Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Workplace incivility (WI) is defined as low-intensity negative behaviors in the workplace. While this topic is common in a Western context, limited research has been conducted in the Asian context, particularly in China and Vietnam. This research aims to investigate a cross-cultural study about WI, to focus on the linkage between demographic variables and WI. The research sample comprised 598 voluntary working adults in China and Vietnam. The data were calculated using descriptive statistics and paired t-tests in SPSS. The result indicated that Chinese and Vietnamese experienced the same incivility behaviors at works. In addition, males experienced more WI than females. This research is a pioneer cross-cultural study about WI in the Asian context, which investigates the influence of demographic variables on WI in Chinese and Vietnamese working adults. Although this study attempts to conduct a cross-cultural study, its limitation is that the sample size is modest and random. This study also expresses some solutions to eliminate incivility behaviors in the workplace.

Keywords

workplace incivility age gender managerial ranks working experiences China Vietnam

Introduction

While the well-known topic of negative workplace attitudes and behaviors (e.g., abusive leaders, workplace bullying, and work-family conflict) has been researched popularly, WI has been a new concept in this context (Schilpzand et al., 2016). In detail, WI is regarded as “a low type of destructive behavior that disrupts the standards and norms of the organization” (Alias et al., 2020, p.356). These uncivil behaviors in the workplace include gossiping about colleagues in an unprofessional way directly or indirectly, criticizing or interrupting others, and insulting comments about someone (Cortina et al., 2001). On the one hand, WI is similar to other negative behavior concepts (e.g., workplace bullying and sexual harassment) in the loss of work effort, turnover, and productivity. On the other hand, they are intangibly attacks from instigators, which are hard to define in the workplace. The level of WI has been rising significantly, which affects an organization’s working productivity (Estes & Wang, 2008; Wang & Chen, 2020).

WI has been researched in the Asian context, particularly in China (Guo et al., 2022; Shi et al., 2018; Zhan et al., 2019). A rise in uncivil behaviors makes Chinese organizations decrease working efficiency and employee morale. Thus, it motivates Chinese supervisors to find solutions to this problem at work. In addition, although no previous WI research has been conducted in Vietnam, negative workplace behavior was researched in this country (Nguyen et al., 2017, 2019). Nguyen et al. (2019) conducted an empirical study about the connection between bullying, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behavior in 274 Vietnamese in six public organizations. In addition, Nguyen et al. (2017) highlighted the negative influence of workplace bullying on the psychological safety climate in six Vietnamese state corporations.

Most WI studies have been conducted in the Western context, especially in the USA and European countries (Sherrod & Lewallen, 2021; Smith et al., 2018; Torkelson et al., 2016). In contrast, the Asian context, which suggests the high-intensity increase of uncivil behavior in the workplace, has little academic attention (Alias et al., 2020; Arshad & Ismail, 2018). When national culture is confirmed to affect an individual’s attitudes and behaviors, the results from the Western context are difficult to adapt to the Asian context because of social, cultural, and political differences. Western countries follow an individualist culture, while most Asian countries toward collectivist culture (Hofstede, 2001). In detail, individualism emphasizes the value of a person, so the coordination between members of society is modest when their self-determination is focused on themselves. In contrast, collectivism values the role of harmonious relationships in society (Hofstede, 2001). In a collectivist society, an individual is ready to sacrifice his/her benefit for the community’s benefit. This issue is even more severe in communist countries (e.g., China and Vietnam), which officially emphasizes the role of the socialist party in society. Therefore, the concept of WI can differ between Western and Asian contexts. In detail, what is regarded as usual in the Western workplace would be seen as incivility in Asian counterparts and vice versa. This argument is supported by anonymized, which confirmed a positive correlation between the relationship among members and negative attitudes in Vietnamese workplaces. Loh et al. (2021) highlighted that Singaporeans less negatively impact WI than Australians. American working adults experienced more frequency of WI than Chinese counterparts (Chen et al., 2019) and Taiwanese counterparts (Liu et al., 2009). In reverse, Kim and Shapiro (2008) highlighted that American employees are less experienced in WI than their Korean counterparts.

For the above reasons, it is necessary to have more research on WI in the Asian context, especially when cross-cultural uncivil behaviors literature is modest (Chen et al., 2019; Kim & Shapiro, 2008; Liu et al., 2009; Loh et al., 2021). Further, while the prior literature mainly focuses on the effect of WI on organizational factors (e.g., job satisfaction, commitment, and performance; Estes & Wang, 2008; Guo et al., 2022; Wang & Chen, 2020), the link between WI and socio-demographic factors (e.g., gender, age, managerial experience, and working experience) is questionable. A few researchers added demographic variables in statistics; however, the scholars mainly label them as dependent factors; therefore, their role as an independent factor to incivility is under question (Cortina et al., 2002). To fulfill the above gap, this study conducts a cross-cultural data from working adults in China and Vietnam, which aims to explore socio-demographic factors’ influence on WI, and solves the scarcity of research about WI in the Asian context.

