Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources (2018) ,  doi:10.1111/1744-7941.

12204

An identification-based model of workplace

incivility and employee creativity: evidence
from China
Xiaojun Zhan Jiangxi University of Finance & Economics, China
Zhicheng Li Jiangxi University of Finance & Economics, China
Wenhao Luo North China University of Technology, China

Research has consistently demonstrated that experienced incivility or witnessed incivility produce a
wide array of deleterious outcomes. However, few studies investigate experienced incivility and wit-
nessed incivility in tandem. It remains unknown that whether witnessed incivility could exacerbate
the negative consequences triggered by experienced incivility. Drawing on social identity theory, we
investigate how experienced incivility impedes employee creativity at work via reduced perceived
insider status (PIS) and the moderating role of witnessed incivility. Using a longitudinal sample
consisting of 306 supervisor–subordinate dyads in China, results showed that workplace incivility
was negatively related to employee creativity, and employee PIS mediated this relationship; wit-
nessed incivility moderated the negative relationship between workplace incivility and PIS and the
indirect effect of PIS. The present study supported the identity perspective in understanding work-
place incivility, highlighting the pivotal roles of employees’ identification in the consequences of
workplace incivility at work.
Keywords: creativity, experienced incivility, perceived insider status, social identity theory, wit-
nessed incivility

Key points
1 Employees who were uncivilly treated performed less well in creativity.
2 Employee’s perceived insider status mediates the effect of workplace incivility on
employee creativity.
3 Witnessed incivility buffers the negative relationship between experienced incivility
and perceived insider status.

As a common form of deviance in organizations, workplace incivility refers to ‘low-inten-

sity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace
norms for mutual respect’ (Andersson and Pearson 1999, 457). Over the past two decades,

Correspondence: Wenhao Luo, School of Economics & Management, North China University
of Technology, Beijing 100144, China; e-mail: whluo1988@hotmail.com
Accepted for publication 5 August 2018.
© 2018 Australian HR Institute
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 

management scholars and practitioners have shown increasing interest in this low-inten-
sity deviant behavior in the workplace. Approximately 77% employees in Asian organiza-
tions suffered somewhat workplace incivility (Yeung and Griffin 2008). As suggested in
prior studies, workplace incivility was shown to be detrimental and costly to victims,
observers and organizations (see Schilpzand, Pater and Erez 2016; for a review). For
instance, workplace incivility was found to be associated with emotional and attitudinal
distress (Bunk and Magley 2013; Wilson and Holmvall 2013), health problem (Lim, Cor-
tina and Magley 2008) and poor performance (Chen et al. 2013; Porath and Erez 2007;
Woolum et al. 2017). Moreover, incivility is also likely to trigger other deviant behaviors
in the workplace (Ferris, Chen and Lim 2017; Wu et al. 2014). As demonstrated by Porath
and Pearson (2010), managers and executives in Fortune 1000 firms consumed 13% of
their total work time, equivalent to seven full weeks per year, in dealing with workplace
incivility and its baneful consequences. Organizations lost approximately $14 000 per
employee annually because of project delay and distraction stemming from workplace
incivility (Pearson and Porath 2009). Therefore, as noted by Schilpzand, Pater and Erez
(2016), workplace incivility is a significant social problem that scholars should investigate
further.
Although workplace incivility was suggested to be negatively related to varying indi-
vidual and organizational outcomes, we are almost unware of whether and how workplace
incivility would impair employees’ creativity, defined as the generation of novel and useful
ideas about products, practices, services and procedures in the workplace (Amabile 1988).
In recent years, employee creativity has received much attention among both practitioners
and scholars (Amabile and Pratt 2016). Given that employees’ creativity can be influenced
by both individual differences and situational factors, workplace incivility is likely to be a
potential contextual antecedent of creativity. However, only a few studies have taken into
account the relationship between incivility and creativity. For instance, Porath and Erez
(2007) found incivility instigated by authority or a third party, or just an imagined incivil-
ity can reduce the target employees’ creativity by disrupting their cognitive processes.
Within a service management context, Hur, Moon and Jun (2016) found incivility from
customers and co-workers decreases service employees’ creativity through the sequentially
mediating role of emotional exhaustion and intrinsic motivation. At team level, Sharifirad
(2016) suggested that supervisor incivility negatively affects team creative performance by
weakening employees’ intention to share knowledge.
Despite this existing evidence, we still know little about the psychological processes
between experienced incivility and employee creativity. In particular, there are increasing
calls for further investigation of the incivility–creativity linkage (Porath and Erez 2007;
Schilpzand, Leavitt and Lim 2016; Schilpzand, Pater and Erez 2016). As well, existing stud-
ies, primarily conducted in western countries, fail to capture cultural characteristics of
Asian societies. Incivility is currently an important issue in Asian organizations and
deserves more academic attention. Specifically, in Chinese organizations with higher
power distance and collectivism value, employees are more inclined to accept power
inequality within the hierarchical structure (Hofstede 1980; Hu and Judge 2017; Wang
2 © 2018 Australian HR Institute
 Xiaojun Zhan, Zhicheng Li and Wenhao Luo

