Antecedents and outcomes of customer incivility a study of frontline employees in vietnam’s retail industry

The study examined five constructs including: experienced supervisor incivility, experienced co-worker incivility, customer incivility, emotional labor and quality of work life; which ar

UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY

International School of Business

-Bùi Xuân Quỳnh

ANTECEDENTS AND OUTCOMES OF

CUSTOMER INCIVILITY:

A STUDY OF FRONTLINE EMPLOYEES IN VIETNAM’S

RETAIL INDUSTRY MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Ho Chi Minh City – Year 2018

UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY

International School of Business

-Bùi Xuân Quỳnh

ANTECEDENTS AND OUTCOMES OF

CUSTOMER INCIVILITY:

A STUDY OF FRONTLINE EMPLOYEES IN VIETNAM’S

Apart from the efforts of me, the on time completion of the thesis largely on the

encouragement and guidelines of many others I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the people who have been instrumental in the successful completion of thisthesis

I would like to express my appreciation to Dr Nguyễn Thị Mai Trang – my instructor She provided me with tremendous support, help and motivations Without herinstructions and guidance, I would not materialized this thesis

The guidance and supports received from ISB, classmates, friends and family arealso very important to me I am grateful for their constant support and help

Antecedents and outcomes of customer incivility:

A study of frontline employees in Vietnam retail industry

Abstract

One of the big challenges of retail industry is improve the service quality to catch up withthe growth of economics In order to improve the service quality, mandatory corporate emotional expression rules commonly employed; which is in turn, affect the frontline employee emotional well-being and increase turn-over intention – another big challenge

of retail industry Workplace incivility and emotional labor somehow exist in the middle

of this conflict; where they have been attended by researchers, and receiving more

attention as its practical potential and importance The study examined five constructs including: experienced supervisor incivility, experienced co-worker incivility, customer incivility, emotional labor and quality of work life; which are possible antecedents, mediators and outcome of customer incivility A face-to-face survey with the target of

300 valid samples conducted with frontline employees in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam The results support all hypotheses; whereas experienced supervisor incivility and

experienced co-worker incivility are antecedents of customer incivility; customer

incivility is found related to quality of work life – a non-negative outcome Surface actingand deep acting, the two dimensions of emotional labor are found as mediators in the relation between customer incivility and quality of work life with inconsistent effects addressing the importance of workplace incivility and positive roles of emotional labor which further study should attend

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 7

2 Theoretical background and hypotheses 13

2.1 Customer incivility and its antecedents 13

2.2 Emotional labor 21

2.2 Quality of work life 24

3 Research method 25

3.1 Procedure and sample 25

3.2 Measurements 26

3.3 Data collection 27

3.4 Measurement refinement 28

4 Data analyses results 30

4.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis 30

4.2 Hypotheses testing – Structural Equation Model (SEM) 31

5 Discussion 33

5.1 Implications for theory and research 35

5.2 Implications for managers 37

5.3 Conclusions 38

5.4 Limitations and implications for future research 38

6 Support information 40

6.1 Qualitative data collection procedures, guidelines and transcripts 40

6.2 English questionnaire 63

6.3 Vietnamese questionnaire 67

6.4 Analyses results 71

References 73

List of figures and tables

Table 1: Recent studies of workplace incivility antecedents 18

Figure 1: Research model 24

Table 2: Sample characteristics 27

Table 3: Data collection 28

Table 4: EFA results 29

Table 5: CFA Model fit 31

Table 6: Validity 31

Table 7: SEM Model fit 32

Table 8: Structural paths – SEM 32

Table 9: Mediation tests 33

1 Introduction

Retail industry holds a very important part in the economic; in 2016, total retail sales worldwide estimated to reach 22.049 trillion US$ and forecasted to continue to grow (“Total retail sales worldwide, 2015-2020 (trillions and % change)”, 2017) As other industries, retail industry facing multiple challenges; which two noticeable challenges are the necessity to improve the retail service quality when the growth of economics pushing the growth of retail industry (Vargo, Maglio, & Akaka, 2008), and retaining salespeople or service employees, who interact face-to-face with customers and often referred to as frontline employees, as high turnover is recognized as critical problem to the industry (Freemen, 2017; Kern & Grandey, 2009; Han, Bonn, & Cho, 2016) In order

to improve the retail service quality, retailers often apply strict and strong mandatory emotion expression rules to their frontline employees; however, mandatory emotion expression rules often associate with faking emotions which may negatively affect the frontline employees and reduce the job outcomes of frontline employees, increase

turnover intention (Grandey, 2003; Kim, Jung-Eun Yoo, Lee, & Kim, 2012)

