CC BY
5
Organizational Psychology, 2022, Vol. 12, No. 3, P. 9-26. DOI: 10.17323/2312-5942-2022-12-3-9-26
ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
www.orgpsyjournal.hse.ru
How ethical leadership and incivility tolerance affect intention to sabotage at Jordanian universities?
Yousef ALSAFADI
Jadara University, Irbid, Jordan
Abstract. Purpose. The mediating roles of tolerance to workplace incivility between ethical leadership and intention to sabotage was investigated in Jordan. The study relied on social learning theory (Bandura, 1977; 1986), reinforcement theory (Skinner, 1938), and conservation of resource theory (Hobfoll, 1988). Methodology. A quantitative method with survey questionnaires were distributed to 376 employees in different universities, public and private, in northern Jordan to obtain data. The following variables were part of the self-administered survey developed for the purposes of this study: "ethical leadership" (10-item scale); "tolerance to workplace incivility" (8-item scale); "the intention to sabotage" (8-item scale). Data were analyzed with SPSS and structural equation modeling with AMOS. Findings. A significant and direct negative relationship was found between ethical leadership and employees' intention to sabotage in Jordan. Also, a significant and direct positive effect was found between tolerance to workplace incivility and employees' intention to sabotage, which indicates that tolerance to incivility increases intention to sabotage in Jordan. Further, it was found that tolerance to workplace incivility partially mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and employees' intention to sabotage in Jordan. Value of results. This paper improves the understanding of workplaces in Jordanian universities and facilitates the creation of healthier work environments. The findings also contribute to several fields of organizational research, such as: human resources management, organizational development, and organizational behavior. The findings have many theoretical and practical implications, which were discussed.
Keywords: ethical leadership, intention to sabotage, organizational culture, tolerance to workplace incivility, Jordan.
Organizations are constantly seeking long-term competitiveness and sustainability as the main drivers of this success in terms of human resources (Almaaitah, Alsafadi, Altahat, Yousfi, 2020; Parboteeaha, Serikib, Hoeglc, 2014). The behavior of human resources is constrained by many factors such as: rules, policies, and regulations that are applied in the organizations. These factors also form the value system, organizational culture, and control the integrity and behavior within organizations (Alsafadi, Altahat, 2021). Ethical work may be defined as how morality and values are used to achieve everyday jobs in accordance with the laws and value system of organizations. Thus, for organizations
Address: PO Box 2600, Irbid, Irbid, Jordan E-mail: Yousefalsafadi83@yahoo.com
Introduction
to remain sustainable and competitive in the long term, a stable foundation of ethical behavior determined by integrity, honesty, fairness and accountability is essential (Taamneh, Athamneh, Al Nsairat, 2017). Leadership styles come in many forms, like Transformational leadership style, Laissez-Faire leadership style, Transactional leadership style, Autocratic leadership style, Servant leadership style, Democratic leadership style, Ethical leadership style and Charismatic leadership style (Copeland, 2015; Ho, Fu, 2018; Yang, Zhu, 2016).
The decrease of ethical values in organizations causes corruption and conflicts among employees and a tainted reputation for any organization (Prottas, 2013; Thite, 2013). Employees at successful organizations are taught to exhibit ethical behavior related to administrative work immediately after being hired (Upadhyay, Singh, 2010). Jordan's universities play an integral role in its education sector; these universities realize the value of ethical leadership and work, both of which are important in furthering a sense of trust in Jordanian national institutions, at both the domestic and international levels (Taamneh et al., 2017). Even though leaders are typically understood to be a major source of ethical guidance for their employees (Kacmar, Carlson, Harris, 2013), little empirical research has discussed the moral side of leadership. Past studies have considered ethical leadership an irreducible division of the field of transformational and charismatic leadership (Bass, Avolio, 2000). The researchers began to separate and consider ethical leadership as an independent leadership style that includes a set of behaviors rather than a description of other leadership qualities or a part there of (Brown, Trevino, Harrison 2005; Kanungo, 2001).
At present, ethical leadership has become an increasingly important subject (Schoonbeek, 2012). An ethical leadership refers to behaviors consisting of appropriate norms (Demirtas, 2015). Its definition is cited as "the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making" (Brown et al., 2005, p. 120). It is considered an "essential leadership behavior" (Yildiz, Yildiz, 2016, p. 22). Several former researchers have found the importance of the effects ethical leadership has on attitudes and the promotion of positive behavior (Schoonbeek, 2012; Yidong, Xinxin, 2013; Yildiz, Yildiz, 2016). These past studies consistently show that ethical leaders work on clear standards and constants and continue to apply these standards using rewards and punishments (Khuong, Nhu, 2015). Even so, an analysis of the leader's influence and role in promoting ethical behavior has yet to be developed (Menzel, 2015). M. E. Brown and L. K. Trevino found that 12 followers, under study, would show a decrease in counterproductive and deviant behavior and an increase in pro-social behavior in the presence of ethical leadership (Brown, Trevino, 2006).
On the other hand, service sabotage is defined as a behavior of deviant employees that is purposefully performed to influence and disrupt services, which impacts customers' appraisals or quality of service presented by the organization (Harris, Ogbonna, 2002). Sociologists tried to explain sabotage using terms such as "deviant behavior" (Baker, 1963), "cheating at work" or "residual rule breaking" (Scheff, 1966), and "restriction of output and social cleavage in industry" (Collins, Dalton, Roy, 1946). Service sabotage has become a widespread organizational problem and is believed to be associated with many problems for staff members and for organizations. Contrary to other structures of organizational behavior, service sabotage consists of different secluded phenomena that make interpretation difficult (Analoui, 1995).