et al. 2012). As a result, Chinese employees tend to swallow the harmful experience of
mistreatment such as incivility silently, and some experiences might fester into significant
damage (Andersson and Pearson 1999; Moon, Weick and Uskul 2018). In addition, due
to a higher level of collectivism in society, Chinese employees might also perceive incivility
experiences as one damaging factor of their group membership (e.g. Lyu et al. 2016).
Above all, the present study aimed not only to respond scholarly calls on exploring the
psychological mechanism between incivility and creativity, but also to shed more light on
the effects and mechanism of incivility in the Chinese context.
To address these important issues, this study investigated the association between
workplace incivility and employee creativity based upon the social identity perspective. In
particular, we proposed a model wherein the perception of insider status in the organiza-
tion mediates the negative effect of workplace incivility on employee creativity. Although
social identity theory was widely used in explaining organizational phenomena (Tajfel and
Turner 1985), to date we found no studies yet examining whether incivility matters to
employees’ identity. As demonstrated by Andersson and Pearson (1999), incivility could
potentially threaten the target’s identity, and the social identification process plays an
important role in the escalation of workplace incivility interaction. In particular, when
being abused or uncivilly treated by their leaders and colleagues, employees are more likely
to view themselves as ‘outsiders’ rather than ‘insiders’ of the organization (Ouyang, Lam
and Wang 2015). The ‘outsider’ identity is thus expected to lower employees’ motivation
and willingness to accept more responsibilities and engage in creative behaviors (Zhao,
Kessel and Kratzer 2014). This identification process may serve as a new angle to under-
stand the psychological mechanism of workplace incivility (Chen et al. 2013).
We choose perceived insider status (PIS) rather than organizational identification as
the mediator because it is more salient in the Chinese context (Hui, Lee and Wang 2015).
Rooted in a highly collectivistic culture, Chinese employees attach much more importance
to their membership of particular groups. Usually, they care more about how they are
treated by supervisors or others within a specific group rather than the whole organization
and are more sensitive to favorable or unfavorable cues within the group (Singelis et al.
1995). In other words, Chinese employees tend to interpret the relationship between
themselves and the organization according to whether they are ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’ of a
specific group. Gaining insider status is also an important goal of Chinese employees and
thus motivates them to devote more effort to their job (Lu 2008). Compared to the more
general organizational identification, PIS is a better concept in this article to illustrate the
social identification process between incivility and creativity.
In addition, because workplace incivility is ubiquitous in organizations and often
occurs in the presence of other employees (Porath and Pearson 2010), a focal employee
can act as both target and observer in different incivility interactions (e.g. Schilpzand,
Leavitt and Lim 2016). Consequently, it is necessary to examine differentiated effects of
experienced incivility and witnessed incivility on workplace outcomes. Given that the
intent to harm is always ambiguous in incivility interactions, it leaves room for different
sense-making and will lead to various reactions. Thereby, employees’ witnessed incivility
© 2018 Australian HR Institute 3
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 

may provide some contextual clues to the target for sense-making and in turn alter the
identification process. We hypothesized in the present paper that the negative impact of
workplace incivility on PIS and creativity will be stronger for employees who have wit-
nessed fewer incidents of incivility because these employees are less capable of making
sense of the incivility experience.
Above all, this study aims to extend existing literature in the following three ways.
First, we respond to the call by previous studies to explore psychological mechanisms of
incivility and outcomes through introducing the social identity perspective in the Chinese
context. The social identity perspective has already been used to explain some workplace
deviant behaviors, such as abusive supervision (Hannah et al. 2013), workplace bullying
(Loh, Restubog and Zagenczyk 2010), and workplace ostracism (Wu et al. 2016). In the
present study, we enrich the incivility literature by examining the mediation effect of PIS
on the relationship between experienced incivility and creativity.Discovering the role of
PIS in Chinese organizations and among employees could shed more light on the psycho-
logical mechanism on the consequences of incivility. Second, we offer a more complete
picture in examining workplace incivility by considering the interactive effects of wit-
nessed incivility and experienced incivility. Previous studies found that even witnessed
incivility in organizations can cause harm to the observer (Porath and Erez 2009; Reich
and Hershcovis 2015), yet failed to consider how witnessed and experienced incivility
interact with each other. In our study, we tried to demonstrate that sharing previous expe-
riences with others can reduce damage from experienced incivility. Third, our study
depicts the negative effects of incivility on creativity and the moderating effect of wit-
nessed incivility, thereby extending our understanding on the antecedents of creativity
and the potential boundary condition. Employee creativity, as an important work out-
come in today’s organizations, was found to be influenced by a group of individual and
contextual factors. Our study contributes to the creativity literature through an empirical
investigation of the relationship between two forms of incivility and creativity.