In detail, this study aims to compare the WI between China and Vietnam. Moreover, we explore the relationship between age, gender, education, managerial experience, working experience, and WI in Vietnamese and Chinese working adults. Understanding the influence of demographic factors on WI will fill the gap in negative behaviors literature in the Asian context. Moreover, the findings will allow practitioners to have policies to reduce its harmful consequences for organizations and working adults.

Literature Review

WI

WI is an uncivil behavior in the organization that negatively affects working adults’ morale (Khan et al., 2022; Sherrod & Lewallen, 2021). Examples of WI include gossiping about colleagues, ignoring colleagues’ opinions, and a lack of belief in the individual’s knowledge (Cortina, 2001). While this behavior is regarded as low intensity compared to workplace bullying or violation, they still contribute to the employee’s disappointment in the workplace (Pearson et al., 2001). According to Andersson and Pearson (1999), WI’s characteristics are low intensity, indirect and passive, so it is difficult to identify and measure them, and the organizations hard to establish official regulations and policies to solve incivility behaviors. Some literature highlighted that the frequencies of WI may depend on the characteristics of the culture, society, and demography (Schilpzand et al., 2016; Vasconcelos, 2020).

Previous studies reveal that incivility is common in the workplace. According to Cortina et al. (2013), approximately 70% of American participants admitted that there were the victims of incivility at least once in the past 3 years. Similarly, the same scholars indicated that more than 50% of American frontline working adults experienced incivility in at least one in the previous 5 years. The frequency of WI was even more common in the health sector (Armstrong, 2018; Bar-David, 2018). The consequence of incivility differs between various sectors. According to Pearson and Porath (2005), when victims become targets of incivility at work, half will quit their jobs to avoid this problem, and half will spend time worrying about future relationships with instigators. They also indicated that victims of WI will share their issues with relatives (e.g., family, colleagues, and friends) about how sadly they have been attached.

WI was also researched from the instigator’s perspective (Pearson & Porath, 2005). Participants in Pearson and Porath’s (2005) study get a positive view of WI because these uncivil behaviors are useful tools for leaders, supervisors, or managers to keep stability in the workplace. For instance, when lower-level workers compete with supervisors in expertise, power, and abilities, a supervisor might use incivility behaviors to eliminate any threats to their position. According to Pearson et al. (2001), workers who often use uncivil behavior at work are treated specially in their corporations. In many cases, habitual instigators have more power in their work despite unacceptable behaviors toward others. From the victim’s view, habitual instigators have close relatives to the board of directors or have access to corporate power easily. In other words, victims admitted that WI is normal in their workplaces, and they accept this problem.

In addition, Liu et al. (2009) suggested that a person can be a victim or instigator based on the circumstances. In detail, virtually interviewees in this study admitted that they disregard lower employees or act angrily when someone gets a promotion. On the other hand, they often flatter the supervisors or colleagues to receive a favor. To sum up, both instigators and victims admitted that WI is normal in their organizations, and workers have two options: They accept incivility at workplaces, or they change the organization to find better working environments.

Chinese and Vietnamese Context

China, or The People’s Republic of China, is the only socialist country in the East Asian region. This is the world’s largest population, with approximately 1.3 billion people. The nation has four principal cities: Beijing (the capital), Shanghai, Chongqing, and Tianjin. Chinese is the official language, while English is the second common language. Vietnam, or the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, is one of two socialist countries in the Southeast Asian region. The nation has approximately 100 million people, with sixty percent living in the countryside. The country has three main megacities: Hanoi (the capital) in the North, Da Nang in the Middle, and Ho Chi Minh in the South. Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism are the main religions, immersing Chinese and Vietnamese society deeply.

Both countries were in economic crisis during the earlier 20th century before establishing the economic reform in 1965 (China) and 1986 (Vietnam), which converted the entire economy from state centralization to private centralization (Perry & Wong, 2020; Tran, 2021). Consequently, China has been the most rapid economy in the world, which has become the world’s second-largest economy. The Vietnamese economy has also rapidly risen to become one of the most potential areas in the Asia Pacific (Allen et al., 2005).

Hofstede (2001) states that both countries are regarded as high power distance societies. In detail, this dimension investigates the gap in the social hierarchy so that status, ranking, and position are highly valued in society. In detail, this author indicated that Vietnam and China are collectivist societies that highly appreciate the dependence among individuals in the community. In detail, people tend to create close relationships, beliefs, and harmony with each other. Each individual is ready to sacrifice his/her benefits for the whole community’s benefit. Thus, when two countries share the same cultural, political, and social characteristics, we assume that the frequency of WI between Vietnam and China’s workplaces is the same. Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H1. Chinese working adults would experience the same incivility behaviors as Vietnamese ones.

