Impact of employees’ self-related constructs on job satisfaction and perspective-taking intention: Customer incivility as a moderator

Abstract

Using self-determination theory, this study investigated the impact of employees’ self-related constructs (i.e., self-esteem, self-efficacy, and work ethics) on their perspective-taking intention in the workplace, using customer incivility as a moderator. The partial least squares method was used to analyze data collected in a survey of 412 employees from diverse industries in Australia. Findings showed the strong impact of self-esteem, self-efficacy, and work ethics on job satisfaction and perspective-taking intention. Customer incivility was found to be a significant moderator of the relationships of self-esteem with self-efficacy and with work ethics, but not of the self-esteem—employee job satisfaction link. Thus, employees with a higher internal locus of control, when exposed to emotional turmoil as a consequence of customer incivility, were found to have a greater level of control.

Keywords

Australia customer incivility job satisfaction perspective-taking intention self-efficacy survey

Introduction

In a report by the World Health Organization (WHO), it was noted that organizations would lose around US$1 trillion dollars annually due to their lower level of productivity caused by employee mental health issues (n.d., cited by <blisspot.com>, nd). In addressing these issues, perspective-taking intention can play a vital role in making the work environment more cooperative and engaging and a place of shared feelings. The term “perspective taking” refers to the intention of the individual to understand another individual’s point of view. This intention is generally directed toward an out-group member (Lee et al., 2020) and brings a shared sense of identity, enhances or creates a more positive mindset, and reduces the individual’s own critical judgments about out-group members (Bhardwaja et al., 2018). As the work environment involves interactions of employees and customers (Yu et al., 2021) with different socio-cultural backgrounds, it often demands higher levels of perspective-taking intention. Service employees often face incivility or mistreatment from customers, which may have adverse consequences on their work performance and seriously harm their self-related feelings, such as self-esteem, work ethics, or perceived self-efficacy. Numerous prior studies have provided evidence of the negative impact of incivility on employees, such as mental exhaustion and reduced intrinsic motivation, creativity, and service quality (Hur et al., 2016; Lin and Lai, 2020). These impacts hamper employees’ performance and, thereby, their level of job satisfaction. However, knowledge of how customer incivility affects employees’ job satisfaction through their self-perceived work ethics, self-efficacy, and self-esteem is limited in the current literature. Therefore, by considering the self-determination theory (SDT) (Ryan and Deci, 2000) as a platform, this study attempted to contribute to this limited area of research.

Furthermore, employee job satisfaction has been widely examined as an outcome variable rather than as an antecedent (Aftab et al., 2023). However, employees with various levels of job satisfaction may have different levels of perspective-taking intention. While studies in the management literature have shown that employee job satisfaction plays a crucial role (Dhir et al., 2020; Parray et al., 2023), its influence on employees’ perspective-taking intention after facing customer incivility has received less attention in the literature, thus warranting further investigation. The current study therefore aimed to explore the impact of employees’ self-related constructs on job satisfaction, as well as the effect of job satisfaction on perspective-taking intention, under the moderating influence of customer incivility in these relationships.

Theoretical background

The study employed self-determination theory (SDT) (Ryan and Deci, 2000) as its theoretical background, with this theory highlighting a framework for human motivation involving work and life (Aftab et al., 2023). The theory focuses on three basic psychological needs: autonomy (i.e., feeling unforced); competence: (i.e., feeling effective); and relatedness (i.e., feeling connected) (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Through the SDT lens, past research has claimed that individuals are motivated more by the perception of a stronger internal locus of control than by an external locus of causality, leading them to contribute greater efforts and to have a sense of more control over the consequences, thus resulting in a higher level of job satisfaction (Lee et al., 2020). Thus, internalized motivation and self-direction are the key criteria for job performance and personal fulfillment (Aftab et al., 2023; Gagné and Deci, 2005).

As SDT is a macro theory, it focuses on psychological needs, motivation, and job satisfaction (Roy et al., 2023; Ryan and Deci, 2000). Thus, most previous studies, like this study, with self-related constructs (e.g., self-efficacy or job satisfaction) have integrated SDT with their constructs (Aftab et al., 2023). In fact, SDT explains why individuals often hold their positive self-evaluation and repair their own “self” if it is threatened by surrounding events (Crocker and Wolfe, 2001).