Theory and hypotheses

Workplace incivility and employee creativity
Workplace incivility, as an ubiquitous interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace, was
conceptualized as ‘low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the tar-
get’ (Andersson and Pearson 1999, 457). Incivility in organizations may be instigated by
supervisors, co-workers and customers, named as supervisor incivility, co-worker incivil-
ity and customer incivility, respectively (Sakurai and Jex 2012). In the present study, we
focused particularly on the consequences of supervisor incivility and co-worker incivility
within organizations (see also Ghosh, Reio and Bang 2013), whereas customer incivility
usually happens in service contexts (Walker, van Jaarsveld, and Skarlicki 2014). Work-
place incivility, as an interpersonal form of mistreatment, has been associated with a var-
iety of undesirable outcomes that adversely affect employees’ physical and psychological
well-being, job outcomes, and interpersonal relationships (see a review, Schilpzand, Pater
4 © 2018 Australian HR Institute
 Xiaojun Zhan, Zhicheng Li and Wenhao Luo

and Erez 2016). However, among the existing literature on multiple consequences of
incivility, few studies have paid sufficient attention to the association between workplace
incivility and outcomes concerning creative performance (for exceptions, see Hur, Moon
and Jun 2016; Porath and Erez 2007; Sharifirad 2016).
Creativity refers to the generation of novel and useful ideas about products, practices,
services and procedures in the workplace (Amabile 1988). Employee creativity nowadays
is a vital means for organizational survival and development in a business world with
intense competition and continuous change (Amabile and Pratt 2016). Demonstrating
how organizations foster employee creativity is important. The componential theory of
creativity (Amabile 1988) argues that intrinsic task motivation, domain-relevant expertise,
and creativity-thinking skills are three components that would increase or decrease
employee creativity. Amabile and her colleagues (Amabile 1996; Amabile and Pratt 2016)
further contended that work environments might be stimulants or obstacles to creativity
as well. Since then researchers have begun to examine the role of social contexts (e.g.
co-workers, leaders and human resource practices) in promoting or hindering employee
creativity (Amabile and Pratt 2016; Tang et al. 2017). Favorable supervisor/co-worker
behaviors, such as transformational leadership (Shin and Zhou 2003), empowering leader-
ship (Zhang and Bartol 2010), high-quality LMX (leader–member exchange; Khazanchi
and Masterson 2011), and TMX (team–member exchange; Liao, Liu and Loi 2010), can
foster creativity because these favorable factors build a supportive environment for
employees to engage in creative activities, providing knowledge, information and experi-
ences that could benefit employee creativity. In contrast, deviant supervisor and
co-worker behaviors like incivility may destroy a favorable organizational climate for
creativity, reduce members’ intention to share information and knowledge, as well as
trigger target employees’ negative emotions, thus eroding employee creativity.
As an interpersonal mistreatment, workplace incivility not only leads to destructive
environment, but also causes a myriad of harmful consequences in terms of employees’
motivation to be creative. A manager interviewed by Pearson et al. (2001, 397) noted that
‘incivility reinforces isolation and reduces responses and choices. It shuts people down.
They go into a shell and don’t come out. You lose the benefit of others’ ideas, creativity,
participation.’ Incivility in the workplace may negatively impact individuals’ intrinsic
motivation that acts as an indispensable factor in stimulating creativity. Such mistreat-
ment may undermine an employee’s perception of competence and creativity expectations
(Liao, Liu and Loi 2010). Furthermore, incivility is likely to trigger negative emotional
responses, such as anxiety and depression. As suggested by Amabile et al. (2005), creative
activity is an affectively charged event and positive rather than negative affect plays a vital
role in enhancing creativity. Therefore, negative emotions associated with perceived incivil-
ity will reduce employees’ intention to participate in creative tasks (Zhang et al. 2014). To
sum up, we hypothesized that,
Hypothesis 1: Workplace incivility is negatively related to employee creativity.