Gender and WI

There has been inequality between men and women in China and Vietnam for many centuries (Hannum et al., 2009; Nguyen & Simkin, 2017; Ylipaa et al., 2019). Under the influence of Confucianism, men and women are assigned different roles in traditional two countries’ cultures. While the household was regarded as a women’s arena, as they had a duty to give birth and educate children, men had a duty to become the rice earners. The difference led to biases for both genders for centuries that household chores are not men’s tasks and women could not succeed in workplaces. While biases have disappeared recently, these prejudgments somewhat exist in Vietnamese and Chinese workplaces, contributing to incivility for females. In line with these arguments, several pieces of the literature suggest that male employees in Vietnamese and Chinese are unwilling to accept women as equal to them in knowledge and ability (Hannum et al., 2009; Kang & Rowley, 2005; Nguyen & Simkin, 2017). As a result, men are likely to use incivility behavior against women to protect their dominant power in the workplace (Young et al., 2021). Cortina et al. (2002, 2013) found a similar finding when women experienced a higher level of WI than men in the USA context. According to Young et al. (2021), females must deal with uncivil behavior more frequently than males in Pakistan. Although no previous study conducted the linkage between gender and WI in Vietnam and China, we assumed that the influence of traditional culture might lead to the dominance of males in society and, thus, contribute to incivility behavior toward females. Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H2. Women would experience more incivility behaviors than men in Vietnamese and Chinese workplaces.

Age and WI

There is a scarcity of studies conducting the linkage between WI and age, so all literature confirmed a negative correlation between the two factors. For example, Leiter (2013) highlighted that older working adults experience lower uncivil behaviors than younger counterparts in US corporations. Lim and Lee (2011) mentioned that younger staff receive more incivility behaviors from colleagues than older ones. Similarly, research from Iceland reported that elderly managers have more uncivil behaviors toward employees than younger ones (Johannsdottir & Ólafsson, 2004). The above results suggested a significant relationship between age and WI, and younger working adults experience higher incivility behaviors than older ones. While there was no previous research on this linkage between WI and age in China and Vietnam, we found evidence of other negative behaviors, such as workplace bullying and abusive leadership (Nguyen et al., 2017; Nguyen et al., 2019). Therefore, we firmly believe this issue would exist because of the traditional respect for older adults in the two societies. In Confucius’s culture, experienced employees have a strong voice in workplaces, so they might use their power to diminish younger ones by using uncivil behaviors. As a consequence, we hypothesize that:

H3. Younger working adults would experience more incivility behaviors than older ones in Vietnamese and Chinese workplaces.

Organizational Hierarchy and WI

There is a positive linkage between a high position and an individual’s power in the workplace (Bowles & Gelfand, 2010). Therefore, supervisors are ready to use incivility behaviors against others to preserve their power (Lebel, 2016). This issue is prevalent in the Asian context, especially in high power distance societies (e.g., China, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam). In high-context countries, power holders will be less managed by regulations and policies, so they are not scared of punishment for uncivil behaviors. Consequently, lower-status employees often become victims of incivility behaviors from their supervisors (Aquino et al., 2001). Porath et al. (2008) showed that the frequency of incivility behaviors would depend on the working adults’ hierarchy in the workplace, so the lower status individuals deal with negative behavior higher than high-status ones. Although no previous studies about the linkage between WI and organizational hierarchy were conducted in Vietnam and China, we firmly believe this issue would exist in the two societies. Thereby, Vietnamese and Chinese employees are more likely to receive incivility behaviors than supervisors. Thus, we hypothesize that:

H4. Subordinates would experience more incivility behaviors than supervisors in Vietnamese and Chinese workplaces.

Working Experiences and WI

Several pieces of the literature showed a positive linkage between high-intensity working experience and organizational variables, such as job satisfaction and commitment (Bedeian et al., 1992; Brimeyer et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2016). With many years of servicing for the company, individuals can reduce the frequency of their uncivil behavior in the workplace (Sliter et al., 2012). While there are no empirical studies about this linkage in Vietnamese and Chinese contexts, this issue adapts to the two societies because of high respect for experienced staff and their time at the workplace. Thus, we hypothesize that:

H5: Individuals with more working experience can reduce the frequency of incivility behaviors more than those with less working experience in Vietnamese and Chinese workplaces.

Method

Sample and Procedure

The quantitative method is selected to calculate the incivility behaviors in Chinese and Vietnamese workplaces. English is the original questionnaire’s language, so the authors sent it to two Vietnamese and Chinese experts for translation. Then each version and the original questionnaire were sent to one expert who is fluent in English, Chinese, and Vietnamese to re-check the similarity between the two versions. As a result, the expert confirmed the validity of the translated versions. The translating process is displayed in Figure 1. This study selects Cortina et al. (2001) questionnaire, which comprises seven items, ranging from 0 (totally disagree) to 4 (totally agree). The detailed questionnaire is attached in Appendix 1.

