging messages to his/her staff without the need to confront them
face-to- face (Reeves, 1999). In reality, examines in the zone of data
frameworks have recommended that people think that its much less demanding to
act insolently to someone else through electronic interchanges because of the
nonappearance of eye to an eye association (Spears, Lea & Postmes, 2001;
Walther & Parks, 2002).
Consequences of Workplace Incivility
Despite the fact that incivility constitutes milder
types of interpersonal work environment abuse, past examination proposes that
objectives do experience considerable pessimistic impacts (e.g., Penney &
Spector, 2005). Studies have proposed that representatives partner incivility
with upsetting scenes at the work environment. In particular, representatives
who were subjected to uncivil work experiences reported encountering more
noteworthy mental trouble and stretch related wellbeing issues (Cortina et al.,
2001; Martin & Hine, 2005). The negative mental effect of incivility
experienced by targets might likewise wait for 10 years or more after the
occasion has happened (Pearson et al., 2000).
Also, individual encounters of incivility at the work
environment can possibly encourage major hierarchical effect and harm.
Specifically, studies proposed that objectives of working environment
incivility normally experience lower occupation fulfillment (e.g., Penney &
Spector, 2005), condensed organizational commitment (e.g., Martin & Hine,
2005) and increased turnover intentions (e.g., Pearson et al., 2005). Targets
might likewise intentionally decline time, exertion and execution at work as an
aftereffect of the uncivil experience (Johnson & Indvik, 2001). In
addition, representatives who saw themselves as casualties of work environment
incivility may respond towards the culprit in a few unsafe routes, for example,
reacting with clear, prompt payback, spreading bits of gossip about the
culprit, and evading or keeping up separation from the culprit (Johnson &
Indvik, 2001).
These practices may strain work environment
connections and in a few occasions, lead work environment incivility to winding
into progressively forceful practices, including physical brutality between the
objective and the culprit. Indeed, Baron & Neuman (1996) suggested that
low-intensity hostility can establish the primary steps in an upward spiral to
more intense forms of aggression.
Finally, encounters of work environment incivility
might likewise overflow and upset targets' non-work life. At the point when
treated impolitely at work, 70 percent of targets recognized venting their
misery on family and companions outside the working environment (Pearson &
Porath, 2005).
Having been dealt with discourteously by the
supervisor or collaborators, a few representatives might likewise lash out at
their mates and other relatives as a response to the uncivil involvement with
work. All things considered, the overflow impact of work environment incivility
into casualties' non-work life ought not to be disparaged.
2.1
Design
and methodology
This
chapter describes the research sample, data collection procedures, analyses,
results and discussion of the Study which was designed to generate items to
facilitate the development of a cyber-incivility measure, and to preliminarily
examine our prediction that Cyber incivility, job satisfactions, organization
commitment and quit intentions may have a relationship. This proposition was
tested by examining the impact of Job satisfactions and frustration on the way
corporate sector employees responded to cyber-incivility from their
supervisors/bosses.
2.2
Data
collections methods
Survey has been conducted using online responses
collected through email invitations to selected corporate sector employee in SriLanka.
74 responses have been collected and 65 were completed.
For data collection questionnaire has been developed
as the main research instrument which consists of 34 questions which comes from
four (4) dimensions namely Eleven published research papers have been used to
conduct a literature survey to identify the key dimensions of the
‘Cyber-incivility’
2.3
Types
of variables/ Instrument
Cyber incivility
To measure the frequency and variety of employee’s
experiences of workplace incivility, we tended to combined items from two certified
workplace incivility measures; the Workplace Incivility Scale (Cortina et al.,
2001) and a cyber-incivility scale (Lim & Teo, 2009). Sample items are put
me down or was condescending to me, paid little attention to my statements or
showed little interest in my opinion, and doubted my judgment on a matter over
which I have responsibility. Respondents indicated the frequency with which
they experienced each behavior using a five-point scale, (1) strongly Disagree
to (5) strongly Agree.
We conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to
determine the underlying factor structure for the 9 newly developed items.