© 2018 Australian HR Institute 5

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 

The mediating role of perceived insider status

Perceived insider status refers to the extent to which an individual employee perceives
himself or herself as an insider within a particular organization (Stamper and Masterson
2002). PIS defines employees’ identity in organizations (Chen and Aryee 2007) and is
highly related to but distinct from organizational identification, though both concepts
describe social identity (Masterson and Stamper 2003; Stamper and Masterson 2002).
Compared to organizational identification, PIS indicates the degree of personal space and
recognition that individuals acquire from the organization, thereby offering a more
straightforward perception of the relationship between individual employee and the organ-
ization (Stamper and Masterson 2002). Furthermore, we choose PIS but not organiza-
tional identification so as to provide more salient explanations in Chinese context. In a
high collectivism culture, Chinese people attach much more importance to their member-
ship of particular groups than their individual identity in the organizations (Armstrong-
Stassen and Schlosser 2011). As such, whether Chinese employees perceive themselves as
‘insider’ or ‘outsider’ not only defines their membership, but also directly influences their
work attitude and behaviors (Chen and Aryee 2007; Horng et al. 2016; Ouyang, Lam and
Wang 2015).
According to social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner 1985), employees’ PIS is depen-
dent on their relationship with supervisors and co-workers in their work-groups. Employ-
ees’ interactions with supervisors and colleagues thereby are essential to shape employees’
identity at work (Sluss et al. 2012). In line with this reasoning, how employees are treated
by their supervisors and colleagues helps to explain how they define themselves in the
group (Ouyang, Lam and Wang 2015; Zhao, Kessel and Kratzer 2014) and whether they
define themselves as an insider or outsider. When they are respectfully treated and appre-
ciated in the organizations, they are more likely to define themselves as insider members
and will be more motivated (Fuller et al. 2006). In contrast, when employees are treated
in a rude and disrespectful way, they are likely to lose some of their self-esteem and poten-
tial value in the organization (Bai, Lin and Wang 2016), thereby decreasing their insider
status perception (Robinson, Wang and Kiewitz 2014).
Additionally, because it is of low-intensity and ambiguous in intent, workplace incivil-
ity instigated by supervisors or co-workers is often (or usually) dismissed by organizations
as transient and trivial conduct without any intervention and sanction (Lim, Cortina and
Magley 2008). Employees who experienced incivility may blame their organization for its
incomplete rules and standards, and further reduce their trust in the organization (Miner-
Rubino and Reed 2010). Moreover, when they compare themselves with employees who
do not experience incivility, they would label the organization as unfair and attribute the
incivility as the outcome of being ‘outsiders’, or somehow being pushed to the periphery
of the group. Gradually, employees who blame and distrust the organization become more
likely to have a stronger perception of their ‘outsider’ status.
Perceived insider status, in turn, can facilitate employee creativity. According to
social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner 1985), ‘insider’ status defines employees’
identity within the organization. While the ‘insider’ status indicates a high quality of
6 © 2018 Australian HR Institute
 Xiaojun Zhan, Zhicheng Li and Wenhao Luo

employee–organization relationship as well as organizational responsibilities (Chen and

Aryee 2007), this sense of responsibility would motivate employees to make more contri-
butions to their organizations (Masterson and Stamper 2003). Moreover, PIS is associated
with receiving caring and approval from the organization, which helps to fulfill employees’
social and self-esteem needs. It will thus promote employees’ goodwill, positive behavior
and an attitude of reciprocity with their organizations (Horng et al. 2016). In other words,
‘insider’ employees consider themselves as important members and are intrinsically moti-
vated to undertake more organizational responsibilities (Chen and Aryee 2007). This is
especially salient in Chinese culture, which is highly collective-orientated and advocates
priority of collective welfare over personal interests through fulfilling individual responsi-
bility in groups or organizations (Lu 2008). Employees who perceive themselves as insiders
are likely to devote more effort and extra time, feel obligated to make contributions to their
organization, spare no effort to cope with problems and challenges in the organization, and
try their best to be creative (Zhao, Kessel and Kratzer 2014). In contrast, employees with
low PIS are likely to feel psychologically separated from their organizations and are not
concerned with the fate of their organizations. Meanwhile, their intrinsic motivation to
solve problems in creative ways are also decreased. Consistent with this reasoning, empiri-
cal studies have also indicated that PIS is positively related to employee creativity or inno-
vative behavior (Chen and Aryee 2007; Horng et al. 2016; Zhao, Kessel and Kratzer 2014).
Drawing from social identity theory and prior findings on the relationship between
incivility and PIS, as well as on PIS and creativity (Horng et al. 2016; Stamper and
Masterson 2002; Zhao, Kessel and Kratzer 2014), we propose that PIS is a self-categorization
and identity construction process that can account for the negative relationship
between incivility and creativity. Following the social identity theory, we argue that
employees who experienced more incivility from their supervisors and colleagues are
likely to develop an outsider identity (lower PIS) and would therefore lower their work
motivation, especially in terms of being creative. To be specific, PIS is likely to serve as a
mediator on the negative relationship between incivility and employee creativity. Accord-
ingly, we hypothesized that,
Hypothesis 2: Employee’s PIS mediates the negative relationship between workplace incivility
and employee creativity.