Unlike service sabotage, which is considered the actual act of sabotage, intention to sabotage is associated with the likelihood of being involved in these actions. Intention to sabotage is defined as a negative state of mind or unenthusiastic attitude, which is expressed as alienation, withdrawal and destruction. Moreover, it intends to hinder or have a harmful impact on a persistent service in the organization (Abu bakar, Arasli, 2016). In many cases, deviant behavior occurs without being noticed
by both customers and employers as well. Unfortunately, the occurrence of intention to sabotage is, for the most part, not well understood and as such not recognized as a matter requiring attention (Estes, Wang, 2008). The impact ethical leadership has on employees' intentions to sabotage is still a neglected issue in the research (Abu bakar, Arasli, 2016). Most previous research on employee service sabotage was applied only to Western cultures and limited research in this domain has been applied to the Middle East or Jordan's culture, as these regions have a different culture that may affect employees' work and behavior differently. Uncivil behavior has been found to differ from culture to culture (Montgomery, Kane, Vance, 2004). Even though Jordan exhibits a mostly classical Arabic heritage, its colonization by the Greeks, the Romans and the British has had many influences on its work culture. In regard to religion, 94% of Jordanians are Muslim, and there is an emphasis in Islamic law on treating people fairly, regardless of their background or status. This cultural climate is the background for influences on organizations in Jordan (Dana, 2000).
Organizational climate for incivility refers to "the degree to which incivility is tolerated within an organization" (Gallus, Bunk, Matthews, Barnes, Magley, 2014, p. 145). In a civil environment, misconduct is not tolerated; therefore, few cases of misconduct are expected. On the other hand, in an uncivil environment where misconduct is tolerated, many cases of misconduct are expected (Crawford, 2015). However, the pursuit of regulatory objectives and goals of any organization may encourage misconduct, especially if organizational rewards emphasize the achievement of the objective, and if control systems are negligent in imposing penalties for misconduct that contributed to the achievement of those goals (Vardi, Weitz, 2004). Moreover, D. H. Gruenfeld with colleagues investigated kindness (behavior) and performance, the results found that people with goal-oriented attitudes, such as managers, were more interested in performance than behavior when appraising employees who worked with them (Gruenfeld, Inesi, Magee, Galinsky (2008). J. A. Gallus with colleagues found little previous research that tested the perpetrator of misconduct and organizations that have statements and details of such acts of misconduct (Gallus et al., 2014). This current study seeks to cover the gap addressed by J. A. Gallus and other researchers by expanding the scope of that study through the investigation of organizational tolerance to workplace incivility in mediating the relationship ethical leadership has on intention to sabotage in Jordan.
The data, social learning theory, reinforcement theory, and conservation of resources theory were considered to clarify psychological methods and the development of how ethical leadership affects employees' intention to sabotage via the mediation of tolerance to workplace incivility in Jordanian universities. Therefore, the problem of this study reflects the need to investigate the proposed model of the impact of ethical leadership on intention to sabotage in Jordan. Also, the study investigated the mediating role of tolerance to workplace incivility between ethical leadership and intention to sabotage as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Research model
The relationship between ethical leadership and intention to sabotage
Leaders need to be a reference and example of ethics for employees and workers and to identify the activities of the organization that may harm the cultivation of values in society in general (Aronson, 2001). Ethical leaders act as role models by initiating new ideas (Tu, Lu, 2012). Employees and workers improve their competence in completing their designated tasks with the help of role models, improving their knowledge through learning, acquiring the most recent skills and achieving their future (Walumbwa, Mayer, Wang, Workman, Christensen, 2011).
Many scholars have discussed ethical leadership in the scope of management and behavior inside organizations as regards the impact they have on individual, collective and organizational outcomes (Koh, Boo, 2001; Lucas, 2000; Treviño, Brown, Hartman, 2003). Employees' deviance and misbehavior in organizations has caused enormous damage to businesses (Bennett, Robinson, 2000; Brown, Treviño, 2006). Nevertheless, previous research has linked the behavior of leadership, and ethical leadership in particular, with employees' misbehavior and has found mixed results. While a negative relationship was found between ethical leadership and some staff misconduct in some studies (Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, 2010), other research has indicated no relationship (Detert, Trevino, Burris, Andiappan, 2007). However, in a more recent assessment recommended possible limiting conditions of "ethical leadership" on misbehavior of employees (Brown, Mitchell, 2010). Ethical leadership is valuable for limiting service sabotage, which is considered unwanted and defective conduct inside organizations (Ye§ilta§ Tuna, 2018). Researchers have used social learning theory to predict the effect ethical leaders might have on employees' intention to sabotage, as well as to clarify the relationship between ethical leadership and the output of the organization (Brown, Mitchell, 2010). In addition, it was proposed the application of social learning theory in the understanding of the negative consequences of ethical leadership (Brown, Treviño, 2006). Furthermore, the theory of social learning states that individuals learn from punishments and rewards and through indirect learning (Bandura, 1977; 1986).
Some researchers suggested the importance of indirect learning in the recognition of immoral or deviant behavior (Brown, Trevino, 2006; Brown et al., 2005). Thus, when the leader follows the workplace behavior standards effectively and clearly and employs the organizational reward system to strengthen it, the leader's message is more likely to become prominent in the workgroup, leading to the followers learning it indirectly (Bandura, 1986; Brown et al., 2005). Also leadership contains effect and control (Yukl, 2002). Therefore, from this perspective (social learning), leaders influence followers' ethical behavior through modeling. This review of the definition of the intention to sabotage and ethical leadership leads to the proposal of the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1: The relationship between ethical leadership and intention to sabotage is negative in Jordanian universities.
The relationship between "ethical leadership" and "tolerance to workplace incivility"
Workplace incivility has been defined as "low-intensity deviant (rude, discourteous) behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target in violation of workplace norms of mutual respect" (Pearson, Andersson, Porath, 2005, p. 179). D. G. Zauderer also explained the term (incivility) as "disrespectful behavior that undermines the dignity and self-esteem of employees and creates unnecessary suffering. In general, behaviors of incivility indicate a lack of concern for the well-being of others and contrary to how individuals expect to be treated" (Zauderer, 2002, p. 38). Furthermore, incivility contains all kinds of slight harassment like gossip, spreading of rumors or impolite behavior. In addition to verbal maltreatment, incivility contains nonverbal actions such as exclusion of others or neglect of colleagues (Lim, Cortina, 2005). However, some researchers found that organizations may support bad behavior to achieve organizational goals, especially if the organizational culture
appreciates organizational goals more than the employees and their respect. In such situations, the organization may reward an employee who is uncivil but high-performing (Babiak, Hare, 2006; Kusy, Holloway, 2009), these researchers reported that uncivil behavior is neglected and not marked as important, while performance is perceived to be more important to achieve organizational goals. In spite of this, it is estimated that 98% of U.S. employees are affected by incivility causing the loss of millions of dollars yearly to organizations (Porath, Pearson, 2013).