While SDT has been applied in a wide range of studies in the management literature (Aftab et al., 2023; Gagné and Deci, 2005; Lee et al., 2020), the current study draws attention to a relatively less researched area, namely, employees’ perspective-taking intention in the face of customer incivility. Employees are frequently mistreated by customers, with mistreatment including verbal abuse, anger, and rude attitudes for service failure or for not meeting product-related expectations (Choi et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2020). In these instances, it is crucial to examine how SDT can help employees to protect their self-esteem and self-efficacy and to persist with work ethics so they can receive higher job satisfaction and increase their perspective-taking intention. While it is difficult to boost self-related emotions in the workplace after receiving uncivil treatment from customers, SDT can serve as an effective theoretical platform supporting employees to regain their self-motivation.

Literature review

Employee job satisfaction and perspective-taking intention

In the literature, employees’ job satisfaction is generally referred to as a pleasurable feeling, resulting from emotional assessment by the individual employee that he/she likes his/her job (Dhir et al., 2020). Numerous benefits, including job performance, loyalty, long-term commitment, etc., have been reported as outcomes of an employee’s job satisfaction within his/her organization (Dhir et al., 2020). Furthermore, perspective-taking intention is a cognitive process through which the individual sees the world from others’ points of view by sensing their needs or thoughts and by imagining their position (Lee et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2021). It brings a range of positive outcomes for organizations, including increased cooperative behavior (Parker and Axtell, 2001), empathy, and helping behavior (Yu et al., 2021), as well as decreased negative effects (Lee et al., 2020).

It is generally assumed that perspective-taking intention directly contributes to a higher level of job performance by helping employees to better understand the organization’s purposes (Al-Ajlouni, 2021; Kim et al., 2019). The increased level of job performance would then result in a higher level of job satisfaction. However, the current study claimed that job satisfaction may also increase employees’ perspective-taking intention as they will be more forgiving, patient, and keen to understand other employees’ situation. Social psychology theorists, Hsee and Abelson (1991) have revealed that individuals’ own level of job satisfaction is often related to their judgmental process (Wolter et al., 2019). The current study, therefore, posited that satisfied employees would become more tolerant and show more perspective-taking intention, compared to employees with a lower level of job satisfaction. The following hypothesis was formulated:

Employees’ job satisfaction positively impacts their perspective-taking intention.

Employee self-esteem, self-efficacy, and work ethics

Self-esteem, in the organizational context, refers to the degree to which an employee believes that he/she, as an organizational member, is significant, worthy, and capable (Pierce and Gardner, 2004). As self-esteem provides employees with the self-belief that they are valued, trusted, and well-contributing individuals in their organization (McAllister and Bigley, 2002), it helps them to improve their work ethics. Often, individuals with positive self-esteem also experience higher self-efficacy as self-esteem is a way of feeling self-appreciation and self-approval (Kondratowicz et al., 2022) which play crucial roles in increasing self-efficacy. Individuals with higher self-esteem can exercise better job performance, resulting in greater job satisfaction (Gordon and Hood, 2021). Therefore, the current study posited that:

H2a

Employees’ self-esteem positively impacts their work ethics.

H2b

Employees’ self-esteem positively impacts their self-efficacy.

H2c

Employees’ self-esteem positively impacts their job satisfaction.

As self-efficacy is known to be an individual’s belief in his/her mastery and capability of doing a task and to be a source of his/her work motivation (Al-Eisa et al., 2009), it has an immediate influence on employees’ job performance (Hur et al., 2022) and work ethics. Earlier studies examined the association between self-efficacy and ethical behavior and considered that self-efficacy encourages an ethical climate in which unethical organizational order is resisted and unethical behavior is avoided (Fida et al., 2018; Stenmark et al., 2021). Thus, it is assumed that employees with higher self-efficacy would have a high level of work ethics, with the following hypothesis posited:

H3a

Employees’ self-efficacy positively impacts their work ethics.

Several factors contribute to a higher level of job satisfaction if employees have greater self-efficacy. For instance, employees believe in their own ability to do their job better, demonstrating increased performance and productivity owing to their positive thinking and self-confidence (Aftab et al., 2023; De Clercq et al., 2018). Therefore, the following hypothesis was formulated:

H3b

Employees’ self-efficacy positively impacts their job satisfaction.

As work ethics are a moral feeling of duty or obligation toward the workplace (Grabowski et al., 2021), work ethics contribute to a higher level of productivity (Noe et al., 2006) and to lower levels of employee turnover and absenteeism (Mohammad et al., 2018). These increased work ethics result in higher performance leading to increased job satisfaction. The relationship between work ethics and job satisfaction is an area warranting further exploration, as called for in earlier research (Mohammad et al., 2018). Therefore, the current study hypothesized that (Figure 1):

Figure 1.