The retail industry of Vietnam shows quite similarities; where the economy is forecasted to continue to grow (Thanh Thom, 2017), and considered as a transition market which in the world’s top 30 countries with most attractive retail market Vietnam industry revenue of 2017 is estimated to reach almost 130 billion US$ (Hùng Lê, 2018); and holds at least 50% of total businesses registered and employs almost three million labors (Nguyên Vũ, 2016), in which a large portion of these employees are working at thefrontline and providing services to customer directly with face-to-face contact High

turnover is addressed as a critical challenge to Vietnam retailers, results of a recent survey show that 28% of employers in retail industry find frontline employees not have long-term commitment and 49% address that frontline employees are not persistent whenapproached by another retail employer (Nam Dương, 2017) Vietnam retailers also employ mandatory emotion expression rules for their frontline employees to improve retail service quality; and not an exception, Vietnam retailers still not yet paid sufficient attention to the affects maybe produced and harm their business as well as the well-being

of their frontline employees

Concern the negative effects on the well-being of frontline employees; in 2016, there are many cases of customer aggressions made the news in Vietnam (Quốc Huy, 2016; Hoàng Đan, 2016; Tuấn Phùng, 2016); these are highlighted physical aggressive actions where the customers punched and slabbed the frontline employees which involvesingle or few individuals where the victims (frontline employees) were traumatized and/

or hospitalized; the lower intensity cases which involve large crowd of Vietnamese were gone unreported However, when using keywords “Supermarket culture of Vietnamese” searching on the internet, the results will show multiple news articles on the “bad habits”

or “bad behavior” of Vietnamese in supermarket or public places (Bảo Phương, 2016; Thu Hà, 2016; T.Anh, 2012), which mostly concern the “uncivilized” behavior of

Vietnamese in supermarket and public places through the viewpoint of other customers upon the occurrence of their discomforting emotions in such circumstances Though, they are customers, they only experience these behaviors occasionally; meanwhile, supermarket employees or more broadly – frontline employees are possibly

have to experience these behaviors with a much higher frequency These behaviors are considered as “interpersonal mistreatment” and “sub-form of counterproductive”

(Vagharseyyedin, 2015, p 116); which often addressed as workplace incivility and recognized as counterproductive work behavior which reduce the productivity of the organization and employee (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Anderson & Pearson, 1999) Evidences of the negative relationship between workplace incivility and employee’s well-being have been found in multiple industries and contexts (Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Han, Bonn, & Cho, 2015), and “comparable with low intensity stress” which can have emotionally and physically negative effect (Han et al., 2016) Customer incivility is identified as one of the negative factors which relates to the use of emotion offrontline employees and increase turnover intention; which has been gathered substantial attention of researchers (Grandey, 2003; Han et al., 2016)

The incivility behavior occurred in workplace has not been well attended, and Vietnam is not an exception; because the corporate as well as the employee are not fully aware of its harmful potential to the whole organization (Torkelson, Holm, Backstrom,

& Schad, 2016) Furthermore, the incivility behavior could be produced due to the lack

of norms of civility and uncivility (Walsh, Magley, Reeves, Davies-Schrils, Marmet, & Gallus, 2012); especially in a growing market like Vietnam where the retail service quality standard is continuously increased Workplace incivility is studied by researchersunder three dimensions: supervisor incivility, co-worker incivility and customer

incivility; recently, the suggestion of “family incivility” and “employee incivility” by Hur, Moon, and Han (2015, p 407); and Walker, Jaarsveld, and Skarlicki (2014)

Previous studies found noticeable effects of customer incivility on frontline service employees (Cho, Bonn, Han, & Lee, 2016; Han et al., 2016; Laschinger, Leiter, Day, &Gilin, 2009; Hur et al., 2015); the related factors studied as increase turnover intention (Han et al., 2016), decrease service performance (Cho et al., 2016), recruitment and retention (Laschinger et al., 2009).