Corresponding to references from previous surveys, the items were estimated
using Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation as this method generally yields the
most efficient parameter estimates (Byrne, 2001; Chou & Bentler, 1995).
|
Cyber incivility
|
Factor Loadings
|
|
My supervisor/boss
tries to put me down or has been condescending to me via emails.
|
.803
|
|
My supervisor/boss
only pays little attention to a statement made by me through email. Or showed
little interest in your opinion.
|
.716
|
|
My supervisor/boss
makes demeaning or derogatory remarks at me via emails.
|
.748
|
|
My supervisor/boss
has addressed me in an unprofessional/ insensitive way through emails.
|
.757
|
|
He/she uses emails
for time sensitive messages ( e.g. cancelling or scheduling a meeting on
short notice)
|
.822
|
|
He/she uses emails
to state negative things about me that he/she wouldn’t say to me face.
|
.968
|
|
He/she uses emails
to discuss matters that generally require face to face dialogue.
|
.806
|
|
My supervisor/boss
does not reply to my emails at all or replies but does not answer my
quarries. .
|
.731
|
|
He/she does not
acknowledge the receipt of my mail even at instances where I have activated
the 'request receipt’ function.
|
.898
|
According to Hinkin (1995), the most commonly accepted
indicator of a measure’s reliability is Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. Cronbach alphas
of 0.91 obtained for cyber incivility,
3.2.2. Job satisfaction
Luthans, Avolio, Avey and Norman developed a scale of
job satisfactions. This scale has been comprehensively used in research on job
satisfaction. Items were coded on a Likert scale from (1) strongly Disagree to
(5) strongly Agree. In our study, the five items yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of
0.81.
3.2.3. Organizational commitment
Organizational commitment variable was measured using
a scale developed by Chen and Francesco. The scale included 7 items, such as.
‘‘I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected
in order to help this organization be successful.’’ and ‘‘I really care about
the fate of this organization’’. Items were scored on a Likert scale from (1) strongly
Disagree to (5) strongly Agree. A Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88 was obtained,
indicating high inter-item consistency.
3.2.4. Quit intention
This was measured with the scale developed by Brown et
al. Items were scored on a Likert scale from (1) strongly Disagree to (5)
Strongly Agree. The items included ‘‘I often think about quitting my job’’.
This scale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.82.
2.4
List
of hypothesis
The employee who has experienced the
incivility from their supervisors/Bosses may have lower levels of job
satisfaction, organizational commitment and the poor level of mental health.
3.5 Research
Hypothesis framework.
Given the prevalence of email usage at the workstation,
it is vital to study whether incivility through an electronic medium would return
similar findings to incivility through face-to- face interactions.
Hence; we suggested,
H0a. There is no relationship between Cyber
incivility and job satisfaction.
H1a. There is a Relationship is between
Cyber incivility and job satisfaction.
H0b. There is no relationship between Cyber
incivility and quit intention.
H1b. There is a relationship between Cyber incivility
and quit intention.
H0c. There is no relationship between Cyber
incivility and organizational Commitment.
H1c. There is a relationship between Cyber
incivility and organizational Commitment...
3.6 Cyber incivility and gender of supervisor/Bosses
Analysis on workplace incivility indicated that male
may respond to incivility in a different way from females. For example, Man
victims of workplace incivility were more likely to reply to the perpetrators,
especially woman, and attempt to destroy the perpetrators’ goodwill while
female sufferers were more likely to avoid the goodwill. Research on victimization
aids to make available some insights on the effect of sexual characteristics on
types of victimization behavior. Female are socialized to be not much
aggressive & less self-assertive. Hence, Male were found to involve in more
violent victimization behaviors (shouting at the workplace). Women tend to
engage in less direct rude manners (spreading rumors). Hence, we argued that masculine
supervisors would be more likely to engage in active cyber incivility than
female supervisors.
Thus, we hypothesized:
•
H0d. There is no relationship between cyber
incivility and gender Dissimilarity
•
H1d. There is a relationship between cyber
incivility and gender Dissimilarity
Data gathered from the survey was analyzed by using
Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS 19.0). Descriptive statistics was
used in order to identify the relationship between electronic mail
communications and mental factors of the employee. Regression, correlation,
Mean, median, standard deviation minimum, maximum statistics have been used in
this regarded
3.6.1 Populations
The population for the study comprises of the middle
level corporate sector employees in Sri Lanka who are in between the age of 20-
55 years who can be further defined as employees who are communicating with
their supervisor using electronic media. Since corporate sector employees
falling under the category of female and male could possess the characteristics
to the affect to cyber-incivility, this population sample could be the most
useful sample for the study since most of the employees are working in the Corporate sector.