Figure 1.

The questionnaire process.

A pilot study was conducted to test the validity of the questionnaire in two countries. In detail, we randomly sent the questionnaire to 100 Vietnamese and Chinese respondents who were master’s students at two universities in Hanoi (Vietnam) and Beijing (China). As a result, 72 responses were collected. A paired-sample T-test was selected to test the incivility behaviors at workplaces between the two countries, which is displayed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Comparison of WI Between Chinese and Vietnamese.

Measure	Mean		p	95% confidence interval of the difference
Measure	Chinese (n = 40)	Vietnamese (n = 32)	p	Lower	Upper
WI	1.645	1.324	.03*	−0.087	0.367

p < .005.

As can be seen from Table 1, Chinese respondents experienced higher WI scores than Vietnamese respondents, and the difference was significant (p = .03 < .05), which confirmed the validity of the questionnaire in this study. Moreover, many students advised the authors to eliminate items 3 (made demeaning or derogatory remarks about you) and 5 (ignored or excluded you from professional camaraderie) due to irrelevance in Vietnamese and Chinese workplaces. Therefore, we removed them from the official questionnaire.

All organizations and respondents were asked for permission to participate in the research voluntarily. All responses were confirmed to maintain confidentially. To avoid common method bias, we collected data at two different times, with a time gap of 6 months (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In time 1, we collected data from voluntary Vietnamese working adults who have been working in two state organizations (a research and development (R&D) institution and a university) and one private organization (a marketing enterprise) in the main cities: Hanoi (the capital in the North), Vinh (in the Middle), and Ho Chi Minh (in the South). The author contacted the human resource departments to ask permission to send the surveys to members of each organization directly. Additional information about informed consent and guideline for fulfilling items were included in the questionnaire. The data collection was conducted over 3 months. A total of 750 surveys were sent to respondents, and 500 were collected. We removed 241 invalid surveys. Thus, 259 surveys (51.8%) were used in the analysis. In time 2, the voluntary Chinese individuals have collected in the same sectors as Vietnamese respondents (a university, R&D, and marketing enterprise) in three main cities: Beijing (the capital), Shanghai, and Chongqing. The authors used the Tencent software to collect data online, which was conducted within 2 months. A total of 705 surveys were collected. Later, 339 responses were valid to further analysis. Altogether, 598 surveys from two countries were valid to move to further data analysis.

The detailed demographic information is displayed below in Table 2. The demographic information was coded for further data analysis as follows: Age (Above 30 years = 1 and Below 30 years = 2), Gender (Male = 1 and Female = 2), Managerial ranks (Employee = 1 and Supervisor = 2), and Working experience (Below 10 years = 1 and Above 10 years = 2).

Table 2.

Demographic Information of the Vietnamese and Chinese Sample (n = 598).

Demographic variables	Vietnam	China
Gender
Male	108 (41.6%)	80 (23.5%)
Female	151 (58.4%)	259 (76.5%)
Total	259 (100%)	339 (100%)
Age
Above 30	138 (53.2%)	50 (14.7%)
Below 30	121 (46.8%)	289 (85.3%)
Total	259 (100%)	339 (100%)
Managerial ranks
Employee	226 (87.2%)	280 (82.5%)
Supervisor	33 (12.8%)	59 (17.5%)
Total	259 (100%)	339 (100%)
Working experience
Vietnam
Below 10 years	164 (63.3%)	288 (84.9%)
Above 10 years	95 (36.7%)	51 (15.1%)
Total	259 (100%)	339 (100%)
Sector
University	100 (38.6%)	113 (33.3%)
R&D	86 (33.2%)	134 (39.5%)
Marketing	73 (28.2%)	92 (27.2%)
Total	259 (100%)	339 (100%)

SPSS software is selected to analyze the quantitative data. In detail, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), Cronbach’s alpha, and Paired-sample T-tests were conducted to explore the different demographic variables in WI between China and Vietnam. In detail, EFA and Cronbach’s alpha were selected to verify the validity of the questionnaire’s items. In the next step, Paired-sample T-tests were used to test the hypotheses.

Reliability and Validity of the Measurement Scales

To examine the data’s validity, Kaiser–Meyer–Oklin (KMO), EFA, Cronbach’s Alpha, and total variance were analyzed in this study. Kaiser (1974) stated that KMO must exceed 0.5 for further analysis. As a result, KMO in this study was 0.875, which passed the preliminary analysis. The detailed analysis is displayed in Appendix 2. In the next step, all items had a factor loading ranging from 0.840 to 0.866, which fulfills the minimum value of 0.4 for valid EFA (Nunnally, 1978). Further, Cronbach’s alpha was .904, which exceeded the requirement of .7. All items with eigenvalues higher than one were 72.62% of the total variance. The first factor represented 22.21% of the variance, below the maximum of 30% (Falk & Miller, 1992). Altogether, all statistics reached the standard condition, confirming the validity of the data. The detailed characteristic is displayed in Appendix 3.