Ethical leadership exploits comprehensive patterns of communication such as paying attention to what the employees say, and distribution of power to followers in making decisions. In addition, it assures the involvement of everyday jobs to achieve ethical goals and employees' ethical behavior simultaneously (Piccolo, Greenbaum, Hartog, Folger, 2010). It has been reported that it is an ethical duty of leaders to form an organizational climate that supports creativity, breaks the routine, and makes personal initiatives to be ethical, while corresponding with the mission and goals of the organization (Baucus et al., 2007). Also, tolerance, forgiveness for others' mistakes, and the forgiveness of one's self in case someone makes a mistake facilitates building a safe environment, which encourages taking of risks and being creative, and is considered important to achieve progress in organizations (Lennick, Kiel, 2008), this might indicate that ethical leaders would be more likely to tolerate the mistakes of employees in the event that they engage in workplace incivility. After reviewing ethical leadership and tolerance to workplace incivility, the stated hypothesis was proposed.
Hypothesis 2: Ethical leadership positively foretells the tolerance to workplace incivility levels in Jordanian universities.
The relationship between tolerance to workplace incivility and intention to sabotage
Many aspects of the organization can be harmed by uncivil behavior, as it could cause a venomous work climate for the sufferers (victims) and the witnesses (Montgomery et al., 2004). Victims of misconduct suffer from poor mental states due to depression, worry, grief, and tension among the staff (Cortina, Magley, Williams, Langhout, 2001). When showing "tolerance to workplace incivility", as organizations forgive uncivil behaviors inside the organization, the perpetrator of misconduct could become a role model for others, consequently building an environment of tolerating of uncivil behavior (Abu bakar, Yazdian, Behravesh, 2017). Sufferers of workplace incivility may also strike back by participating in different kinds of unexpected behavior (Skarlicki, Folger, 1997).
Additionally, when employees are treated in discourteous ways, and uncivil behavior is tolerated from senior management or there is failure to punish the troublemaker, this encourages unenthusiastic emotions that may be reflected by counterproductive work behavior, such as the intention to sabotage (Abu bakar et al., 2017). Furthermore, tolerance of management or not responding to uncivil behavior in the organization might lead to erroneous work environments (Pearson et al., 2001). The present study depends on reinforcement theory (Skinner, 1938), and conservation of resource theory (Hobfoll, 1988) to clarify the relationship between "tolerance to workplace incivility" and "intention to sabotage". The theory of reinforcement states that one's behavior can be changed or modified by the use of reinforcement. The reward system is used to reinforce desired positive behavior and punishments are used to prevent undesirable negative behavior. Extinction is a way to prevent someone from conducting an acquired behavior (Skinner, 1938). Thus, according to the reinforcement theory, when uncivil behaviors are tolerated they are reinforced, and this results in the uncivil behaviors being repeated and may increase the employees' intention to sabotage. Thus, the subsequent hypothesis was proposed:
Hypothesis 3: Tolerance to workplace incivility level positively predicts daily "intention to sabotage" in Jordanian universities.
Mediating role of tolerance to workplace incivility between ethical leadership and
intention to sabotage
Despite putting forward a direct (negative) connection between ethical leadership and intention to sabotage, the notion that all followers would reduce their intention to sabotage by the same degree in response to ethical leadership is improbable. Instead, individual differences in tolerance to workplace incivility will have a mediator effect.
This study followed the conservation of resource theory (stress model), which indicates that people struggle to preserve, keep and construct resources, and that the main threat is the possible loss of these important resources (Hobfoll, 1988). Psychological stress can be defined as a response to an environment in which there is either a real loss of resources or a risk of loss of resources, which may produce stress, thus resources are the primary unit used to comprehend stress. Moreover, resources include: objects, circumstances, characteristics of personnel, or energies that are appreciated by the person (Hobfoll, 1989). Theory proposes that employees rely on their resources, thus, they try to keep, guard and construct precious individual resources and work resources (Wright, Hobfoll, 2004). To keep and protect employees' resources, they are required to have emotional interaction and share feelings and emotional interaction with others (Heaphy, Dutton, 2008). Also, theory proposes that persons use a sort of conduct by which they can preserve these precious resources because they face stress when losing them (Leung, Chen, Young, 2011). In addition to the above discussions, Abu bakar with colleagues proposed that disliked will possibly have the intention to sabotage due to them facing harmful emotions inside organizations (Abu bakar et al., 2017). In addition, the conservation of resource theory (COR) mentions that uncivil behavior and emotional or psychological distress (such as negative emotions, discourtesy, sabotage, and wasting of time) come about when individuals confront a loss of resource (Hobfoll, 1988; Wright, Hobfoll, 2004).
Apart from intensive workplace incivility research, the term tolerance to workplace incivility is merely mentioned as advice that practitioners and managers should consider stopping incivility (Andersson, Pearson, 1999; Estes, Wang, 2008). Moreover, J. Andersson and D. Pearson depicted the "incivility spiral" as asymmetrical uncivil relations connecting organizational members that may twist to violence (Anderson,_Gerbing, 1999). These relations could turn out to be the everyday norm among workers and result in conflicts in organizational culture (Pearson, Porath, 2005). Moreover, victims of workplace incivility suffer from poor mental states because of despair, nervousness, grief, tension and increased employee turnover (Cortina et al., 2001). In addition, studies have found a correlation between incivility and inferior organizational productivity, performance, commitment and health of employees (Lim, Cortina, 2005). Victims of workplace incivility may also attempt to get revenge by participating in some kind of uncivil behavior of their own, perpetuating the cycle (Skarlicki, Folger, 1997). Thus, from the reviewed literature, and relying on reinforcement theory (Skinner, 1938) and COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), the subsequent hypothesis is proposed.
Hypothesis 4: Tolerance to workplace incivility mediates the link between ethical leadership and employees' intention to sabotage.
Research method and procedures
Study design
A quantitative method approach employing survey questionnaires was used in this study, providing a deep look into these issues in Jordan.
Measurements
The following variables were part of the self-administered survey developed for the purposes of this study.