3.6.2
Sampling Method & sample size
Present
research emphases on the sample of Manufacturing and audit sector employee of
Sri Lanka. A newly established
questionnaire was used for this study which was retested for better results. For the study simple random sample of 65
employees were selected out of which 74 respondents completed the survey
questionnaire with a response rate of 62%.
The sample included 58% male and 42% female. 91% were aged between 20 to 29 years;
however, only 95% had upper Advanced level qualification because most of the
respondents were performing Middle level roles at the workplace. 28% has been working
for 4 to 5 years.
4.1
Sample Overview
Seventy-four
Employees contributed to the survey. 65 were completed the questionnaire.
Response rate can be determined as 87.86%.
From
the sample, 69.2% are Audit sector while 30.2% comprise of Finance/Banking
respondents. There are 50.8% male employees participated to the survey while
49.2% females contributed to the survey.
3.1
Descriptive
statistic
Table 4.1.1 provides a summarization of the
demographic characteristics of respondents of the 65 respondents, 50.8 percent
were females. The average age of respondents was 20-30 years (Standard
Deviation = 7.4) and the average years of working experience was 7 years (SD =
6.8). Forty-five percent of the respondents were married.
The majority of respondents were Sinhala (92.3%) while
Muslims comprised 7.7%. As well, about
69.2% of the respondents were working in organizations in the Finance/ Banking sector,
while 30.2% were from the audit sector.
Furthermore, 80% of the respondents attained
university degrees out of that 20% are the degree holder. The rest of the
respondents received education levels ranging from advanced level and
professional diplomas. Moreover, approximately half of the respondents received
a monthly income of Rs. 10001 to Rs.25000.
We also observed that 55% of the respondents stated
that they used emails most often to communicate with their bosses. Face-to-face
communication was ranked last, with 5% of respondents reporting that it was
used most frequently for interaction with their supervisor at work. Office
phones and mobile phones were ranked second (27%) and third (13%) respectively.
Table 4.1.1. Analysis of Demographic Characteristics
|
Characteristics
|
Valid Percentage
Of Respondents (%)
|
|
Gender
|
|
|
Male
|
50.77%
|
|
Female
|
49.23%
|
|
Marital Status
|
|
|
Single
|
45%
|
|
Married
|
55%
|
|
Your
Monthly Income
|
|
|
Below Rs. 10000
|
60%
|
|
10001 to 25000
|
16.92%
|
|
25001 to 50000
|
16.92%
|
|
50001 to 75000
|
6.15%
|
|
Ethnic Group
|
|
|
Sinhalese
|
92.3%
|
|
Muslims
|
7.7%
|
|
Industry
|
|
|
Audit
|
30.8%
|
|
Finance/Banking
|
69.2%
|
|
Education Level
|
|
|
Advanced Level
|
1.53%
|
|
Undergraduate
|
60%
|
|
Graduate
|
20%
|
|
Professionally Qualified
|
18.46%
|
4.2. Descriptive & Correlational Analyses
Standard deviations, Means, reliability coefficients
and coefficients variables are analyzed in Table 4.1. The reliability
coefficients of the scales used in this study were generally good, ranging from
0.81 to 0.87.
Table 4.1 also presents the Pearson-product moment
correlations for all key variables in the survey. As we expected, cyber incivility
was found to be significantly & positively correlated with each other
variables (r = 0.39).
|
Characteristics
|
Mean
|
SD
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
1.
Cyber Incivility
|
2.94
|
0.8507
|
(.90)
|
|
|
|
|
2.
Job satisfaction
|
3.19
|
0.8155
|
(0.40)
|
(.95)
|
|
|
|
3.
Organizational Commitment
|
3.29
|
0.8475
|
(0.35)
|
0.73
|
(.80)
|
|
|
4.