The moderating role of witnessed incivility

We further propose that witnessed incivility will weaken the negative impact of experi-
enced incivility on PIS. As noted earlier, witnessed incivility refers to the experience of
observing uncivil interaction between other organizational members (Reich and Hershco-
vis 2015). Because workplace incivility is ubiquitous in organizations and often occurs in
the presence of other employees (Porath and Pearson 2010), it is common for employees
to witness incivility in their organizations. Given that employees can both experience and
witness incivility from their supervisors and colleagues, we explore the interactive rela-
tionship between these two forms of incivility.

© 2018 Australian HR Institute 7

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 

In our examination of the relationship between experienced and witnessed incivility,

we acknowledge that organizational members are not living in a vacuum. In fact,
employees continuously monitor environmental cues and other members’ evaluative
information to organize their own organizational experiences and responses (Srivastava
and Beer 2005). In the social context of incivility, witnessed incivility might serve as
environmental cues in interpreting and reacting to experienced incivility. In the present
study, based on the following two rationales, we hypothesized that witnessed incivility
would potentially alleviate the negative consequences of experienced incivility on PIS.
First, because the intent of incivility is ambiguous and subject to varying interpre-
tations, it leaves much room for participants to make diverse inferences concerning
the actual intention of the instigator (Andersson and Pearson 1999). In other words,
employees will initiate a sense-making process when experiencing incivility in the
organization. How other members were treated previously provides a vital cue for
employees to reduce the ambiguity of incivility and to interpret their own interper-
sonal experiences when they confront with similar contexts. For example, being a sin-
gular target of incivility may be recognized as signs of social rejection or social
disapproval in organizations, whereas realizing that other employees share similar incivil-
ity experiences may relieve the social rejection feeling. Therefore, witnessed incivility
functions as an important environmental context which can provide cues for employees
to perceive the incivility experience as less harmful, and thereby alleviate the negative
effects on employees’ PIS and work behaviors (Schilpzand, Leavitt and Lim 2016). That
is, when employees witnessed incivility from other members often in their workplace,
they tend to recognize incivility as a shared situation, and may regard the incivility as
being an unconsciousness behavior. Accordingly, when treated in uncivil ways, they are
less likely to attribute incivility as a decrease of their personal status, and interpret incivil-
ity experiences as evidence of being socially rejected or devalued. Consequently, PIS will
be less likely to decrease when the target has already witnessed many incivility interactions
at work. In contrast, when employees seldom witness incivility in their workplace, they
are more likely to attribute their own incivility experiences to their personal problems
and thus perceive a lower level of insider status.
Second, from a social comparison approach, the focal employee’s comparison with
other members on incivility experiences would carry psychological advantages or dis-
advantages in developing insider identity. Social comparison is a pervasive and funda-
mental feature of group life (Hogg 2000). Employees in organizations compare
themselves with fellow group members in diverse aspects. A favorable comparison will
lead to a better feeling in the group and enhance the perception of ‘insiders’ (Turner
1975). When employees experience incivility in their organizations, they compare
themselves to fellow colleagues in terms of incivility experiences. If they have witnessed
more or higher incivility to other colleagues, it is more likely that they do not feel
excluded when they also experience incivility. However, if they witnessed less or low
incivility to colleagues, their reactions to experienced incivility might be amplified
because they would perceive a disadvantageous position in the social comparison. In
8 © 2018 Australian HR Institute
 Xiaojun Zhan, Zhicheng Li and Wenhao Luo