The first variable, "ethical leadership", was evaluated by using an adapted "Ethical Leadership Scale" (ELS) questionnaire (10-item) which was created by M. E. Brown with colleagues (Brown et al., 2005). A five-point Likert scale, ranging between "1 = strongly disagrees" and "5 = strongly agree" was used in this study for employee self-ratings of how ethical they perceived their manager's behavior to be. For example, "Disciplines employees who violate ethical standards."
"Tolerance to workplace incivility" (8-item) was adapted from J. Crawford (Crawford, 2015). The study used a five-point Likert scale, ranging between "1 = strongly disagrees" and "5 = strongly agree" for employee self-ratings of their management tolerance to workplace incivility. For example, "Management in my organization quickly responds to episodes of incivility."
The study evaluated the third variable, "intention to sabotage" (8-item) using an adapted questionnaire (11-item) (Abu bakar, Arasli, 2016). Employees in this part rated the frequency of their direct behaviors using a five-point Likert scale between "1 = never seen" and "5 = always." Examples include, "I feel it is not worth caring for the organization's resources, time and energy, as no one knows your value."
"Translation back-translation procedure" was applied to all parts of the questionnaire, which means it was translated back into English after first translating it to Arabic (Saunders, Lewis, Thornhill, 2009).
Validity was ensured with the following procedures. The final instrument was presented to a panel containing three bilingual university business professors to assess the translation accuracy and the items' clarity, creating face validity. Their feedback was also used in clarifying some words and items to adapt them to suit the Jordanian context. The following sections were contained in the final survey: demographic data (which included gender, age, education, and company type), relationships among tolerance to workplace incivility (8 items), ethical leadership (10 items), and intention to sabotage (11 items).
Procedures and participants
A pilot survey which was distributed to 15 respondents was used to test the instrument first. After that, 450 questionnaires in total were administered to the employees of different departments in public and private universities in northern Jordan. The study's participants were recruited from different universities in the north of Jordan, which contains many important universities, three public (AL-Balqa Applied University, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Yarmouk University) and four private universities (Ajloun National University, Irbid national university, Jadara University, Jerash University) (Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research in Jordan, 2019).
The representative sample size for the total population (about 9000 employees) should be 368 according to S. Thompson's equation (Thompson,1990). Each employee was sent a survey package containing a short overview of the purpose of the study, a cover letter asking them to participate, and the approval of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research in Jordan. The risk of common method bias was reduced by guaranteeing confidentiality as was suggested by P. M. Podsakoff with colleagues (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, Podsakoff, 2003). The employees in each of the university's different departments had the questionnaires distributed to them personally. An adequate amount of time for the completion of all sections was given. While some questionnaires were collected the same day as their distribution, others were collected the following day due to the preoccupation of some employees.
This study used the probability sampling method, as represented by the random sampling technique. A total of 402 questionnaires were completed out of the 450 questionnaires distributed to employees, resulting in a response rate of 89%. Due to missing data, only 376 responses were used in the final analysis. The survey was carried out in Arabic and the answers were then translated into
English before being entered into SPSS and AMOS software (structural equation modeling (SEM) with AMOS version 21).
Results
Descriptive statistics
According to descriptive statistics, 37% of the respondents were female, 58.2% of participants had more than ten years organizational tenure, 46.3% of them had a college degree, of those holding a college degree, 36.7% had a bachelor's degree, with the remainder having higher degrees. Public universities workers made up 51.1% of the participating employees.
Interrelations among the variables, as well as their standard deviations and means, are demonstrated in Table 1. There was a negative correlation between ethical leadership and intention to sabotage (r = -.386) and between ethical leadership and tolerance to workplace incivility (r = -.336) as was predicted. Also, there was a positive correlation between tolerance to workplace incivility and the intention to sabotage (r = .547). As such, these results give H1 and H3 preliminary support, while H2 did not receive support. Additionally, the Cronbach's alpha (a) shown in Table 1, which was used to assess the reliability, was greater than the threshold of .60. Average variance extract (AVE) was greater than the threshold of .50 as well (Fornell, Larcker, 1981). Moreover, the measurement model's convergent validity found in Composite Reliability (CR) was also greater than the threshold of 0.70 on the scale. Additionally, common method bias (CMB), Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings by percentage variance was 45.6, which has a full variance for a single factor of less than 50%, which suggests that CMB did not influence study data according Podsakoff et al. (2003).
Table 1. Standard deviation, correlations, means, and reliability
Variables 1 2 3 M SD
1. Ethical Leadership 1 -.386** -.336** 4.13 .582
2. Intention to sabotage -.386** 1 .547** 1.74 . 731
3. Tolerance to workplace incivility -.336** .547** 1 2.22 .708
Composite reliability (CR) .954 .956 . 944
Cronbach's a .952 .968 .943
Average variance extract (AVE) .68 .73 .68
Note: Correlations were revealed to be significant at (p) less than .001 (N = 376).
Moreover, factor loadings were investigated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (Hair et al., 1998). The results, as shown in Table 2, show that the factor loadings ranged from .60 to .95 and that they are all acceptable and significant.
Hypothesis tests
Measurement model
SEM and CFA were applied using the AMOS program in order to check the hypotheses which were proposed and to confirm the proposed model's goodness of fit. Goodness of fit was used to test both the hypothesized measurement model and structural model, as shown in Table 3 (Anderson, Gerbing, 1988). The measurement model contained three latent factors (employee's intention to sabotage, ethical leadership, tolerance to workplace incivility), and 29 indicators (11 items for employee's intention to sabotage, 10 items for ethical leadership, and 8 items for tolerance to workplace incivility). Table 3 shows the good fit demonstrated by the measurement model.