Quit Intentions
|
2.94
|
0.8703
|
0.19
|
(0.51)
|
(0.62)
|
(0.80)
|
As hypothesized, Cyber incivility was positively and
significantly correlated with job satisfaction (r = -0.40) and organizational
commitment (r = -0.35). As well, consistent with our hypothesis, Table 4.2 suggests
that job satisfactions were significantly and positively correlated with quit
intentions (r = 0.19) and organizational commitment (r = -0.51).
3.2
Hypothesis
testing
Table
4.2.1 displays the frequency of email
exchanges between employees and their Bosses in the office. Respondents were
requested to point out the average number of job-related emails that they send
to, and receive from, their supervisors/Bosses during a working day.
Results
fund that majority of corporate sector employees (50%) received an average of
1–3 job-related emails from their bosses/supervisors per working day, whereas
42% reported sending an average of 3-6 job related emails to their bosses/supervisors.
Taken together, these propose that the majority of employee-supervisor in Sri Lankan
corporate sector workforce exchanged about 4–5 emails at the workstation on a
typical work day. These figures put emails as the first most commonly used
communication method between employees and bosses/supervisors.
Cyber incivility and employees’
Job satisfactions
Hierarchical regression
analyses.
|
Independent Variable
|
Job Satisfactions
|
Organizational Commitment
|
Quit Intentions
|
|
|
Demographic
|
|
|
|
|
|
Age
|
0.09
|
0.07
|
0.14
|
|
|
Working Industry
|
0.68
|
0.7
|
0.31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Main Variable
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cyber Incivility
|
-0.25
|
-0.32
|
0.13
|
|
|
r2
|
0.18
|
|
0.7
|
We
used hierarchical regression analyses to examine the hypothesized relationships
between cyber-incivility and Job Satisfaction. Two demographic variables, age
and working industry, were first put into the formula. The independent
variable, cyber incivility, was subsequently entered into the second step of
the formula for each of the dependent variable. Entering the independent
variables simultaneously into the second equation allowed us to test for the probable
differential effect of incivility on each of the responses.
Results
of regression analyses are displayed in Table 4.2.2; they propose that cyber
incivility is significantly and negatively related to organizational commitment
(b = 0.32, p < 0.01). Thus, H1c is supported. Results also displayed that
cyber-incivility was positively related with quit intention (b = 0.13, p <
0.05). Thus, H1b was also supported. As well as Cyber-incivility is
significantly and negatively related to job satisfaction (b = 0.25, p <
0.01). Thus, H1c was also supported.
While
not properly hypothesized, we also performed regression analyses of the two
types of cyber incivility on the various job- related outcomes with referencing
to the Lim, V. and Teo, T. (2009). Results of the regression analyses displayed
that cyber incivility was negatively and significantly related to organizational
commitment (b = -0.35, p < 0.01), job satisfaction (b = -0.40, p < 0.01)
and positively related to intention to quit (b = 0.19, p 0.10).
4.3. Cyber incivility and sexual category of
supervisor
As
per the study the majority of respondents (97%) reported experiencing cyber-incivility
from their Bosses/supervisors at the workstation. 50.2% reported they worked
under masculine Bosses/supervisors while 49.8% reported working under feminine
Bosses/supervisors. We performed the t-test to examine Hd. Results of these are
given in Table 4.1.1
Table 4.3.1 T-Tests
comparing cyber incivility between male and female supervisors
|
|
Male supervisors
|
Female supervisors
|
t-Test Mean (SD)
|
|
Mean / SD
|
Mean / SD
|
||
|
Male
employee
|
|
|
|
|
cyber
incivility
|
1.7/(0.95)
|
1.35/(0.48)
|
2.16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Female
employee
|
|
|
|
|
cyber
incivility
|
1.65/(0.64)
|
1.01/(0.54)
|
3.21
|
As
per the finding it is explained that the type of cyber incivility behaviours
effected by employees depended upon the gender of their Bosses/supervisor. Masculine
bosses with masculine workers reported higher levels of cyber-incivility (M =
1.7) similarly when compare to those with female bosses (mean = 1.35). As well
as, feminine employees with masculine supervisors reported experiencing higher
levels of cyber incivility from male bosses (mean = 1.65) than with female
bosses (mean = 1.01). T-Test displayed that the variance in levels of
cyber incivility from man and women bosses were statistically significant. Table
4.3.1 also displayed that both Man (mean = 2.16) and women (mean = 3.21)
employees experience higher levels of forms of negative cyber incivility from
feminine supervisors than masculine supervisors. This variance was also
statistically significant. T-Test results therefore, supported Hd.