other words, higher witnessed incivility would attenuate the negative relationship
between experienced incivility and PIS.
In Chinese organizations, the role of witnessed incivility might be especially impor-
tant. As noted earlier, because of the higher power distance orientation, Chinese
employees tend to believe that organizational hierarchy is acceptable or even desirable
(Han, Lalwani and Duhachek 2017). Consequently, lower-level employees will be
prone to keep silent, tolerate incivility especially from higher-level managers, and even
try to rationalize or beautify the intention of incivility instigators (Mao et al. 2017;
Park et al.2016). In doing so, the more incivility they witness, the less they regard their
incivility experiences as signals of social disapproval or low status in organizations. For
example, the employees who have witnessed more incivility interactions between his/
her supervisor and colleagues are likely to attribute incivility as one component of the
supervisor’s behavioral orientation. Because of the low-intensity and less harmful nat-
ure of the incivility, those employees thus are more likely to accept it as group norm
and will not have serious reactions. Conversely, if these employees never or seldom
witness incivility in their work-groups, they are likely to complain or strongly resist it
when they experience incivility.
To sum up, past experiences of witnessed incivility can be helpful in reducing com-
plexity and ambiguity in terms of interpreting reasons of being treated in uncivilized ways,
especially attributing the causes of incivility to themselves. In Chinese context, witnessed
incivility will also influence whether victims perceive incivility as acceptable or not.
Accordingly, we hypothesized that,
Hypothesis 3: Employee’s witnessed incivility moderates the relationship between workplace
incivility and employee’s PIS, such that the negative relationship will be stronger for employ-
ees who witnessed fewer (vs more) incivility in the workplace.

In addition, to consider the mediating role of PIS and the moderating role of wit-
nessed incivility simultaneously on the relationship between experienced incivility and
employee creativity, our proposed model presents a first-stage moderated mediation
model. Combining the rationale for hypothesis 2 and hypothesis 3, we hypothesized that
witnessed incivility might also moderate the indirect effect of PIS between experienced
incivility and creativity. When employees have witnessed less incivility previously, it is
more likely that they would perceive a lower level of insider status when being treated in
uncivil ways and thereby be less motivated to be creative in completing their jobs. We
expect a stronger mediating effect of PIS on the relationship between experienced incivil-
ity and creativity when employees witnessed fewer rather than more incivility situations
before. Therefore, we hypothesized that,
Hypothesis 4: Employee’s witnessed incivility moderates the mediation effect of PIS on the rela-
tionship between workplace incivility and employee creativity, such that the meditation effect
will be stronger for employees who witnessed fewer (vs more) incivility in the workplace.

Our proposed theoretical model is depicted in Figure 1.

© 2018 Australian HR Institute 9

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 

Figure 1 Hypothesized model

Method
Sample and procedures
We used a matched supervisor–subordinate sample from four companies located in south
China to test our model. Two of the companies are in banking industry, while the other two
are in building material manufacturing and power generation industry, respectively. With
assistance of human resource department from each company, we randomly selected 100
employees and their respective supervisor in each company. The first author participated in
the survey in person and delivered paper questionnaires to participants with the help of two
research assistants and the HR department in each company. All the respondents were assured
that participation in filling in the questionnaire was voluntary and their responses would be
kept confidential.
Data collection was conducted in two waves so as to reduce common method variance
(CMV) (Podsakoff et al. 2003). In the first survey (time 1), we sent questionnaires to 400
employees to assess their witnessed incivility, experienced incivility, and control variables.
Three hundred and sixty-three valid responses were kept after time 1. Two weeks later
(time 2), we delivered questionnaires containing a measure of employee creativity at work
to supervisors of the 363 employees. After ruling out incomplete questionnaires, we had
306 questionnaires with valid paired data (a response rate of 76.5%). In our final data set,
59.8% of participants were male and 63.7% married, 72.5% of them were under the age of
40, and 75.8% of them held a junior college or bachelor degree.

Measures
Because most measures we used were originally in English and our respondents read only
Chinese, we adopted the translation and back-translation procedure (Brislin 1980) to
create a Chinese version of the measures. Five-point Likert-type scales were used in all
psychological variables.

Workplace incivility
We measured workplace incivility using four items from Lim and Cortina (2005), a con-
densed version of the workplace incivility scale (Cortina et al. 2001). We asked partici-
pants to measure the extent to which they had experienced workplace incivility in the past
10 © 2018 Australian HR Institute
 Xiaojun Zhan, Zhicheng Li and Wenhao Luo

year. Responses ranged from 1 (‘never’) to 5 (‘many times’). A sample item was ‘Put you
down or was condescending to you’. The Cronbach’s a was 0.80.

Witnessed incivility
We measured witnessed incivility using the same four items with workplace incivility from
Lim and Cortina (2005) and changed the instructions accordingly. Respondents were
asked to rate how often they witnessed incivility interactions in their organizations on
each of the four items. Responses ranged from 1 (‘never’) to 5 (‘many times’). The Cron-
bach’s a for this scale was 0.71.

Perceived insider status

The 6-item scale developed by Stamper and Masterson (2002) was used. Response options
ranged from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 5 (‘strongly agree’). A sample item was ‘I feel I am
an “insider” in my work organization’. The Cronbach’s a was 0.87.

Creativity
We employed the 4-item employee creativity scale developed by Farmer, Tierney and Kung-
McIntyre (2003). Responses ranged from 1 (‘never’) to 5 (‘many times’). A sample item was
‘He or she tries new ideas and ways to solve problems’. The Cronbach’s a was 0.80.