The studies of customer incivility have been conducted in Asia countries such as Korea (Cho et al., 2016), China (Chen, Ferris, Kwan, Yan, Zhou, & Hong, 2013),

Malaysia (Santos, Mustafa, & Gwi, 2014), and Thailand (Akkawanitcha, Patterson, Buranapin, & Kantabutra, 2014) where negative effects are found However, only little studies attempted to find the antecedents of workplace incivility and especially customerincivility (Hershcovis & Barling, 2010; Bartlett, Bartlett, & Reio, 2008; Lanzo, Aziz, & Wuensch, 2015; Hur, Moon, & Jun, 2016) Lanzo et al (2015, p 175) note “An

examination of the antecedents of workplace incivility is a novel area of study”, “did notaddress the question who likely to be uncivil as a result of stress” and future research should examine the instigator of the workplace incivility

Workplace incivility is proved to have strong relation with emotional exhaustion and mediated by surface acting and deep acting which are the two dimensions of

emotional labor (Hur et al., 2015) Decreasing in service performance, increase turnover intention, and reducing organization commitment are studied outcomes of customer incivility (Cho et al., 2016) Emotional labor concept was initiated by Hochschild (1983),which is a form of emotional regulation but different to emotional intelligent; and

previously proved to have negative effects on individual (employee) as well as

organization (Hwa, 2012) Previous study conceptualizes surface acting and deep actingare two dimensions of emotional labor; and findings support the stronger negative effect of surface acting on emotional exhaustion than deep acting (Brotheridge &

Grandey, 2002; Grandey, 2000; Hwa, 2012; Hur et al., 2014) Grandey (2000, p 97) posits emotional labor as the process where employee managing their “feelings and expressions” toward the goal set by the organization

Emotional labor and emotional exhaustion proved by prior studies to have strongrelation (Grandey, 2003; Grandey & Frone, 2007); and both emotional labor and

emotional exhaustion found related to employee outcomes and employee well-being; which in turn are work attitudes, job performance, organization citizenship, affective commitment, job satisfaction, customer service performance, organization commitment,and turnover intention (Cho et al., 2016; Sliter, Jex, Wolford, & McInnerney, 2010; Hur

et al., 2014; Walsh et al., 2015; Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne, 2003) On the other hand; Sirgy et al (2001, p 242) define quality of work life as “employee satisfaction with a variety of needs through resources, activities and outcomes stemming from participation

in the workplace”; and suggest that quality of work life “may have a significant impact

on employee behavioral responses, such as organizational identification, job

performance, intention to quit, organization turnover, personal alienation” (Sirgy et al.,

2001, p 242) Quality of work life was first introduced by Hackman & Oldham (1976) and received large amount of attention where the authors referred as “quality of

working life”

Contradiction in the viewpoints of employers and employees in retail industry revealed in a recent survey in Vietnam, employees have concern on organization culture (99%) through working environment, human factors, and organization vision; meanwhile51% of the interviewed employers see the compliance with the organization culture is mandatory and 40% are not (Nam Dương, 2017) Mandatory compliance with

organization culture often associate with strong mandatory emotional expression rules Factors related to quality of work life also found as reasons to turnover; recent reports show 22% of the correspondents turned over due to low wages and promotion problems (Nam Dương, 2017; Ngân Anh, 2017)

Other prior studies found support for the relationship between job performance and quality of work life (Nguyễn & Nguyễn, 2012; Koonmee & Virakul, 2012; Sirgy, Efraty, Stegel, & Lee, 2001); and a prior study successfully examined quality of work life

as a mediator between emotional labor and work family interference (Cheung & Tang, 2009); this would be a further evidence for the direct relationship between emotional labor and quality of work life Based on the similarities in the founded relations of

workplace incivility, customer incivility, emotional labor, emotional exhaustion, and quality of work life; the study would argue that this would be a sufficient basis to test the direct relationship from customer incivility to emotional labor and emotional labor to quality of work life, and the possible mediating effect of emotional labor between

customer incivility and quality of work life in the context of frontline employee in Hồ Chí Minh City, Vietnam

The next part provides theoretical background and development of hypotheses

2 Theoretical background and hypotheses

2.1 Customer incivility and its antecedents

The term “civility” was posited as standards of behavior and speech to maintain the well-being of individual during his or her interactions with another individual; therefore,

in order to benefits from the interactions, this individual shall have the obligations to be

“civilized” for the well-being of the other individual at the same time (Vagharseyyedin, 2015) Inappropriate actions and behavior of an individual or customer may lead to the interpretation of “insulting and degrading verbal and nonverbal conduct”

(Vagharseyyedin, 2015, p 116)