Results

The first hypothesis compares the WI level between Chinese and Vietnamese working adults. Although the score of China (M = 1.411) was less than Vietnam (M = 1.499), the difference is insignificant (p = .376 > .05). Therefore, hypothesis 1 was accepted, which confirmed our prediction about the same level of WI in Vietnam and China. The detailed calculation is mentioned in Appendix 4.

The second hypothesis compared the WI level between men and women. As can be seen from Table 3, the score of women (M = 1.356) was less than men (M = 1.638), and the difference was significant (p = .002 < .05). Therefore, hypothesis 2 was rejected.

Table 3.

WI in Gender, Age, Managerial Ranks, and Working Experiences Differ.

Number	Variables	Number	M	SD	p	95% confidence interval of the difference
Number	Variables	Number	M	SD	p	Lower	Upper
1	Gender
	Male	188	1.638	1.119	.002*	−0.093	0.247
	Female	410	1.356	1.007
2	Age
	Above 30	427	1.451	1.017	.823	−0.165	0.208
	Below 30	171	1.429	1.134
3	Managerial ranks
	Employee	506	1.424	1.052	.267	−0.366	0.101
	Supervisor	92	1.557	1.043
4	Working experiences
	Below 10 years	452	1.404	1.022	.199	−0.325	0.067
	Above 10 years	146	1.533	1.108

p < .05 (two-tailed).

The third hypothesis aimed to compare the level of WI between younger and older working adults. Table 3 showed a difference between the two types of working adults, but this was insignificant (p = .823 > .05). Therefore, hypothesis 3 was rejected. The fourth hypothesis compared the WI level between employees and supervisors. Table 3 shows a difference in the organizational hierarchy’s WI, which is insignificant (p = .823 > .05). Therefore, hypothesis 4 was rejected. The fifth hypothesis aimed to compare the level of WI between higher experienced adults and lower ones. Table 3 showed a difference between the two types of working adults, but this was insignificant (p = .199 > .05). Therefore, hypothesis 5 was rejected.

The authors also compared the mean difference in each sector between the two countries. As a result, all three sectors highlighted insignificant values, so there was no difference in university, R&D, and marketing enterprises between China and Vietnam. The detailed calculation is displayed in Appendix 5.

Discussion and Implications

This is the first cross-cultural study investigating WI in the Asian context, particularly in China and Vietnam. This study also supplemented the incomplete knowledge of WI and explored the influence of demographic factors on working adults’ incivility behaviors. While we evaluated five hypotheses in this study, only the first one was accepted. In detail, the frequency of WI is not different between China and Vietnam, which suggests that the same cultural, political, and social characteristics can lead to the same uncivil behaviors in the workplace.

Although the result of the second hypothesis contrasted with our assumption, this was logical in current Vietnamese and Chinese workplaces. In a traditional Confucian society, males are assigned to become bread-earners and are under pressure to succeed in their careers (Lim, 2021). As a result, they might use uncivil behaviors as a tool to compete with others. In reverse, men would experience incivility behaviors from supervisors and colleagues for the same reasons. This result contrasts with Cortina et al. (2001) in the Western context; however, it is similar to Lim and Lee’s (2011) study in the Asian context. This would be because of the difference in gender equality between the two contexts. According to Annesley et al. (2015), many Western countries express gender equality, and both males and females share the work and family tasks, reducing males’ pressure on the workplace. In contrast, Confucius countries (e.g., China and Vietnam) are top rank in gender inequality, so males and females are assigned to duty separately. Therefore, the competition at Vietnamese and Chinese’s workplaces are extremely high, making male workers experience high pressure from colleagues in a high-status race. Due to this issue, male individuals might receive incivility behaviors from others.

The finding rejected the third hypothesis, which is contrasted with the prior studies, which confirm a significant difference between the older and younger staff’s experiences of WI (Leiter, 2013; Lim & Lee, 2011; Rayner, 1997). This is an exciting exploration that deserves further analysis in the future. Similarly, the finding also rejected the fourth hypothesis, which is somewhat surprising and contrasted with prior literature, where supervisors experience more incivility behaviors than employees (Pearson et al., 2000) and vice versa (Caza & Cortina, 2007). The last hypothesis is also rejected, similar to Sackett et al.’s (2006)study, which confirms an insignificant association between working experience and negative workplace behaviors. To explain this issue, we suggested that uncivil behaviors often originate from an organization’s regulations, policies, and corporate culture. Therefore, working experiences will not be affected by this issue.