Conceptual model.

Employees’ work ethics positively impact their job satisfaction.

Analyses of customer incivility as a moderator

Customer incivility may range from a low level of rudeness, anger or verbal abuse through to a very intense level, such as physical assault (Chen et al., 2021). When employees are exposed to customer incivility, they experience deterioration in their physical and mental resources and in their capability to mentally retrieve information, increasing their vulnerability to work-related errors (Chen et al., 2021; Hur et al., 2022). This condition often continues into an after-work rumination process, thereby dampening their self-efficacy. Thus, considering the adverse influence of customer incivility on self-esteem and self-efficacy in the workplace, the study posited the following hypothesis:

H5a

Customer incivility moderates the relationship between employees’ self-esteem and self-efficacy in such a way that a lower level of incivility will lead to a higher level of self-efficacy.

When employees face customer incivility, it negatively impacts their affective responses and willingness to put in effort in the workplace (Thompson et al., 2018); thus, it adversely influences their work ethics. Also, the negative consequences of customer incivility often result in fundamental and long-term damage to work-related emotional and cognitive responses (Baranik et al., 2017; Hur et al., 2022). The current study assumed this would include negative consequences for employees’ self-esteem and work ethics and, thus, the following hypothesis was proposed:

H5b

Customer incivility moderates the relationship between employees’ self-esteem and work ethics in such a way that a lower level of incivility will lead to a higher level of work ethics.

With employees facing increased levels of customer incivility, prior studies’ findings have indicated that employees feel their employment conditions are exhausting (Al-Hawari et al., 2020; De Clercq and Belausteguigoitia, 2024) and experience a lowered level of self-esteem. As a result of this psychological distress and emotional exhaustion, employees often show depleted job performance, which also results in a low level of job satisfaction (Baranik et al., 2017). With this relationship between customer incivility and job satisfaction assumed to be negative, this study hypothesized that:

H5c

Customer incivility moderates the relationship between employees’ self-esteem and job satisfaction in such a way that a lower level of incivility will lead to a higher level of job satisfaction.

Method

Data collection

This study’s data collection involved a survey distributed to 600 targeted employees who worked in different services industries in Australia; from this targeted sample, 412 questionnaires were finally usable for the study. The survey questionnaire used 5-point Likert-type scales for responses, as well as asking several demographic questions. The sample comprised 42% female participants, with 48% of participants aged between 18 and 30 years and 39% of participants aged between 31 and 45 years.

Measures

Self-esteem

This study considered self-esteem to refer to employees’ self-perceived idea about their own significance or worth in an organization. It was measured using three items (On the whole, I am satisfied with myself; I feel I have several good qualities; and I can do things as well as most other people) (Rosenberg, 1965), with an alpha value of 0.758.

Employee self-efficacy

This study referred to employee self-efficacy as employees’ self-perceived assessment of their own capability to do any workplace-related tasks. Three items were used to measure self-efficacy (I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough; it is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals; and I am confident that I can deal efficiently with unexpected events) (Liu and Koirala, 2009), with an alpha value of 0.727.

Work ethics

This study considered work ethics to mean employees’ perceived thoughts about their moral obligations toward their work. Three items were used to measure work ethics (I like hard work; I like participating in leisure activities; and I appreciate the centrality of work) (Miller et al., 2002), with an alpha value of 0.801.

Employee job satisfaction

Employee job satisfaction was measured using three items (Most of my interactions at work are positive; my values fit with the organizational values; and my manager cares about me as a person) (Gremler and Gwinner, 2000), with an alpha value of 0.826.

Perspective-taking intention

This study considered perspective-taking intention to refer to the employee’s intention to understand others’ points of view in the workplace. It was measured by three items (When I am upset at someone, I usually try to put myself in his/her shoes for a while; I try to consider other perspectives before I decide; and before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in that person’s shoes) (Davis, 1980), with an alpha value of 0.763.

Data analysis

To analyze the data, partial least squares-based structural equation modeling (PLS–SEM) (Ringle and Sarstedt, 2016) was used. All values for reliability and validity were found to be satisfactory (Table 1). Discriminant validity was assured as the value of each square root of average variance extracted (AVE) was higher than the value for its respective correlations (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Nunnally, 1978). Common method variance analysis revealed a satisfactory result of 35.61%.