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis psychometrics properties of measures
Constructs Item Loading M SD
Ethical leadership Ethical-1 .947 4.20 .672
Ethical-2 .942 4.17 .683
Ethical-3 .861 4.22 .676
Ethical-4 .695 4.15 .671
Ethical-5 .871 4.15 .710
Ethical-6 .762 4.06 .755
Ethical-7 .72 4.06 .685
Ethical-8 .601 4.09 .711
Ethical-9 .879 4.13 .704
Ethical-10 .897 4.16 .683
Tolerance to workplace incivility Tolerance-I-1 .90 2.12 .835
Tolerance-I-2 .858 2.26 .854
Tolerance-I-3 .642 2.34 .790
Tolerance-I-4 .725 2.28 .810
Tolerance-I-5 .772 2.23 .829
Tolerance-I-6 .843 2.23 .830
Tolerance-I-7 .88 2.19 .854
Tolerance-I-8 .93 2.16 .882
Intention to sabotage Int-Sab-1 .82 1.71 .856
Int-Sab-2 .849 1.73 .804
Int-Sab-3 .944 1.78 .866
Int-Sab-4 .902 1.73 .869
Int-Sab-5 .857 1.73 .845
Int-Sab-6 .749 1.70 .782
Int-Sab-7 .727 1.75 .777
Int-Sab-8 .846 1.72 .781
Int-Sab-9 .792 1.68 .828
Int-Sab-10 .952 1.81 .928
Int-Sab-11 .849 1.80 .882
Note: For more details, see appendix A.
Table 3. Goodness of fit for the model
Measurement model Structural model Cut-off points
X2 = 600.038 X2 = 600.038
df = 367, p = .000 df = 367, p = .000
NFI = .949 NFI = .949 1 = perfect fit (Bentler, Bonett, 1980)
CFI = .979 CFI = .979 1 = perfect fit (McDonald, Marsh, 1990)
GFI = .901 GFI = .901 1 = perfect fit (Tanaka, Huba, 1985)
RMSEA = .041 RMSEA = .041 Good fit < .08 (Browne, Cudeck, 1993)
CMIN / df = 1.635 CMIN / df = 1.635 Excellent fit between 1 and 5 (Marsh, Hocevar, 1985)
SRMR = .0401 SRMR = .0401 Good fit fit < .05 (DeCoster,1998)
Note: (NFI) normed fit index; (CFI) comparative fit index; (GFI) goodness-of-fit indices; (CMIN / df) relative (RMSEA) root mean square error of approximation; (SRMR) standardized Root mean squared residual.
Hypothesized model
The structural model was tested after confirming the measurement model to be a good fit. The structural model also demonstrated a good fit as shown in Table 3 (Browne, Cudeck, 1993). The fully mediated model was then compared with the partially mediated model. Despite the results showing the fully mediated model to also provide a good fit to the data (SRMR = .07, RMSEA = .043, CFI = .978, NFI = .947, GFI = .90, df = 368, j2 = 621.477, x2/df = 1.689), no demonstrable improvement of fit
was achieved by this model over the partially mediated model. This helps verify the important and significant direct effect that ethical leadership has on employee's intention to sabotage when testing the partially mediated, as will be discussed later. Thus, in accordance with Baron and Kenny's (1986) procedure, the partially mediated model is a better fitting model for investigating the data.
Table 4 shows that the path coefficient between employee's intention to sabotage and ethical leadership (fi = -.386, p < .001) was both significant and negative, and it explains R2 (intention to sabotage) = 15% of the variance. Hypothesis 1 is supported by these results. As for Hypothesis 2, the result showed tolerance to workplace incivility being influenced by ethical leadership (fi = -.336, p < .001), and it explains R2 (tolerance to workplace incivility) = 11% of the variance. Hypothesis 2 was not supported as, even though the results were significant, they were in the opposite direction. Hypothesis3 predicted that employee's intention to sabotage are influenced by tolerance to workplace incivility, the results (fi = .547, p < .001) were both significant and positive, and it explains R2 (intention to sabotage) = 30% of the variance. Thus Hypothesis 3 is given empirical support by these results. Hypothesis 4 predicted that the relationship between employee's intention to sabotage and ethical leadership is mediated by tolerance to workplace incivility. Ethical leadership's effect on intention to sabotage was decreased and was negative and significant when adding tolerance to workplace incivility (the mediating variable) to the model. Additionally, the indirect effect of the relationship between employee's intention to sabotage and ethical leadership was significant (fi = -.177, p < .001). The net effect of the relationship between the employees' intention to sabotage and ethical leadership was significant (fi = -.387, p < .001). Because R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny's procedure gave support to the partially mediated model, Hypothesis 4 was supported (Baron, Kenny, 1986).
Table 4. Total, indirect and direct effects of the variables
"Exogenous" Variables "Endogenous" Variables "Total Effect" "Direct Effect" "Indirect Effect"
Ethical leadership Intention to sabotage -.387 -.210 -.177
Ethical leadership Tolerance to workplace incivility -.332 -.332 .000
Tolerance to workplace incivility Intention to sabotage .532 .532 .000
Discussion and conclusions
This research illustrated a model of the impact that ethical leadership has on employees' intention to sabotage that relied on social learning theory, reinforcement theory, and conservation of resource theory. Out of the four hypotheses, three were supported.
There was a negative relationship between ethical leadership and intention to sabotage (Hypothesis 1) and a positive relationship between tolerance workplace incivility and employees' intention to sabotage (Hypothesis 3). Also, the relationship between employees' intention to sabotage and ethical leadership is mediated by tolerance to workplace incivility (Hypothesis 4). But there was a negative relationship between ethical leadership and tolerance to workplace incivility which was unexpected and not in agreement with Hypothesis 2 that supposed it to be positive.
The current finding confirmed the significant negative impact of ethical leadership on employee's intention to sabotage. This finding is in agreement with social learning theory and earlier researchers discussed above (Abu bakar, Arasli, 2016; Altahat, Atan, 2018; Mayer et al., 2009; Mayer et al., 2010; Ye§ilta§, Tuna, 2018). Moreover, followers had a stronger reaction to ethical leaders, as when workplace behavior standards are followed effectively and obviously by the leader and the organizational reward system is used to strengthen it, the leader's message is likely to be prominent in the workgroup, and thus indirectly learned by the followers (Brown et al., 2005).
Another finding of this study is the negative and significant impact ethical leaders have on tolerance to workplace incivility. This means that ethical leaders in Jordanian universities tend to not tolerate employees' uncivil behaviors. Moreover, in a climate like Jordan, tolerance to workplace incivility caused a different outcome which is that when leaders accept and tolerate incivility, disciplined followers tend to feel injustice and this might lead to them committing incivil behavior. This is in agreement with reinforcement theory; it was stated by D. M. Mayer with colleagues that "ethical leaders communicate the importance of ethics to subordinates, use rewards and punishments to encourage desired behavior, and serve as ethical role models for followers" (Mayer et al., 2009, p. 3).