This result provided several preliminary information concerning the cross-cultural empirical experiences of WI in collectivist cultures. In detail, gender was regarded as an essential factor in predicting the degree of WI in workplaces, and males experienced more frequencies of uncivil behaviors than females in Vietnam and China. This finding was contrasted with Western studies (Cortina et al., 2001) but in line with previous Asia literature (Lim & Lee, 2011). Therefore, this result accreted the WI’s theory between the Asian and Western contexts.

For the rest of the demographic variables, they confirmed an insignificant difference in incivility behaviors between the categories of age, managerial ranks, and working experiences. This study broadened the limited theory about WI in the Asian context and identified the influence of national characteristics on workplaces’ uncivil behaviors. These results also showed a remarkable contribution to organizations and supervisors in Vietnam and China. In detail, we suggest that supervisors should reduce uncivil behaviors in the workplace for male employees in two societies.

The consequence of WI would be different between the short-term and long-term in both genders. In the short term, a male is ready to attack or take aggressive attitudes to the instigators. In contrast, females decide to be silent at the beginning of experiencing incivility behaviors (Pearson & Porath, 2005). While women try to avoid conflicts in the workplace, men find suitable ways to prevent themselves from uncivil behaviors. In the long term, the consequences would be somewhat different for women when they confide in their relatives, such as family, friends, and colleagues. In reverse, men continue to attach to instigators until the incivility behaviors disappear or they will leave out the workplace. We can conclude that the level of aggressiveness in WI differs between men and women.

One solution is to build a code of conduct to limit uncivil behaviors in the workforce. As Confucianism is a core traditional culture in China and Vietnam, supervisors can adapt to use critical values in this philosophy, such as respect, dignity, and harmony, to define the proper behaviors in the workplace. Individuals with positive behaviors might receive a tangible reward and vice versa. The second solution is to recruit new employees with good behaviors and attitudes, which can eliminate WI from the beginning. However, it raises a question about selecting candidates with positive attitudes and behaviors. The recruitment process would be the answer when organizations can use role-playing exercises that put candidates into conflict situations to determine their reactions. These individuals who have positive attitudes will deal with difficulties politely.

Limitations and Conclusion

While demographic variables are investigated in this research deeply, other factors still impact WI in the workplace. For example, organizational variables (organizational commitment, person-organization fit, and organizational justice), individual characteristics (e.g., personality), and negative factors (workplace bullying, work-family conflict, and stress) may contribute to WI in the workplace. Further, scholars can add these factors to evaluate how they affect WI in the workplace. Further, although we attempted to conduct a cross-cultural study, the sample size was modest and random. Future studies should collect more data from specific sectors (e.g., education, industry, and manufacturing).

To sum up, this research provides empirical findings on the influences of demographic variables on WI in Vietnamese and Chinese contexts. The result confirms a significant association between gender and WI, with males experiencing higher uncivil behaviors than females. If incivility behaviors still happen in the workplace, they will affect the organization’s performance and stability in the future. Therefore, we have established several solutions to eliminate this issue. Finally, this study is expected to open the scope of WI in the Asian context, particularly in Vietnam and China.

Appendices

Appendix 1: The WI Questionnaire (Source. Cortina et al., 2001)

Put you down or was condescending to you?

Paid little attention to your statement or showed little interest in your opinion?

Made demeaning or derogatory remarks about you?

Addressed you in unprofessional terms, either publically or privately?

Ignored or excluded you from professional camaraderie?

Doubted your judgment on a matter over which you have responsibility?

Made unwanted attempts to draw you into a discussion of personal matters?

Appendix 2.

KMO and Bartlett’s Test for This Research.

Variables	Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy	KMO and Bartlett’s test
Variables	Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy	Approx. χ²	df	Sig.
WI	0.875	1,852.187	10	.000

Appendix 3.

Findings of Factor Analysis and Reliability Test for This Research.

Items	Factor loadings
Q1 (Put you down or was condescending to you)	0.848
Q2 (Paid little attention to your statement or show little interest in your opinion)	0.848
Q4 (Addressed you in unprofessional terms, either publicly or privately)	0.840
Q6 (Doubted your judgment on a matter over which you have responsibility)	0.866
Q7 (Made unwanted attempts to draw you into a discussion of personal matters)	0.858

Appendix 4.

Comparison of WI Between Chinese and Vietnamese.

Measure	Mean		p	95% confidence interval of the difference
Measure	Chinese (n = 339)	Vietnamese (n = 259)	p	Lower	Upper
WI	1.411	1.499	.376	−0.093	0.247

Appendix 5.

Comparison of WI in Three Sectors Between Chinese and Vietnamese.