Table 1.

Reliability and validity measures.

Constructs	Cronbach’s Alpha (α)	Composite Reliability	AVE^a	Emp. sat.	Pers. Tak. int.	Self-esteem	Self-effi.	Work ethics
Emp. satisfaction	0.83	0.89	0.74	0.86^b
Perspective taking intent	0.76	0.86	0.68	0.22	0.82^b
Self-esteem	0.76	0.86	0.67	0.35	0.39	0.82^b
Self-efficacy	0.73	0.85	0.65	0.37	0.12	0.27	0.80^b
Work ethics	0.80	0.88	0.72	0.41	0.33	0.49	0.35	0.85^b

^aAverage variance extracted.

^bSquare root of average variance extracted (AVE) on the diagonal.

Hypotheses testing: Direct effects (H1–H4)

Table 2 shows the significant influence of employee job satisfaction on employee perspective-taking intention (H1, t-value = 3.89; beta-value = 0.221, at p < .001 level); thus, H1 was accepted. Results on the impact of employee self-esteem on work ethics (H2a, t-value = 8.13; beta-value = 0.430); self-efficacy (H2b, t-value = 4.65; beta-value = 0.274); and job satisfaction (H2c, t-value = 3.06; beta-value = 0.161) were all significant, thus accepting H2a, H2b and H2c. Significant influence was also found for the self-efficacy–work ethics relationship (H3a, t-value = 5.01; beta-value = 0.236) and the self-efficacy–job satisfaction relationship (H3b, t-value = 3.94; beta-value = 0.238, at p < .001 level), leading to the acceptance of H3a and H3b. Finally, findings confirmed that work ethics have a significant impact on employee job satisfaction (H4, t-value = 3.98; beta-value = 0.241, at p < .001 level) resulting in the acceptance of H4.

Table 2.

PLS output.

Hypotheses	Beta value	Path coefficient	t-value	p-value
H1: Emp. satisfaction to emp. pers. taking	0.221	0.22	3.89	0.000
H2a: Employee self-esteem to work ethics	0.430	0.43	8.13	0.000
H2b: Employee self-esteem to self-efficacy	0.274	0.27	4.65	0.000
H2c: Employee self-esteem to satisfaction	0.161	0.16	3.06	0.002
H3a: Self-efficacy to work ethics	0.236	0.24	5.01	0.000
H3b: Self-efficacy to employee satisfaction	0.238	0.24	3.94	0.000
H4: Work ethics to employee satisfaction	0.241	0.24	3.98	0.000

Moderating effect (H5)

Table 3 shows the moderating effect results. Customer incivility was found to be a significant moderator of the relationships of self-esteem with self-efficacy (H5a, sample differences: t-value = 3.90; p < .001) and of self-esteem with work ethics (H5b, sample differences: t-value = 0.2.91; p-value = .004); thus, both H5a and H5b were accepted. However, customer incivility was not found to have a significant moderating effect on the relationship of self-esteem with employee job satisfaction (H5c, sample differences: t-value = 1.01; p-value = .313); thus, H5c was rejected. As was posited in H5a and H5b, the study revealed that both self-efficacy (t-value of high incivility = 0.31; t-value of low incivility = 7.45) and work ethics (t-value of high incivility = 3.75; t-value of low incivility = 7.06) increased with a lower level of customer incivility.

Table 3.

Moderation results.

Hypotheses	t-value difference	p-value difference	Hypothesis accepted
Hypotheses	t-value difference	p-value difference	Yes/No
Customer incivility as a moderator between
5a. Self-esteem and self-efficacy	3.90	0.000	Yes
5b. Self-esteem and work ethic	2.91	0.004	Yes
5c. Self-esteem and satisfaction	1.01	0.313	No

Additional analysis: mediation effects

After considering the existing underlying relationships in the model, six mediation relationships were additionally examined. Table 4 summarizes the mediation results using bootstrapping analysis, as suggested by Preacher and Hayes (2008), with this having been widely used in related studies in the literature (Bangun et al., 2023; Fatima et al., 2019; Jadhav et al., 2023; Sharma et al., 2024). The results showed that all underlying mediation paths were significant (Path 1–Path 5). However, the mediation impact on the relationships of employee job satisfaction with work ethics and with employee perspective-taking intention was not found to be significant (Path 6). Work ethics had the highest mediation impact (21.21%) on the relationship between self-efficacy and employee job satisfaction. Following the interpretation of Zhao et al. (2010), as ab paths were positive for all mediation relationships and direct paths were also positive and significant, these are complementary types of mediation.