Control variables
We controlled for employees’ age, gender, education, and tenure, as these demographics were
shown to be related with employee creativity in prior studies (Zhang and Bartol 2010). Given
employees’ creativity might differ among industries; we also controlled three industries in our
analyses by using two dummy variables (industry d1 and d2, both in the form of 0–1). In
addition, due to the suggested relationship between creative self-efficacy and creativity (Tier-
ney and Farmer 2002, 2011), we controlled for employees’ creative self-efficacy, using a 3-item
scale developed by Tierney and Farmer (2002). The Cronbach’s a for this measure was 0.73.

Analytical strategy
We used SPSS 24.0 (IBM 2016) and AMOS 7.0 (Arbuckle 2002) to test the proposed
research model. First, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis on the variables in our
model to evaluate the discriminant validity. Correlation analysis was then performed to
evaluate the means, standard deviation and correlations of the variables we used. Finally,
we utilized hierarchical regression analysis, with SPSS/SAS macro PROCESS developed by
Hayes (2013) to test our hypothetical model.

Results
Results of confirmatory factor analysis
We examined the hypothesized measurement model with five factors, namely experienced
workplace incivility, PIS, creativity, witnessed incivility and creative self-efficacy. The
© 2018 Australian HR Institute 11
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 

5-factor model showed better fit (v2/df = 1.736; TLI = 0.929; CFI = 0.939;
RMSEA = 0.049) than other alternative models (Table 1). The results provided evidence
of discriminant validity among these variables.

Common method variance

Given that several variables were self-reported by employees, we examined the potential
CMV in two ways. First, we tested CMV using Harman’s single factor analysis. Specifically,
we conducted a EFA of all the items of self-reported variables (witnessed incivility, experi-
enced incivility, PIS, creative self-efficacy) and found the first factor explained only 26.206%
of variance, and the 1-factor model poorly fitted data (v2/df = 7.400, TLI = 0.494,
CFI = 0.554, RMSEA = 0.145), indicating that CMV did not lead to big biases in our sample.
Then, we added a latent factor of method variance (i.e. common factor) on which all of the
indicators were loaded. Although the added model (v2/df = 1.762, TLI = 0.940, CFI = 0.958,
RMSEA = 0.050) also fitted the data set, it did not generate significant improvement over the
original model (v2/df = 1.801, TLI = 0.937, CFI = 0.947, RMSEA = 0.051). Overall, we con-
cluded that CMV was not a big concern in our current study.

Descriptive analysis and correlations

We presented the means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations of the study
variables in Table 2. Specifically, experienced incivility was negatively correlated with PIS
(r = 0.266, p ˂ 0.01) and employee creativity (r = 0.273, p ˂ 0.01). Perceived insider
status was positively correlated with employee creativity (r = 0.330, p ˂ 0.01). Employ-
ees’ experienced incivility and witnessed incivility was also found to be positively related
(r = 0.115, p ˂ 0.05).

Hypothesis testing
We tested the direct and indirect effects hypotheses by using hierarchical regression analy-
sis (see Table 3). As predicted in hypothesis 1, after controlling demographical variables

Table 1 Results of confirmatory factor analysis

Model v2 v2/df TLI CFI RMSEA

5-factor modela 310.665 1.736 .929 .939 .049

4-factor modelb 557.199 3.045 .802 .828 .082
3-factor modelc 710.113 3.818 .727 .759 .960
2-factor modeld 1001.423 5.327 .582 .625 .119
1-factor modele 1289.406 6.822 .437 .493 .138
a
Experienced workplace incivility, perceived insider status, creativity, witnessed incivility, creative
self-efficacy; bExperienced workplace incivility and witnessed incivility combined; cExperienced
workplace incivility and witnessed incivility combined, creativity and creative self-efficacy com-
bined; dExperienced workplace incivility, witnessed incivility and perceived insider status combined,
creativity and creative self-efficacy combined; eAll five variables combined.