Sector	M		p	95% confidence interval of the difference
Sector	Chinese	Vietnamese	p	Lower	Upper
University	2.454	3.425	.214	−0.021	0.231
R&D	1.326	2.132	.323	−0.134	0.212
Marketing	1.947	1.132	.168	−0.165	0.297

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Quan Hoang Nguyen Tran

References

Alias

Ojo

A. O.

Ameruddin

N. F. L.

(2020). Workplace incivility: The impact on the Malaysian public service department. European Journal of Training and Development, 46(3/4), 356–372. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-02-2020-0031

Allen

Qian

(2005). Law, finance, and economic growth in China. Journal of Financial Economics, 77(1), 57–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2004.06.010

Andersson

L. M.

Pearson

C. M.

(1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202131

Annesley

Engeli

Gains

(2015). The profile of gender equality issue attention in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12095

Aquino

Tripp

T. M.

Bies

R. J.

(2001). How employees respond to personal offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim status and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.52

Armstrong

(2018). Management of nursing workplace incivility in the health care settings: A systematic review. Workplace Health & Safety, 66(8), 403–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165079918771106

Arshad

Ismail

I. R.

(2018). Workplace incivility and knowledge hiding behavior: Does personality matter? Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 5(3), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-06-2018-0041

Bar-David

(2018). What’s in an eye roll? It is time we explore the role of workplace incivility in healthcare. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, 7(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-018-0209-0

Bedeian

A. G.

Ferris

G. R.

Kacmar

K. M.

(1992). Age, tenure, and job satisfaction: A tale of two perspectives. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(92)90045-2

10.

Bowles

H. R.

Gelfand

(2010). Status and the evaluation of workplace deviance. Psychological Science, 21(1), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609356509

11.

Brimeyer

T. M.

Perrucci

Wadsworth

S. M.

(2010). Age, tenure, resources for control, and organizational commitment. Social Science Quarterly, 91(2), 511–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00705.x

12.

Caza

Cortina

(2007). From insult to injury: Explaining the impact of incivility. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(4), 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701665108

13.

Chen

Wang

Peng

Geimer

Sharp

Jex

(2019). The multidimensionality of workplace incivility: Cross-cultural evidence. International Journal of Stress Management, 26(4), 356. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000116

14.

Cortina

L. M.

Kabat-Farr

Leskinen

E. A.

Huerta

Magley

V. J.

(2013). Selective incivility as modern discrimination in organizations evidence and impact. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1579–1605. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920631141883

15.

Cortina

L. M.

Lonsway

K. A.

Magley

V. J.

Freeman

L. V.

Collinsworth

L. L.

Hunter

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(2002). What’s gender got to do with it? Incivility in the federal courts. Law & Social Inquiry, 27(2), 235–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2002.tb00804.x

16.

Cortina

L. M.

Magley

V. J.

Williams

J. H.

Langhout

R. D.

(2001). Incivility at the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64

17.

Estes

Wang

(2008). Integrative literature review: Workplace incivility: Impacts on individual and organizational performance. Human Resource Development Review, 7(2), 218–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311418835

18.

Falk

R. F.

Miller

N. B.

(1992). A Primer for Soft Modeling. University of Akron Press.

19.

Guo

Qiu

Gan

(2022). Workplace incivility and work engagement: The chain mediating effects of perceived insider status, affective organizational commitment and organizational identification. Current Psychology, 41, 1809–1820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00699-z

20.

Hannum

Kong

Zhang

(2009). Family sources of educational gender inequality in rural China: A critical assessment. International Journal of Educational Development, 29(5), 474–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2009.04.007

21.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.

22.

Johannsdottir

H. L.

Ólafsson

R. F.

(2004). Coping with bullying in the workplace: The effect of gender, age and type of bullying. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32(3), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069880410001723549

23.

Kaiser

H. F.

(1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575

24.

Kang

H. R.

Rowley

(2005). Women in management in South Korea: Advancement or retrenchment? Asia Pacific Business Review, 11(2), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360238042000291171

25.

Khan

Murtaza

Neveu

J. P.

Newman

(2022). Reciprocal relationship between workplace incivility and deviant silence—the moderating role of moral attentiveness. Applied Psychology, 71(1), 174–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12316

26.

Kim

Shapiro

(2008). Retaliation against supervisory mistreatment: Negative emotion, group membership, and cross-cultural difference. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(4), 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444060810909293

27.

Lebel

R. D.

(2016). Overcoming the fear factor: How perceptions of supervisor openness lead employees to speak up when fearing external threat. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 135, 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.05.001

28.

Leiter

(2013). Analyzing and theorizing the dynamics of the workplace incivility crisis. Springer.

29.

Lim

(2021). Confucian masculinity: State advocacy of active fatherhood in Singapore. Men and Masculinities, 24(1), 46–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X19867389

30.

Lim

Lee

(2011). Work and non-work outcomes of workplace incivility: Does family support help? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(1), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021726

31.

Liu

Steve Chi

Friedman

Tsai

(2009). Explaining incivility in the workplace: The effects of personality and culture. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 2(2), 164–184.