Table 4.

Mediation output.

Mediation path	Lower value, Upper value	Significant	Percentage of mediation effect
Path 1: Self-esteem - self-efficacy - emp. satisfaction	0.0321, 0.1298	Yes	19.22%
Path 2: Self-esteem - work ethic - emp. satisfaction	0.0771, 0.2147	Yes	18.39%
Path 3: Self-esteem - emp. satisfaction - perspective taking intention	0.0018, 0.0809	Yes	15.64%
Path 4: Self-efficacy - work ethics - emp. satisfaction	0.0620, 0.1929	Yes	21.21%
Path 5: Self-efficacy - emp. Satisfaction - Perspective taking intention	0.0277, 0.1457	Yes	4.52%
Path 6: Work ethics - emp. Satisfaction - Perspective taking intention	−0.0024, 0.0996	No	………

Discussion and conclusion

Discussion

The study aimed to investigate the impact of self-related constructs, such as self-esteem, work ethics, and self-efficacy on employees’ level of job satisfaction and perspective-taking intention if faced with customer incivility. In support of previous arguments in the literature, findings confirmed that employees’ self-esteem had a significant impact on their self-efficacy, work ethics, and their level of job satisfaction (Gordon and Hood, 2021; Kondratowicz et al., 2022). Interestingly, the current study found that self-esteem had the strongest impact on work ethics. This finding was consistent with Hackman’s argument (1977) that an individual’s internal respect increases with learning to do a task that he/she does well (Raharjo et al., 2018).

The study’s findings also provided evidence that employees’ self-efficacy significantly increased their work ethics and job satisfaction, with this in support of previous arguments that self-efficacy boosts employees’ job performance resulting in a higher level of job satisfaction (Aftab et al., 2023; De Clercq et al., 2018; Hur et al., 2022). Interestingly, the findings provided evidence that employees’ self-efficacy had a much greater effect on their work ethics than on their level of job satisfaction. This finding further supported the prior argument on the crucial influence of self-efficacy (Rozkwitalska et al., 2022), which stated that it injects confidence, enhances skills, motivates individual employees to achieve challenging goals, and builds resilience in individual employees to recover from problematic situations. Finally, confirming the notion of social psychology theorists (Hsee and Abelson, 1991) that individual employees’ job satisfaction often influences their judgments (Wolter et al., 2019), the study provided evidence of a significant link between employees’ job satisfaction and their perspective-taking intention.

In terms of the moderating effect of customer incivility, the current study’s results were consistent with earlier claims that incivility leads to the devaluing of oneself (Selamat and Irsan, 2019), making him/her vulnerable to making workplace mistakes (Chen et al., 2021; Hur et al., 2022). Customer incivility affects employees’ own perception of their work ethics, efficacy, and job satisfaction by reducing their self-esteem. The study’s findings further emphasized the negative influence of customer incivility on employees’ workplace mental health, with good mental health necessary for ensuring high quality performance.

Theoretical contributions

The study provides key contributions to the existing literature by focusing on employees’ self-related constructs and perspective-taking intention when considering customer incivility in the workplace. Supporting self-determination theory (SDT)’s implications for human motivation through the internal locus of control (Lee et al., 2020), the study’s findings offer grounds for considering employees’ self-esteem and self-efficacy as crucial antecedents for their job satisfaction. By affirming the previous notion of the effect of the internal locus of control on a perceived higher level of control of consequences (Lee et al., 2020), the study also extends the literature by highlighting that employees’ self-efficacy plays a significant role in increasing their work ethics and job satisfaction towards enhanced perspective-taking intention. Thus, self-efficacy works as a valuable resource for effective organizational change and is helpful during more demanding and challenging situations (Bayraktar and Jimenez, 2020).

Additionally, this study contributes to the work ethics literature by revealing the strong mediation effect of work ethics on the self-efficacy—job satisfaction link. In referring to work ethics as the obligation felt by an employee towards his/her work (Grabowski et al., 2021), this study takes the primary step of connecting work ethics to employees’ self-related constructs, such as self-efficacy. Similarly, the study extends the frontline employee-related literature (Di Mascio and Fatima, 2018) by investigating the moderation impact of customer incivility on employees’ self-related constructs (i.e., self-esteem, self-efficacy, and work ethics) and job-related outcomes, such as job satisfaction. With frontline employees more frequently the victims of exposure to customer incivility (Arnold and Walsh, 2015), this study’s findings provide valuable insights into its impact on employees’ psycho-cognitive self-perception and resultant outcomes in the workplace. Finally, the existing body of literature has confirmed the inherent significance of perspective-taking intention by highlighting its positive outcomes for organizations (Lee et al., 2020; Lee and Madera, 2021). This study now provides pathways for employees to reach perspective-taking intention by considering a range of antecedent, mediator, and moderator factors.