Incivility in workplace has raised the concern of scholars from around the world within the last two decades (Schilpzand, Pater, & Erez, 2014; Cho et al., 2016; Han et al., 2016; Laschinger et al., 2009; Anderson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina et al., 2001; Walsh, Magley, Reeves, Davies-Schrils, Marmet, & Gallus, 2012) Incivility definition posited by Anderson & Pearson (1999) is considered as the foundation for the study of workplace incivility (Cho et al., 2016; Han et al., 2016; Laschinger et al., 2009; Cortina et al., 2001; Walsh et al., 2012); which is “like aggression, but one that is less intense and ambiguous as intent to harm” (p 457) Workplace incivility therefore consists of two characteristics, first isthe “low intensity of the behavior” and the second is the “ambiguous intent”; therefore, whenthe intent to harm the other becomes clear with high intensity, it would be considered as act

of aggression not incivility (Vagharseyyedin, 2015, p 118) Previous studies notice incivility

as antisocial behaviors and overlap with aggression and bullying;

“there is certain degree of overlap between workplace incivility and workplace

bullying” (Torkelson et al., 2016, p 118)

Schilpzand et al (2016) summarize that the study of incivility have been

conducted around the globe as it is recognized as a global phenomenon not just one ortwo specific cultures or countries; and the incivility in workplace has been studied andtested “from a wide variety of jobs and professions” (Schilpzand et al., 2016, p 61).Early study of workplace incivility mostly concern the internal interactions of the

workplace, which includes supervisor incivility and co-worker incivility; customer

incivility only started to be examined recently, and significant impacts on frontline

employee were found (Han et al., 2016; Cho et al., 2016) The negative outcomes of incivility in workplace have been found in previous studies as turnover intention,

decrease job performance, decrease service performance, recruitment and retention The antecedents of workplace incivility not yet received sufficient attention, even though the understanding of antecedents would help managers preventing the workplace incivility toreduce its harmful effects on employee as well as the whole organization (Hur et al., 2016) Because of the “ambiguous” and “less intense” of the incivility and the overlap between incivility and bullying, aggression; researchers attempted to study its

antecedents through examining the antecedents of bullying; (Torkelson et al., 2016, p.118) note “research on bullying is relevant when considering antecedents of workplaceincivility” and “bullying cause mental distress and that mental distress led to bullying”

Researchers often address the parties involved in a workplace incivility incident asperpetrator, target, instigator and victim; workplace incivility includes supervisor

incivility, co-worker incivility, customer incivility, family incivility and employee incivility (Schilpzand et al., 2016; Cho et al., 2016; Han et al., 2016; Laschinger et al., 2009; Anderson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina et al., 2001; Walsh et al., 2012; Bartlett et al., 2008; Torkelson et al., 2016; Hur et al., 2016; Hur et al 2015; Walker et al., 2014) Schilpzand et al (2016) summarizes incivility by the initiating party as supervisor, co-worker, customer, family member, and employee; and by the types which includes experienced, witnessed and instigated incivility.

Previous studies address the uncivil spiral, which mean the escalation of incivilityfrom the moment it is instigated and possibly led to aggression or even violence; where both parties are negatively affected (Anderson & Pearson, 1999; Holm, Torkelson, & Backstrom, 2015; Lim et al., 2008; Hershcovis & Barling, 2010) However, there are possibilities that the perpetrator or instigator become the target or victim of his/her own initiated incivility behavior The chance to become victim of incivility behavior would

be depended on the power position of the involved parties and who is holding the lower position Therefore, employee would be the victim of their own incivility behavior when evoking “power imbalance between customers and service employees” and “customers often take advantages of their position and increasingly abuse their power” (Hur et al.,

2014, p 395) ignoring the fact that the incivility instigated by employee or customer

The examining of antecedents of workplace incivility attempted concern the incident occurred inside an organization between supervisor-subordinate/employee (supervisor incivility) and employee-employee (co-worker incivility), little attention toexamine the antecedents of workplace incivility between employee-outsider

(employee/customer incivility) (Hur et al., 2016) The main different between employee/customer incivility and supervisor incivility, co-worker incivility that the perpetrator or instigator does not acquainted with the target or victim, which mean the employee

encounters incivility with “a total stranger” On the other hand, the impact or perception

of incivility with supervisor or co-worker would be mediated or moderated by the

knowledge of the perpetrator or instigator about the target or victim and vice versa, or common understanding of the workplace environment