Hypothesis 3 was supported by this study's findings; employee's intention to sabotage is significantly and positively impacted by tolerance to workplace incivility. This means that there was a positive relationship between sabotage and tolerance to workplace incivility; when tolerance is high, Jordanian universities have an increase in intention to sabotage. This confirms that if Jordanian leaders want to decrease employees' intention to sabotage, then they must consider how to reduce uncivil behavior and not tolerate it. This result may be counter to S. R. Covey who has reported that when by forgiving others, leaders create personal trustworthiness, build ethical power, and create individual and organizational faith and trust (Covey, 2004, p. 165). It does agree with researchers, who said that when the organization does not stop uncivil behavior or prevent it, then it will become acceptable behavior and as a result negatively affect the workplace climate and employees' attitudes (Abu bakar, Megeirhi, Shneikat, 2018; Crawford, 2015). This is also in line with the reinforcement theory, which states that one's behavior can be changed or modified by the use of reinforcement and punishment. This means that when Jordanian leaders tolerated bad behaviors (reward it) will increase the sabotage at universities.
Moreover, the findings suggest that the relationship between ethical leadership and employee's intention to sabotage is partially mediated by tolerance to workplace incivility. This means that Jordanian ethical leaders seem to increase intention to sabotage if there is workplace incivility to be tolerated. Moreover, tolerance to workplace incivility has some negative effects on employees by making the victims or the sufereres feel injustice and are thus more likely to take revenge and lead to more sabotage. Thus, when the organization does not stop uncivil behavior or prevent it, it will be acceptable behavior and as a result it negatively affects the workplace climate and employees' attitudes, plus when the victims see that the uncivil behavior is reinforced from their management then they will retaliate with more uncivil behavior (Abu bakar et al., 2018). When the organization fails in the punishment of the perpetrator of uncivil behavior, this non-disciplined employee will be a role model which leads to a climate of adaptation (tolerance to uncivil behavior) (Loi, Loh, Hine, 2015). This kind of culture can exhaust employees' social energy, feelings, and emotions (Giumetti, McKibben, Hatfield, Schroeder, Kowalski, 2012).
The results also line up with COR theory. COR theory posits that people struggle for the sake of preserving, keeping, and constructing resources, and that the main threat is the possible loss of these important resources. Even though, victims of workplace incivility possibly will get revenge by participating in some kind of uncivil behavior (Abu bakar et al., 2018; Skarlicki, Folger, 1997), another reasonable intention to sabotage could be to preserve, keep, and construct these resources.
In conclusion, it is of utmost importance for organizations to reduce employees' intention to sabotage. This study's results suggest the critical role that managers or leaders play in reducing employee misbehaviors and their intention to sabotage (Brown, Trevino, 2006). But at the same time, leaders should not exhibit tolerance to workplace incivility as that would increase intention to sabotage in the setting of Jordanian universities.
Implications
The supporting evidence provides one theoretical implication which is the important role of self reinforcement theory, social learning theory, and COR theory in the explanation and illustration of why and how employee behavior is affected by ethical leadership in different organizations. Also, these findings have many practical implications, which emphasize the importance of investment in ethics and ethical leaders. The results suggest organizational efforts should be undertaken in order to highlight the importance of ethical leadership which can help in reducing incivility in followers. Also, the findings improve the understanding of workplaces in Jordanian universities and facilitate the creation of healthier work environments by supporting the need to enhance ethics training for managers and leaders. The findings also contribute to several fields of organizational research, such as: human resources management, organizational development, and organizational behavior.
This research highlights ethical leadership as a highly relevant and outstanding leadership style that should be developed and instilled in both developing and veteran leaders. Also, this study disagrees with the notion that that tolerance to incivility may lead to decreased intention to sabotage, as the opposite occurs in such climates like Jordan (Middle East and Arab culture) where intention to sabotage is increased by tolerance to workplace incivility. The results clearly indicate that leaders in Jordan should not tolerate workplace incivility in order to reduce sabotage.
Strengths, limitations, and future research directions
Only ethical leadership style was focused on in this study and data for any other leadership styles was not included. Had additional data been collected about other styles, a better context and comparison of how intention to sabotage is affected by different leadership styles would have been provided. Future studies that include this data about other leadership styles and sabotage would help understanding of this phenomena.
The study applied the recommended model only in Jordan, a single developing nation. Therefore, generalizing to other countries should only be done after careful consideration of the findings. The scope of the model could be widened by future research so it would more easily be applied to other countries, both those sharing the same foundations and culture and also those that do not. At that point, regional or geographic differences could be discovered using this collection of data. Future research could make use of this data in studies concerning ethical leadership in Jordanian universities, making note of Jordan's cultural and social characteristics and exploring how leadership characteristics are shaped by Jordanian culture. Another thing which can be investigated by future research are other factors that could have a moderating effect on the relationship between employee's intention to sabotage and ethical leadership, such as leaders and employees' gender, employee's work experience, and company type.
References
Abu bakar, M. A., Arasli, H. (2016). Dear top management, please don't make me a cynic: Intention to sabotage. Journal ofManagement Development, 35(10), 1266-1286. DOI: 10.1108/JMD-11-2015-0164 Abu bakar, M. A., Megeirhi, H., Shneikat, B. (2018). Tolerance for workplace incivility, employee
cynicism and job search behavior. The Service Industries Journal, 38(10), 629-643. Abu bakar, M. A.,_Yazdian, T., Behravesh, E. (2017). A riposte to ostracism and tolerance to workplace
incivility: a generational perspective. Personnel Review, 47(2), 441-457. Almaaitah, M., Alsafadi, Y., Altahat, S., Yousfi, A. (2020). The effect of talent management on organizational performance improvement: The mediating role of organizational commitment. Management Science Letters, 10(12), 2937-2944.