Note for practitioners

For today’s organizations, providing only the necessities does not ensure success (Khan, 2008), as additional care of employees’ psychological well-being is essential. Motivating employees by boosting their self-esteem and self-efficacy and strengthening their work ethics will ultimately help them to overcome customer incivility. As individual employees’ self-perception of their value to their organization often influences their attitude towards taking external action (Wako et al., 2025), it is essential to focus on employees’ work ethics to help them improve their perception of their value to their organization.

Perspective-taking intention also brings positive outcomes for organizations, such as positive emotions, helping intentions, lower level of stereotyping, etc. (Lee and Madera, 2021). Appropriate training programs need to be established to encourage employees to increase their engagement with their organization (Asif et al., 2022) as well as developing an inclusive decision-making style. A higher perspective-taking intention will be positive, leading to greater productivity and to a more inclusive workplace environment.

Frontline employees play a key role in customer satisfaction (Di Mascio and Fatima, 2018; Fatima and Razzaque, 2010); therefore, managerial care should be provided to increase their psychological well-being, commitment, and self-motivation. This will help them to achieve their individual goals, ultimately helping organizations to achieve success in the long run by reducing employees’ task-related stress. Organizations need to understand the influence of contextual factors (Khan et al., 2019) as this also has a profound impact on employees’ skill development. Finally, given that customers’ incivility has a negative impact on employees’ job satisfaction and increases their emotional exhaustion (Parray et al., 2023), organizations need to be aware that these issues are directly related to organization-level management. Therefore, organizations need to take steps to resolve these issues by enhancing respect, group cohesiveness, and social interactions (Fatima, 2023; Fatima et al., 2017), as well as increasing perspective-taking intention among employees.

Limitations

This study has a few limitations, one of which is that it considers only a few of the self-related antecedents (i.e., self-esteem, self-efficacy, and work ethics). Broadening the research to other psychological aspects of employees, such as emotional labor, personal flexibility, creativity, etc. would provide more rigorous findings. Similarly, only customer-related incivility was considered in this study, whereas other sources of incivility are frequent in the workplace, such as supervisor incivility, co-worker incivility, and email incivility, all of which may generate workplace bullying or further instances of incivility. Also, data analysis may be further improved by using multi-method approach such as incorporating qualitative interviews etc. Finally, a methodology-related limitation is that a cross-sectional survey was used, with data collected from only one country (Australia). The inclusion of more countries using a longitudinal study would help to produce more generalizable results.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Johra Kayeser Fatima

References

Aftab

Sarwar

Kiran

, et al. (2023) Ethical leadership, workplace spirituality, and job satisfaction: moderating role of self-efficacy. International Journal of Emerging Markets 18(12): 5880–5899.

Al-Ajlouni

(2021) Can high-performance work systems (HPWS) promote organisational innovation? Employee perspective-taking, engagement and creativity in a moderated mediation model. Employee Relations: The International Journal 43(2): 373–397.

Al-Hawari

Bani-Melhem

Quratulain

(2020) Do frontline employees cope effectively with abusive supervision and customer incivility? Testing the effect of employee resilience. Journal of Business and Psychology 35: 223–240.

Al‐Eisa

Furayyan

Alhemoud

(2009) An empirical examination of the effects of self‐efficacy, supervisor support and motivation to learn on transfer intention. Management Decision 47(8): 1221–1244.

Arnold

Walsh

(2015) Customer incivility and employee well-being: testing the moderating effects of meaning, perspective taking and transformational leadership. Work & Stress 29: 362–378.

Asif

Fatima

Johns

(2022) Role of internal marketing in Australian higher education sector: age, gender and job level as moderators. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 1–18: 2049951.

Bangun

Fatima

Talukder

(2023) Demystifying employee co-creation: optimism and pro-social behaviour as moderators. Journal of Service Theory and Practice 33(4): 556–576.