For more than a decade, researchers have been examined antecedents of workplaceincivility from multiple perspectives: distributive injustice, job dissatisfaction, and work exhaustion (Blau & Anderson, 2005); beliefs and personality of workers, organization downsizing, structure and environment (Bartlett et al., 2008); workaholism (Lanzo et al., 2015) In Abid, Khan, Rafiq and Amed (2015) study, twenty one antecedents of

workplace incivility were summarized and examined; in which customer incivility was examined as antecedent of workplace incivility However, there is still little literature on antecedents of customer incivility (Hur et al., 2015; Lanzo et al., 2015); Hur et al (2014,

p 407) notice “limitation of this study is that supervisor or coworker incivility should also be explicitly examined as other sources of incivility that might have an even greater effect on employees’ psychological well-being and customer-related outcomes”

A conceptual study by Bartlett et al (2008, p.3, 4) divide antecedents of

workplace incivility into two groups; first is the “antecedents for workers” which

“include beliefs and personality”:

Beliefs include expected benefits, perceived job insecurity, dissatisfaction,

attitudes about aggression, and low perceived cost for inappropriate behaviors (Salin, 2003) Personality is also a motivator for incivility Type A personality, trait aggression,hostility, power, ego, and internal competition are all personality traits that can motivateuncivil behavior (Cortina et al., 2001; Glendinning, 2001; Hornstein, 2003; Salin, 2003).(p.3)

Second is “antecedents for organization” which include “downsizing”, “structuralantecedents” and “environmental antecedents”:

Other structural antecedents for organizations found in the literature were

reengineering (Anderson & Pearson, 1999), hierarchical structuring (Muir, 2000), use ofpart time employment (Anderson & Person, 1999; Vickers, 2006), organizational change(Salin, 2003; Vickers, 2006), and globalization (Gardner & Johnson, 2001; Muir, 2000) Environmental antecedents for organizations included autocratic work environments, difficult working conditions, and an anxiety ridden workplace (work atmosphere)

(Anderson & Pearson, 1999; Gardner & Johnson, 2001; Indvik, 2001; Muir, 2000; Foster, 2004) (p 4, 5)

Rau-In line with Bartlett et al (2008) study, an empirical study by Torkelson et al (2016, p 119) examined and found support for the relationship between organizational variables and incivility This study also examined found the support for the “possible antecedent to perpetrating incivility” as being victimized, whereas the correspondents see themselves as perpetrator and victim at the same time which “triggered a sense of retaliation” and may create a “spiral”

Table 1: Recent studies of workplace incivility antecedents

(Location)

Job stressAsserting power onother colleaguePerception ofdistributive,procedural andinteractional justiceJob dissatisfactionLack ofprofessional,disrespectfulenvironmentPower and socialstatus

“Almost every

individual atAbid et al High stress Workplace from various workplace is a Victim

Lahore

Interest conflict andstatus-based socialenclosureGender harassmentEmotionalexhaustionGender diversity(misunderstanding)Job demandsSexualizedharassmentOrganizationalchaos (enhance

18

outsourcing andmost centrallyCustomer IncivilityWorkloadWorkplaceadaptationHostile workplaceAffective experience

“Employees react touncivil event byCustomer engaging inincivility”;Walker et Individual Customer Employee service “employees respond

employees to event customer

al (2014) Incivility Incivility

in Central incivility as a functionCanada of their accumulated,

entity perceptions ofincivility in customerinteractions” (p 158)

is a phenomenon inincivility target

which specificrelated outcomes

personal andWorkplace Concept

Individual factors

organizational factorsVagarseyyedi incivility witness- analysis are involved and can

Organizational related outcomes Clinical have negative

n (2015)

incivility nt victims, witnesses,

probably theand community

perpetratorsrelated outcomes

themselves” (p 123)

incivility focuses onantecedents of outcomes of Literature

incivility incivility

and, more

19

Behavioral Attitudinal specifically, on the

Situational Cognitiveantecedents of outcomes ofexperienced experiencedincivility incivilityWitnessed incivility BehavioralInstigated incivility outcomes of

experiencedincivility

“Workplace incivilityAntecedents for Outcomes for

has definite impacts

on workers in termsWorkers:

Finance, environment,

triggers

incivility” (p 6; 9-3)