Alsafadi, Y., Altahat, S. (2021). Human resource management practices and employee performance:
the role of job satisfaction. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(1), 519-529. Altahat, S., Atan, T. (2018). Role of healthy work environments in sustainability of goal achievement; ethical leadership, intention to sabotage, and psychological capital in Jordanian universities. Sustainability, 10(10), 3559. Analoui, F. (1995). Workplace sabotage: its styles, motives and management. Journal of Management
Development, 14(7), 48-65. 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. Anderson, J., Gerbing, D. (1988). Structural equation practice: A review and recommended two-step
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. DOI: 10.1037//0033-2909.103.3.411 Aronson, E. (2009). Integrating leadership styles and ethical perspectives. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, 18, 244-256. DOI: 10.1111/j.1936-4490.2001.tb00260.x Babiak, P., Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in Suits: When psychopaths go to work. An Imprint of HarperCollins
Publishers, Regan Books, New York, NY. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Baron, R. M., Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J. (2000). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Mind Garden, Redwood City.
Baucus, M. S., Norton Jr., W. I., Baucus., D. A., Human, S. E. (2007). Fostering creativity and innovation without encouraging unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 97-115. DOI: 10.1007/ s10551-007-9483-4
Bentler, P. M., Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance
structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588 Bennett, R. J., Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85, 349-360. Brown, M. E., Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Ethical and unethical leadership: Exploring new avenues for
future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20, 583-616. Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. Leadership
Quarterly, 17(6), 595-616. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004 Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117-134. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002 Browne, M. W., Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, J. S. Long
(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Collins, O., Dalton, M., Roy, D. (1946). Restriction of output and social cleavage in industry. Applied
Anthropology, 5(3), 1-14. Copeland, M. K. (2015). The importance of ethics and ethical leadership in the accounting profession. Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting, 19, 61-98. DOI: 10.1108/S1574-076520150000019012
Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64-80. DOI: 10.1037/10768998.6.1.64
Covey, S. R. (2004). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York, Free Press.
Crawford, J. (2015). Tolerating workplace incivility: trade-offs and repercussions of rewarding uncivil high performers. Unpublished PhD theses, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Dana, L. P. (2000). Economies of the eastern Mediterranean region: economic miracles in the making. London, UK: World Scientific.
Demirtas, O. (2015). Ethical leadership influence at organizations: Evidence from the field. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(2), 273-284.
De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader's social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates' optimism: A multi-method study. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 297-311. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.03.002
DeCoster, J. (1998). Overview of Factor Analysis. Available at: http://www.stat-help.com/notes.html
Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., Burris, E. R., Andiappan, M. ( 2007). Managerial modes of influence and counterproductivity in organizations: A longitudinal business-unitlevel investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 993-1005.
Estes,B., Wang, J. (2008). Integrative Literature Review: Workplace Incivility: Impacts on Individual and Organizational Performance. Human Resource Development Review, 7(2), 218-240.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. DOI: 10.2307/3151312
Gallus, J. A., Bunk, J. A., Matthews, R. A., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., Magley, V. J. (2014). An eye for an eye? Exploring the relationship between workplace incivility experiences and perpetration. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(2), 143-154.
Giumetti, G., McKibben, E., Hatfield, A., Schroeder, A., Kowalski, R. (2012). Cyber incivility @ work: The new age of interpersonal deviance. Cyber Psychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(3), 148-154.
Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Power and the objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 111-127.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harris, L. C., Ogbonna, E. (2002). Exploring service sabotage: The antecedents, types and consequences of frontline, deviant, antiservice behaviors. Journal of Service Research, 4(3), 163-183. DOI: 10.1177/1094670502004003001
Heaphy, E. D., Dutton, J. E. (2008). Positive social interactions and the human body at work: linking organizations and physiology. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 137-162.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1988). The ecology of stress. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513-524.
Ho, S. Y., Fu, H. J. (2018). The impacts of leadership styles on work performances and organizational innovations in the financial distress industry. Revista de Cercetaresi InterventieSociala, 60, 25-38.
Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Harris, K. J. (2013). Interactive effect of leaders' influence tactics and ethical leadership on work effort and helping behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153(5), 577-597.
Kanungo, R. N. (2001). Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18, 257-265. DOI: 10.1111/j.1936-4490.2001.tb00261
Khuong, M. N., Nhu, N. V. Q. (2015). The effects of ethical leadership and organizational culture towards employee's sociability and commitment: A study of tourism sector in Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam. Journal of Advanced Management Science, 3(4), 329-336.
Koh, H. C., Boo, E. H. Y. (2001). The link between organizational ethics and job satisfaction: A study of managers in Singapore. Journal of Business Ethics, 29, 309-324. DOI: 10.1023/A:1010741519818
Kusy, M., Holloway, E. (2009). Toxic workplace! Managing toxic personalities and their systems of
power. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass: A Wiley Imprint. Lennick, D., Kiel, F. (2008). Moral intelligence: Enhancing business performance and leadership success.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton Business School Publishing. Leung, A. S., Wu, L., Chen, Y. Y., Young, M. N. (2011). The impact of workplace ostracism in service organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(1), 836-844. DOI: 10.1016/j. ijhm.2011.01.004
Lim, S., Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: the interface and impact
of general incivility and sexual harassment. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 483-496. Loi, N. M., Loh, J. M., Hine, D. W. (2015). Don't rock the boat: The moderating role of gender in the relationship between workplace incivility and work withdrawal. Journal of Management Development, 34(2), 169-186. Lucas, N. J. (2000). Lives of integrity: factors that influence moral transforming leaders. Dissertation
Abstracts International Section A, Humanities and Social Sciences, 60, 3289. McDonald, R. P., Marsh, H. W. (1990), Choosing a multivariate model: Non centrality and goodness of
fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 247-255. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.247 Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.002 Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R. (2010). Examining the link between ethical leadership and employee misconduct: The mediating role of ethical climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 7-16. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-011-0794-0 Menzel, D. C. (2015). Research on Ethics and Integrity in Public Administration: Moving forward,
looking back. Public Integrity, 17(4), 343-370. Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research in Jordan. (2019). Institutions of higher
education. Available at: http://www.mohe.gov.jo/en/Pages/default.aspx Montgomery, K., Kane, K., Vance, C. (2004). Accounting for differences in norms of respect: A study of assessments of incivility through the lenses of race and gender. Group and Organization Management, 29(2), 248-268. DOI: 10.1177/1059601103252105 Parboteeaha, K. P., Serikib, H. T., Hoeglc, M. (2014). Ethnic diversity, corruption and ethical climates in sub-Saharan Africa: recognizing the significance of human resource management. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(7), 979-1001. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2013.815251 Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., Porath, C. L. (2005). Workplace incivility. In S. Fox and P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (177-200). Washington, DC: APA Press. Pearson, C., Andersson, L., Wegner, J. (2001). When workers flout convention: A study of workplace
incivility. Human Relations, 54(11), 1387-1419. DOI: 10.1177/00187267015411001 Piccolo, R., Greenbaum, R., Hartog, D., Folger, R. (2010). The relationship between ethical leadership
and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 259-278. 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 Psycholog, 88(5), 879-903. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 Porath, C. L., Erez, A. (2007). Does rudeness really matter? The effects of rudeness on task performance
and helpfulness. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1181-1197. Porath, C., Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review, 91(1-2), 114-121. Prottas, D. J. (2013). Relationships among employee perception of their manager's behavioral integrity, moral distress and employee attitudes and well-being. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(1), 51-60. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-012-1280-z
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students (5th Ed.). London: Pearson Education.