Baranik

Wang

Gong

, et al. (2017) Customer mistreatment, employee health, and job performance: cognitive rumination and social sharing as mediating mechanisms. Journal of Management 43(4): 1261–1282.

Bayraktar

Jiménez

(2020) Self-efficacy as a resource: a moderated mediation model of transformational leadership, extent of change and reactions to change. Journal of Organizational Change Management 33(2): 301–317.

10.

Bharadwaja

Lee

Madera

(2018) Customer evaluations of service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors: agentic and communal differences. International Journal of Hospitality Management 70: 120–129.

11.

Blisspot wellbeing (nd) <blisspot.com>. Retrieved on February 23, 2022.

12.

Chen

Wang

Shih

(2021) Are frontline employees punching bags? The relationship between interpersonal workplace incivility and employee incivility toward customers. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 47: 377–388.

13.

Choi

Kim

Lee

, et al. (2014) Testing the stressor–strain–outcome model of customer-related social stressors in predicting emotional exhaustion, customer orientation and service recovery performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management 36: 272–285.

14.

Crocker

Wolfe

(2001) Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review 108: 593–623.

15.

Davis

(1980) A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 10: 17.

16.

De Clercq

Belausteguigoitia

(2024) How work self-efficacy can prevent work interference with family from thwarting creative behavior. Journal of General Management.

17.

De Clercq

Haq

Azeem

(2018) Self-efficacy to spur job performance: roles of job-related anxiety and perceived workplace incivility. Management Decision 56(4): 891–907.

18.

Dhir

Dutta

Ghosh

(2020) Linking employee loyalty with job satisfaction using PLS–SEM modeling. Personnel Review 49(8): 1695–1711.

19.

Di Mascio

Fatima

(2018) The role of identification in frontline employee decision-making. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43: 131–138.

20.

Fatima

(2023) Does it matter to have rapport and social interaction on a group tour? Journal of Vacation Marketing.

21.

Fatima

Razzaque

(2010) Understanding the role of service quality, customer involvement and rapport on overall satisfaction in Bangladesh banking service. In: 2010 Australian and New Zealand Academy Conference, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, November 29–December 1 2010.

22.

Fatima

Khan

Halabi

(2017) Ecotourism participation intention in Australia: mediating influence of social interactions. Tourism Analysis 22(1): 85–91.

23.

Fatima

di Mascio

Johns

, et al. (2019) Mediation effects of service features on rapport–dependency link in emerging market. Journal of Service Theory and Practice 29(5/6): 639–660.

24.

Fida

Laschinger

HKS

Leiter

(2018) The protective role of self-efficacy against workplace incivility and burnout in nursing: a time-lagged study. Health Care Management Review 43(1): 21–29.

25.

Fornell

Larcker

(1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 39–50.

26.

Gagné

Deci

(2005) Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26(4): 331–362.

27.

Gordon

Hood

(2021) Organization-based self-esteem and work–life outcomes. Personnel Review 50(1): 21–46.

28.

Grabowski

Chudzicka-Czupała

Stapor

(2021) Relationships between work ethic and motivation to work from the point of view of the self-determination theory. PLoS One 16(7): e0253145.

29.

Gremler

Gwinner

(2000) Customer–employee rapport in service relationships. Journal of Service Research 3(1): 82–104.

30.

Hackman

(1977) Work design. In: Improving Life at Work: Behavioral Science Approaches to Organizational Change. Santa Monica, Calif: Goodyear Publishing Company, 96–162.

31.

Hsee

Abelson

(1991) Velocity relation: satisfaction as a function of the first derivative of outcome over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60(3): 341–347.

32.

Hur

Moon

Jun

(2016) The effect of workplace incivility on service employee creativity: the mediating role of emotional exhaustion and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Services Marketing 30(3): 302–315.

33.

Hur

Shin

(2022) Daily relationships between customer incivility, organizational control, self-efficacy, and service performance. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 69(4): 103092.

34.

Jadhav

Fatima

Quazi

(2023) Antecedents of team alignment for team performance: length of relationship as a moderator. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 38(12): 2731–2744.

35.

Khan

HUZ

(2008) Intellectual capital reporting practices: evidence from Bangladesh. Dhaka University Journal of Biological Sciences 29(1): 23–45.

36.

Khan

Fatima

Bose

(2019) Understanding pro-environmental behaviour of accounting and business students: development of a conceptual framework. Ethics and Sustainability in Accounting and Finance 1: 69–82.

37.