“Participants whoreported higher levelsEmployees levels of PsyCap wereof stress and lowerfrom

more likely to engagevarious

in uncivil behaviors,

al (2015) ns and

workaholism score.industries

Furthermore,

in Eastern

workaholics reportedUSA

higher levels of stress,lower levels ofPsyCap, and engaging

20

in workplaceincivility Overall,workaholism andstress increasedincivility, whilePsyCap decreased

it”

(p 176)

The study bases on reviewed literature of workplace incivility and customer

incivility would argue that the incivility incident between employee and customer would have negative effects on both parties and employee will likely to become victim (who receive higher level of negative effect) of the incivility instigated by themselves due to the employee-customer power imbalance; and refers the incident as “customer incivility”

In line with previous studies and the suggestion by Hur et al (2015); the study examines the possibilities of which the incivility from persons working together in an organization may trigger the incivility between the person working in that organization and an

effect (Han et al., 2016; Cho et al., 2016; Hur, Han, Yoo, & Moon, 2014; Santos, et al., 2014; Walsh, Dahling, Schaarschmidt, & Brach, 2016; Cho et al., 2017; Hwa, 2012) On the other hand; Lewig and Dollard (2003, p 368) sees emotional labor as a tool with bothnegative and positive effect, as “emotional labor can serve to facilitate task effectiveness”and “emotional labor can become dysfunctional for the worker when dissonance betweenfelt emotions and displayed emotions is experienced” In other words, when frontline service employee fake his or her emotion in order to cope with the circumstances set-out

by the incivility of customer, it will damage the emotions of the employee The

emotional labor strategy employed by the employee will affect his or her own well-being (Cho et al., 2017) One of the most studied negative outcomes of workplace incivility is emotional exhaustion (Han et al., 2016; Cho et al., 2016; Laschinger et al., 2009) In Han

et al (2015), Cho et al (2016), and Chen et al (2013) significant effect of incivility on burnout and emotional exhaustion found In line with these studies, a study from

Thailand by Akkawanitcha et al (2014, p 275) concludes that “frontline employees experience negative psychological well-being including negative effect, anxiety,

depression and stress” when facing “customer aggression” repeatedly, where the authors define “customer aggression” as:

Such customer behaviors might include verbal abuse, such as raised voices,

sarcasm, screaming, intimidation, yelling and swearing; physical threats, such as

slamming down fists, shoving or slamming down a phone; and non-verbal signals,

including angry facial expressions, staring and other body language (p 269)

A recent study from Malaysia examined surface acting and deep acting as

mediators between emotional intelligence personal traits and burnout, the results are in line with previous studies and confirm that surface acting does have mediating effect between emotional intelligence personal traits and burnout meanwhile deep acting does not (Santos et al., 2014) Another recent study from the US examined moderating effects

of surface acting of secondary job on the surface acting of primary job; results confirm the moderating effect and direct positive effect of surface acting on emotional

exhaustion and indirect negative effect on affective commitment while emotional

exhaustion acts as mediator (Walsh et al., 2016)

However, workplace incivility not only associate with emotional exhaustion where the mediating effect of emotional labor tested, workplace incivility also associate with other negative outcomes such as: turnover intention, decrease job performance, decrease service performance, recruitment and retention, reduce employee creativity, and negativeeffects on mental health (Han et al., 2016; Cho et al., 2016; Cho et al., 2016; Laschinger

et al., 2009; Hur et al., 2015; Lim, Cortina, & Magley, 2008); which those are in turn, associate with quality of work life (Sirgy et al., 2001) As a summary from previous studies, workplace incivility related to emotional labor, emotional labor related to

emotional exhaustion, and emotional exhaustion related to quality of work life, the studyproposes the research model (Figure 1) In which, experienced supervisor incivility and experienced co-worker incivility are antecedents of customer incivility, customer

incivility is directly related to quality of work life and mediated by surface acting and deep acting as the two dimensions of emotional labor

Figure 1: Research Model

H3a: Customer incivility is positively related to Surface Acting.

H3b: Customer incivility is positively related to Deep Acting.

H4a: Surface Acting is positively related to Quality of Work Life.

H4b: Deep Acting is positively related to Quality of Work Life.

H5a: The relation between Customer Incivility and Quality of Work Life

is mediated by Surface Acting.

H5b: The relation between Customer Incivility and Quality of Work Life

is mediated by Deep Acting.