Scheff, T. J. (1966). Being Mentally Ill. Chicago: IL Aldine Publishing.
Schoonbeek, B. (2012). Ethical leadership and the influence on organizational citizenship behavior: The moderating role of job autonomy and the mediating role of LMX. Unpublished Master Thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Skinner, B. F. ( 1938). The Behavior Of Organisms. New York: Appleton — Century — Crofts, Inc.
Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434-443.
Taamneh, M., Athamneh, S., Al Nsairat, B. (2017). The effect of administrators' work-related ethics on practicing human resource management functions at Jordanian universities. Int. J. Public Sector Performance Management, 3(3), 337-354.
Tanaka, J. S., Huba, G. J. (1985). A fit index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38(2), 197-201. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1985.tb00834.x
Thite, M. (2013). Ethics and human resource management and development in a global context: case study of an Indian multinational. Human Resource Development International, 16(1), 106-115.
Thompson, S. (1990). Adaptave cluster sampling . Journal of the American statistical Associtaion, 85(412), 1050-1059. DOI: 10.1080/01621459.1990.10474975
Treviño, L. K., Brown, M. E., Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. Human Relations, 56, 5-38. DOI: 10.1177/0018726703056001448
Tu, Y., Lu, X. (2013). How ethical leadership influence employees' innovative work behavior: A perspective of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(2), 441-455.
Upadhyay, Y., Singh, S. K. (2010). In favour of ethics in business: the linkage between ethical behaviour and performance. Journal of Human Values, 16(1), 9-19.
Vardi, Y., Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in Organizations: Theory, research and management. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader-member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 204-213.
Wright, T. A., Hobfoll, S. E. (2004). Commitment, psychological well-being and job performance: an examination of conservation of resources (COR) theory and job burnout. Journal of Business and Management, 9(1), 389-406.
Yang, Z., Zhu, J. (2016). Charismatic Leadership Behavior and Leadership Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Subordinates' Emotional Intelligence and the Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala, 55, 158-184.
Ye§ilta§, M., Tuna, M. (2018). The effect of ethical leadership on service sabotage. The Service Industries Journal, 1-27. DOI: 10.1080/02642069.2018.1433164
Yidong, T., Xinxin, L. (2012). How ethical leadership influence employees' innovative work behavior: A perspective of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(2), 441-455. DOI: 10.1007/ s10551-012-1455-7
Yildiz, H., Yildiz, B. (2016). The effects of ethical leadership, servant leadership and leader-member exchange on compulsory citizenship behaviors. International Business Research, 9(2), 19-33. DOI: 10.5539/ibr.v9n2p19
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations. New Jersey. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Zauderer, D. G. (2002). Workplace incivility and the management of human capital. Public Manager, 31(1), 36-43.
Received 28.09.2021
Appendix A
CFA Psychometrics Properties of Measures
Как этическое лидерство и терпимость к грубости влияют на склонность к саботажу в иорданских университетах?
АЛЬСАФАДИ Юсеф
Ирбидский национальный университет, Ирбид, Иордания
АЛЬТАХАТ Шади
Университет Джадара, Ирбид, Иордания
Аннотация. Цель. Была исследована опосредующая (медиаторная) роль терпимости к грубости на рабочем месте между этическим лидерством и намерением саботировать в Иордании. Исследование основывалось на теории социального научения (Bandura, 1977; 1986), теории подкрепления (Skinner, 1938) и теории сохранения ресурсов (Hobfoll, 1988). Методология. В исследовании использовался количественный метод — массовый опрос. Для получения первичных данных была распространена анкета среди 376 сотрудников различных университетов, государственных и частных, расположенных на севере Иордании. В авторский опросник, разработанный для целей настоящего исследования, были включены следующие переменные: «этическое лидерство» (ethical leadership) (шкала из 10 пуктов); «терпимость к грубости на рабочем месте» (tolerance to workplace incivility) (шкала из восьми пунктов); «склонность к саботажу» (intention to sabotage) (шкала из восьми пунктов). Данные были проанализированы с помощью SPSS, моделирование структурными уравнениями было осуществлено с помощью AMOS. Результаты. В Иордании была обнаружена значимая прямая отрицательная связь между этическим лидерством и намерением сотрудников заниматься саботажем. Кроме того, была обнаружена значимая прямая положительная связь между терпимостью к грубости на рабочем месте и склонностью сотрудников к саботажу, что может указывать на то, что терпимость к грубости повышает намерение к саботажу в Иордании. Кроме того, было обнаружено, что терпимость к грубости на рабочем месте частично опосредует связь между этическим лидерством и намерением сотрудников саботировать в Иордании. Ценность результатов. Эта статья улучшает понимание организационного поведения в иорданских университетах и способствует созданию более здоровой рабочей среды. Результаты также вносят вклад в несколько областей организационных исследований, таких как: управление человеческими ресурсами, организационное развитие и организационное поведение. Выводы имеют большое теоретическое и практическое значение, которое подлежит специальному изучению и обсуждению.
Ключевые слова: этичное лидерство; стремление к саботажу; организационная культура; терпимость к грубости на рабочем месте; Иордания.