32.

Liu

Peng

(2016). How organizational tenure affects innovative behavior? Nankai Business Review International, 7(1), 99–126. https://doi.org/10.1108/NBRI-01-2016-0001

33.

Loh

J. M.

Thorsteinsson

E. B.

Loi

N. M.

(2021). Workplace incivility and work outcomes: Cross-cultural comparison between Australian and Singaporean employees. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 59(2), 305–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4716.2009.00035.x

34.

Nguyen

D. T.

Teo

S. T.

Grover

S. L.

Nguyen

N. P.

(2017). Psychological safety climate and workplace bullying in Vietnam’s public sector. Public Management Review, 19(10), 1415–1436. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1272712

35.

Nguyen

D. T.

Teo

S. T.

Grover

S. L.

Nguyen

N. P.

(2019). Respect, bullying, and public sector work outcomes in Vietnam. Public Management Review, 21(6), 863–889. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1538426

36.

Nguyen

T. Q. T.

Simkin

(2017). Gender discrimination in Vietnam: The role of personal face. Journal of Gender Studies, 26(6), 609–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2015.1095083

37.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1978). Psychometric theory. McGrawHill.

38.

Pearson

C. M.

Andersson

L. M.

Porath

C. L.

(2000). Assessing and attacking workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29(2), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(00)00019-X

39.

Pearson

C. M.

Andersson

L. M.

Wegner

J. W.

(2001). When workers flout convention: A study of workplace incivility. Human Relations, 54(11), 1387–1419. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267015411001

40.

Pearson

C. M.

Porath

(2005). On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace incivility: No time for nice? Think again. Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2005.15841946

41.

Perry

E. J.

Wong

(2020). The political economy of reform in post-Mao China. BRILL.

42.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

43.

Porath

Overbeck

Pearson

(2008). Picking up the gauntlet: How individuals respond to status challenges. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(7), 1945–1980. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00375.x

44.

Rayner

(1997). The incidence of workplace bullying. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7(3), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1298(199706)7:3%3C199::AID-CASP418%3E3.0.CO;2-H

45.

Sackett

P. R.

Berry

C. M.

Wiemann

S. A.

Laczo

R. M.

(2006). Citizenship and counterproductive work behavior: Clarifying relationships between the two domains. Human Performance, 19(4), 441–464. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1904_7

46.

Schilpzand

De Pater

I. E.

Erez

(2016). Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(6), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1976

47.

Sherrod

J. T.

Lewallen

L. P.

(2021). Workplace incivility and its effects on the physical and psychological health of nursing faculty. Nursing Education Perspectives, 42(5), 278–284. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000839

48.

Shi

Guo

Zhang

Xie

Wang

Sun

Fan

(2018). Impact of workplace incivility against new nurses on job burn-out: A cross-sectional study in China. BMJ Open, 8(4), e020461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020461

49.

Sliter

Jex

(2012). The employee as a punching bag: The effect of multiple sources of incivility on employee withdrawal behavior and sales performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.767

50.

Smith

J. G.

Morin

K. H.

Lake

E. T.

(2018). Association of the nurse work environment with nurse incivility in hospitals. Journal of Nursing Management, 26(2), 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12537

51.

Torkelson

Holm

Bäckström

(2016). Workplace incivility in a Swedish context. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 6(2), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.19154/njwls.v6i2.4969

52.

Tran

Q. H. N.

(2021). Organisational culture, leadership behaviour and job satisfaction in the Vietnam context. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 29(1), 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-10-2019-1919

53.

Vasconcelos

A. F.

(2020). Workplace incivility: A literature review. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 13(5), 513–542. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-11-2019-0137

54.

Wang

C. H.

Chen

H. T.

(2020). Relationships among workplace incivility, work engagement and job performance. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 3(4), 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-09-2019-0105

55.

Ylipaa

Gabrielsson

Jerneck

(2019). Climate change adaptation and gender inequality: Insights from rural Vietnam. Sustainability, 11(10), 2805. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102805

56.

Young

K. A.

Hassan

Hatmaker

D. M.

(2021). Towards understanding workplace incivility: Gender, ethical leadership and personal control. Public Management Review, 23(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1665701

57.

Zhan

Luo

(2019). An identification-based model of workplace incivility and employee creativity: Evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 57(4), 528–552. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12204

Workplace Incivility and Its Demographic Characteristics: A Cross-Cultural Comparison Between Chinese and Vietnamese Working Adults

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

WI

Chinese and Vietnamese Context

Gender and WI

Age and WI

Organizational Hierarchy and WI

Working Experiences and WI

Method

Sample and Procedure

Reliability and Validity of the Measurement Scales

Results

Discussion and Implications

Limitations and Conclusion

Appendices

Appendix 1: The WI Questionnaire (Source. Cortina et al., 2001)

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References