2.3 Quality of work life

Quality of work life refers to the feeling of being fulfilled of the employee mentally, physically, and materially in his or her workplace (Sirgy et al., 2001; Martel & Dupuis,

2006; Nguyễn & Nguyễn, 2012; Koomee & Virkul, 2012; Manhas, 2013; Lee, Back, & Chan, 2014) Quality of work life is a multidimensional concept, its measurements has been developed by scholars (Sirgy et al., 2001; Martel & Dupuis, 2006; Louis, 1989; Hwang, Lawler, & Lei, 200&); among the measurements developed, the measurements developed by Sirgy et al (2001), and Martel and Dupuis (2006) are widely recognized byresearchers Quality of work life is posited as a “crucial construct for organization to attract and retain employee” (Lee et al., 2014, p 769), and “a happy employee is a

productive employee and a happy employee is a dedicated and loyal employee” (Sirgy et al., 2001, p 242) That is, quality of work life is strongly associate with attracting,

retaining employee, organization identification, job performance, commitment, and loyalty; whereas, high turnover is identified as a critical problem of retail industry For many organizations, frontline employee not only the front but also plays important role increating values for the organization, it is important to maintain their level of productivity,commitment and loyalty

3 Research method

3.1 Procedure and sample

The data collection was implemented in two phases: qualitative and quantitative surveys; qualitative survey was conducted to confirm the dimensions, items; the interpretation of the dimensions, items (from English to Vietnamese and translate back to English); and how frontline employees (sales staff, store service personnel) comprehend these dimensions Thedefinitions at first explained and discussed among a group interview with 3 interviewees forrevising the preliminary semi-structured questionnaire for in

depth interview, the participants of this mini-focus group are experienced trainer, sales and sales team manager After all definitions were comprehended and simplified, a semi-structured questionnaire was produced and interviewed with an experienced sales staff and experienced sales trainers for confirming the research problems.

Quantitative data collection with expectation of minimum 300 valid

questionnaires; the 5-point Likert questionnaires were printout, distributed and collectedthen checked for validity until reached 300 The frontline employees interviewed are working at shops, shopping centers, salespersons, bank counter-employees (including coffee shops, restaurants, stand-alone shops, wet-market shops, convenient stores, Big

C supermarket, Lotte Mart, Aeon Mall, Diamond plaza, electronic distribution centers) within Ho Chi Minh City territory (including district 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 9, 2, Thu Duc, BinhTan and Tan Phu) Researcher hired a group of seven students residing in Hồ Chí Minh City for the questionnaire distribution, interviewing and collecting; each acceptable questionnaire was paid by a small fee of 10,000 VND Quantitative data collection was conducted from 1st August 2017 to 31st August 2017

3.2 Measurements

The research model includes 5 constructs which experienced supervisor incivility and experienced co-worker incivility are two constructs; the measurements are adopted from the scale developed by Cortina et al (2001) with 7 items The measurements of customerincivility are adopted from the scale tested by Hur et al (2015) with 8 items Emotional labor with 6 items scale developed and tested by Brotheridge and Lee (2003) with two dimensions are surface acting and deep acting The measurements of quality of work life

are adopted the scale with 3 components (survival needs, belonging needs, and

knowledge needs) and 9 items which are successful tested in Vietnam (Nguyễn

& Nguyễn, 2012) based on the scale proposed by Sirgy et al (2001)

3.3 Data collection

Table 2: Sample characteristics

Experience More than 2 to less than 5 years 58 19.33

27

Demographic statistic reflects the nature of frontline employees (service

employees and sales staff) as: young, age below 30 (90.00%) in which under 23 old hold 36.67%; low commitment, frontline employee works for less than 2 years hold76.67%; single (73.66%); female dominant (68%); low income (below 5 million VND per month – 47.00%) The low commitment of the samples of the study is in line with therecent report in Vietnam, which the report found 60% of the frontline employees are working averagely 2 to 3 years for a same job (Ngân Anh, 2017) Together with low commitment, other characteristics of the samples as: young, female dominant, single, andlow income would implicate the rationales behind the low job expectancy of frontline employees; for an instance, a male frontline employee with higher expectation for

years-income would quit and find another job with higher years-income (Ngân Anh, 2017)

Table 3: Data collection

Source Distribute Collected Response rate Eliminate Valid Valid rate

within acceptable range; the smallest is 0.832 and the highest is 0.842; KMO=.809;

significant p<0.001, items of variables have sufficient relations for a meaningful CFA

The average variance extracted values (AVE) are considerably low; however,

according to Fornell and Larcker (1981), AVE should be larger than 0.5; in cases which