These
findings propose that male and female Bosses/supervisors engage in cyber
incivility in different ways: Male supervisor often not use email to
communicate serious or harmful thing via email as per the graph 4.3.1 but
female supervisors are most of the time using emails to say something hurtful,
not acknowledging receipt of emails, not replying to emails. May be males are
more self-confident and female are passive openly towards their goals. On the
other hand, females have a habit of to be less confrontational and avoid direct
conflict. But male is having a habit of to be more confidential and use face to
face communications.
This
survey examined cyber incivility in the workstation of Sri Lanka and also
examined its impact on employee job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
quit intention. Data were collected from 65 employees. Our results propose that
victims of cyber-incivility from immediate supervisors/bosses negatively affect
the employees’ good practice at the workplace. This result supports findings of
previous studies suggesting that disrespectful and uncivil-cyber behaviours are
perceived as the causes of threat and hurt to personal well-being. As well results
of the study displayed that male boss/supervisors engaged in active forms of
cyber-incivility while female boss/supervisors engaged in passive cyber
incivility.
Regression
analyses also displayed that cyber-incivility was negatively related to
organizational commitment and employees’ job satisfaction. Employees who hurt
cyber incivility were also more likely to leave their jobs. Thus, cyber
incivility has negative consequences on both organizations and individuals. My
survey also providing empirical evidence that incivility does not occur in the
situation of face-to-face communications. Even emails that have offensive
messages can invoke perceptions of incivility and negative job-related outcomes.
Results display that victims of cyber-incivility would be likely to respond
with lower levels of organizational commitment and job satisfaction may harm
the organization.
In
conclusion, it is distinguished that cyber incivility is not an immaterial matter.
This survey contributed to extending the focus of this stream of study. Meanwhile,
the use of emails permeates most workplaces, their potential difficulties
remain an issue. This research represented an initial step in examining the
impact of cyber incivility on individual work attitudes and behaviour.
Beran, T., Mishna, F., McInroy, L. and Shariff, S. (2015).
Children’s Experiences of Cyberbullying: A Canadian National Study. Children
& Schools, p.cdv024.
Brattebo, D. (2012). You're a Mean One, Mr. Gingrich: The
Inbuilt, Ruinous Incivility of Newt. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(1),
pp.46-69.
Giumetti, G., Hatfield, A., Scisco, J., Schroeder, A., Muth,
E. and Kowalski, R. (2013). What a rude e-mail! Examining the differential
effects of incivility versus support on mood, energy, engagement, and
performance in an online context. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
18(3), pp.297-309.
Hershcovis, M. (2010). “Incivility, social undermining,
bullying…oh my!”: A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression
research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(3), pp.499-519.
Hilt, R. (2013). Cyber Bullying: What’s a Parent to Do?.
Pediatric Annals, 42(12), pp.481-481.
Lasiter, S., Marchiondo, L. and Marchiondo, K. (2012).
Student narratives of faculty incivility. Nursing Outlook, 60(3),
pp.121-126.e1.
Lim, V. and Teo, T. (2009). Mind your E-manners: Impact of
cyber incivility on employees’ work attitude and behavior. Information &
Management, 46(8), pp.419-425.
Macdonald, S. and Maclntyre, P. (1997). The Generic Job
Satisfaction Scale. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 13(2), pp.1-16.
Matthews, M. and Bernard, S. (2015). Eutrophication and cyanobacteria
in South Africa’s standing water bodies: A view from space. S. Afr. J. Sci.,
111(5/6).
Park, Y., Fritz, C. and Jex, S. (2015). Daily Cyber
Incivility and Distress: The Moderating Roles of Resources at Work and Home.
Journal of Management.
Porath, C. and Pearson, C. (2012). Emotional and Behavioral
Responses to Workplace Incivility and the Impact of Hierarchical Status. J Appl
Soc Psychol, 42, pp.E326-E357.
TEO, T. and LIM, V. (1998). Usage and Perceptions of the
Internet: What Has Age Got to Do With It?. CyberPsychology & Behavior,
1(4), pp.371-381.