Kim

Nurunnabi

Kim

, et al. (2019) Does a good firm breed good organizational citizens? The moderating role of perspective taking. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16: 161.

38.

Kondratowicz

Godlewska-Werner

Połomski

, et al. (2022) Satisfaction with job and life and remote work in the COVID-19 pandemic: the role of perceived stress, self-efficacy and self-esteem. Current Issues in Personality Psychology 9: 49–60.

39.

Lee

Madera

(2021) A within-level analysis of the effect of customer-focused perspective-taking on deep acting and customer helping behaviors: the mediating roles of negative affect and empathy. International Journal of Hospitality Management 95: 1–10.

40.

Lee

Guchait

Madera

(2020) Negative affect, deep acting, and customer compensation as responses to customer mistreatment: the effect of customer-based perspective-taking. International Journal of Hospitality Management 89: 102532.

41.

Lin

Lai

(2020) The mechanism and boundary conditions of the relationship between customer incivility and service quality. Journal of Management and Organization 26(2): 201–218.

42.

Liu

Koirala

(2009) The effect of mathematics self-efficacy on mathematics achievement of high school students. In: Proceedings of NERA [Northeastern Educational Research Association] Conference.

43.

McAllister

Bigley

(2002) Work context and the definition of self: how organizational care influences organization-based self-esteem. Academy of Management Journal 45(5): 894–904.

44.

Miller

Woehr

Hudspeth

(2002) The meaning and measurement of work ethic: construction and initial validation of a multidimensional inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior 60(3): 451–489.

45.

Mohammad

Quoquab

Idris

, et al. (2018) The relationship between Islamic work ethic and workplace outcome: a partial least squares approach. Personnel Review 47(7): 1286–1308.

46.

Noe

Hollenbeck

Gerhart

, et al. (2006) Human Resources Management: Gaining a Competitive Advantage. 10th global edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

47.

Nunnally

(1978) Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

48.

Parker

Axtell

(2001) Seeing another viewpoint: antecedents and outcomes of employee perspective taking. Academy of Management Journal 44(6): 1085–1100.

49.

Parray

Islam

Shah

(2023) Exploring the effect of workplace incivility on job outcomes: testing the mediating effect of emotional exhaustion. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance 10(2): 161–179.

50.

Pierce

Gardner

(2004) Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: a review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management 30(5): 591–622.

51.

Preacher

Hayes

(2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 40: 879–891.

52.

Raharjo

Nurjannah

Solimun

, et al. (2018) The influence of organizational culture and job design on job commitment and human resource performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management 31(9): 1346–1367.

53.

Ringle

Sarstedt

(2016) Gain more insight from your PLS–SEM results: the importance–performance map analysis. Industrial Management & Data Systems 116(9): 1865–1886.

54.

Rosenberg

(1965) Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSE). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. Measures Package 61(52): 18.

55.

Roy

Singh

Sadeque

, et al. (2023) Customer engagement with digitalized interactive platforms in retailing. Journal of Business Research 164: 114001.

56.

Rozkwitalska

Basinska

Okumus

, et al. (2022) The effects of relational and psychological capital on work engagement: the mediation of learning goal orientation. Journal of Organizational Change Management.

57.

Ryan

Deci

(2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55: 68–78.

58.

Selamat

Irsan

(2019) Workplace incivility, self-efficacy, and turnover intention relationship model: a multi-group analysis. Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences 1(85): 358–368.

59.

Sharma

Fatima

Sharma

, et al. (2024) Omnichannel shopping habit development. International Journal of Consumer Studies 48(4): 13072.

60.

Stenmark

Redfearn

Kreitler

(2021) Self-efficacy and ethical decision-making. Ethics & Behavior 31(5): 301–320.

61.

Thompson

Buch

Glasø

(2018) Low-quality LMX relationships, leader incivility, and follower responses. Journal of General Management 44(1): 17–26.

62.

Wako

Fatima

Johns

(2025) Changing nature of consumer values toward negative word of mouth: voice and risk avoidance as moderators. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 24(1): 455–469.

63.

Wolter

Bock

Mackey

, et al. (2019) Employee satisfaction trajectories and their effect on customer satisfaction and repatronage intentions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 47: 815–836.

64.

Lee

Popa

, et al. (2021) Should I leave this industry? The role of stress and negative emotions in response to an industry negative work event. International Journal of Hospitality Management 94: 1–11.

65.

Zhao

Lynch

Chen

(2010) Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 37: 197–206.