AVE is smaller than 0.5 but larger than 0.4 would be acceptable if the composite

reliability (CR) is higher than 0.6 The study accepts the EFA results and proceed with

caution

Table 4: EFA results

Experienced Put you down or was condescending on you 676 872 840 430Supervisor Paid little attention to your statement or showed little 683

Incivility interest in your opinion

Made demeaning or derogatory remarks about you 590Addressed you in unprofessional terms, either publicly or 637privately

Ignored or excluded you from professional camaraderie 721Doubted your judgment on a matter over which you have 714responsibility

Made unwanted attempts to draw you into a discussion of 551personal matters

Experienced Put you down or was condescending on you 572 877 869 492Co-worker Paid little attention to your statement or showed little 591

Incivility interest in your opinion

Made demeaning or derogatory remarks about you 808Addressed you in unprofessional terms, either publicly or 797privately

Ignored or excluded you from professional camaraderie 793Doubted your judgment on a matter over which you have 694responsibility

Made unwanted attempts to draw you into a discussion of 609personal matters

Customers show that they are irritated or impatient 754Customers do not trust the information that I give them and 668ask to speak with someone of higher authority

Emotional

Labor

Customers make comments that question the competence of 529employees

Internal or external customers make unreasonable demands 531

Pretend to have emotions that I don’t really have 538

Make an effort to actually feel the emotions that I need to 773

display to othersTry to actually experience the emotions that I must show 727

Really try to feel the emotions I have to show as part of my 684

job

Quality of My job provide good health benefits 593 844 827 358Work Life

I am satisfied with what I’m paid for my work 653

I enough time away from work to enjoy other things in life 616

I feel my job allows me to realize my full potential 789

My job allows me to sharpen my professional skills 731TVE of 5 components 52.81%

Notes: CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted All factor loadings are

significant (p<0.01); All items measured on a scale ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to

5 “strongly agree”

4 Data analyses results

4.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis

All remaining items were run with Pattern Matrix Model Builder in Amos 22 then

checked for model fit and validity Six more items were removed for the model to

achieve acceptable fitness and validity; which are: ECI1, ECI2, ESI3, ESI7, CI5, andCI7.

Table 5: CFA Model fit

Chi-square/df Comparative Root Means Square p of Close

Notes: CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted; MSV, maximum

shared variance EL, emotional labor; ECI, experienced co-worker incivility; QoWL,quality of work life; ESI, experienced supervisor incivility; CI, customer incivility

The validity results show AVE values of emotional labor, experienced supervisorincivility, customer incivility are smaller than 0.5, but larger than 0.4 (acceptable with

CR values larger than 0.6)

4.2 Hypotheses testing – Structural Equation Model (SEM)

With the model fit and validity accepted, hypothesized relations of the study were testedusing structural equation model (SEM)

31

Table 7: SEM Model fit

Chi-square/df Comparative Root Means Square p of Close

(Cmin/df)

Notes: SA, surface acting; DA, deep acting are second other constructs, dimensions of

emotional labor SV, survival needs; BL, belonging needs; and KN, knowledge needs are three components of quality of work life

Table 8: Structural paths – SEM

Notes: SA, surface acting; DA, deep acting are second other constructs, dimensions of

emotional labor EL, emotional labor; ECI, experienced co-worker incivility; QoWL, quality of work life; ESI, experienced supervisor incivility; CI, customer incivility S.E, standard error of regression weight; C.R, critical ratio to of regression weight

The structural paths show support for hypotheses H1, H2, h3a, H3b, H4a, andH4b; all relations are positive with acceptable p-value (.05<)

Hypotheses H5a and H5b, which are the mediation effects of surface acting anddeep acting between the relationship of customer incivility and quality of work life, were

on the guidelines proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986), Preacher and Hayes (2004), and

32

MacKinnon, Fairchild, and Fritz (2007) The results support the mediation relation ofboth surface acting and deep acting in the relation between customer incivility and quality of work life.

Table 9: Mediation test

Mediation

Effect (a*b) (two-tailed) Confidence Intervals Mediation

Lower Limit Upper Limit (%)

dimensions of emotional labor between customer incivility and quality of work life

These results support hypotheses H1 and H2; which are experienced supervisor incivility and experienced co-worker incivility are positively related to customer

incivility and are antecedents of customer incivility, standardized regression weights show a slightly different between the effect of experienced supervisor incivility on

33