12 © 2018 Australian HR Institute

© 2018 Australian HR Institute
Table 2 Descriptive statistics of variables
Variables M SD Correlations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Employee gender 1.402 .491

2 Employee age 2.729 1.022 .068
3 Employee education 2.690 .837 .081 .064
4 Employee tenure 2.056 1.001 .034 .541** .178**
5 Industry D1 .709 .455 .003 .055 .089 .043
6 Industry D2 .533 .500 .020 .027 .074 .085 .600**
7 Experienced incivility 2.823 .656 .012 .091 .117* .049 .016 .015
8 Perceived insider status 3.189 .727 .001 .063 .005 .015 .193** .100 .266**
9 Employee creativity 2.327 .692 .085 .098 .045 .045 .051 .050 .273** .330**
10 Witnessed incivility 2.811 .721 .002 .080 .087 .050 .136* .115* .115* .295** .211**
11 Creative self-efficacy 2.830 .766 .027 .090 .042 .013 .058 .017 .044 .019 .142* .019
n = 306; *p ˂0.05; **p ˂0.01.
Xiaojun Zhan, Zhicheng Li and Wenhao Luo

13
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 

and creative self-efficacy, workplace incivility is significantly and negatively related to

employee creativity (b = 0.276, p ˂ 0.01, M4 in Table 3).
To test the mediation role of PIS proposed in hypothesis 2, we followed the process
outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986). As shown in Table 3, workplace incivility was signif-
icantly related to PIS (b = 0.269, p ˂ 0.01, M2) and PIS was significantly related to
employee creativity (b = 0.330, p ˂ 0.01, M5). When experienced incivility and PIS were
simultaneously added to the regression model, the negative effect of workplace incivility
on employee creativity was still significant but weaker (b = 0.202, p ˂ 0.01, M6). Thus,
PIS partially mediates the effect of workplace incivility on employee creativity, supporting
hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 3 predicts witnessed incivility will buffer the negative relationship between
experienced incivility and PIS. As shown in Table 4, the interaction between witnessed
incivility and experienced incivility was positively related to PIS (b = 0.132, p ˂ 0.05).
We then plotted the interaction effect using Aiken and West’s (1991) procedure, comput-
ing slopes one standard deviation above and below the mean of witnessed incivility. The
interaction pattern is shown in Figure 2. Simple slope analysis suggested that there is a
significant stronger relationship between workplace incivility and PIS when witnessed incivil-
ity was low (b = 0.267, p < 0.01) than when it was high (b = 0.095, p < 0.05). Thus,
hypothesis 3 was supported.

Table 3 The mediating effect of perceive insider status

Perceived insider Creativity
status

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6

Control variables
Employee gender .002 .006 .092 .097 .092 .095
Employee age .071 .043 .093 .065 .070 .053
Employee education .014 .017 .033 .001 .029 .006
Employee tenure .037 .031 .009 .003 .003 .006
Industry D1 .206** .218** .035 .047 .033 .013
Industry D2 .025 .038 .037 .024 .045 .034
Creative self-efficacy .014 .002 .138* .154* .142* .154*
Independent variables
Experienced incivility .269** .276** .202**
Mediator
Perceived insider status .330** .275**
R2 .042 .112** .041 .115** .146** .182**
DR2 .071** .074** .067**
n = 306; *p ˂0.05; **p ˂0.01.

14 © 2018 Australian HR Institute

 Xiaojun Zhan, Zhicheng Li and Wenhao Luo

Hypothesis 4 predicted that witnessed incivility moderates the indirect effect of experi-
enced incivility on creativity via PIS. To test hypothesis 4, we relied on Hayes’s (2013)
SPSS macro PROCESS and Hayes’s (2015) index of moderated mediation (IMM) was sig-
nificant for creativity (IMM = 0.047, 95% CI [0.0036, 0.1141], Bootstrapping = 2000).
We calculated the conditional mediation effect of PIS at different levels of witnessed
incivility by operationalized high and low level of witnessed incivility as one standard
deviation above and below its mean value. As shown in Table 5, the indirect effect of
workplace incivility on employee creativity through PIS was not significant when wit-
nessed incivility was high (indirect effect = 0.0395, SE = 0.0277, 95% CI = [ 0.1017,
0.0091]). However, when witnessed incivility was low, the mediated model was significant
(indirect effect = 0.1072, SE =0.0336, 95% CI = [ 0.1835, 0.0516]). In addition,
when witnessed incivility was medium, the mediated model was still significant but
weaker than the low witnessed incivility situation (indirect effect = 0.0733, SE = 0.0232,
95% CI = [ 0.1253, 0.0335]). Taken together, our results supported the moderated
mediation model proposed in hypothesis 4.

Discussion
Drawing from social identity theory, we developed and empirically tested an identification-
based model of workplace incivility and employee creativity, which suggests that work-
place incivility, as a subtle interpersonal mistreatment, can shape one’s perception of

Table 4 The moderating effect of witnessed incivility

Perceived insider status

M7 M8 M9

Control variables
Employee gender .002 .009 .008
Employee age .071 .066 .082
Employee education .014 .043 .039
Employee tenure .037 .023 .033
Industry D1 .206** .184** .175**
Industry D2 .025 .047 .045
Creative self-efficacy .014 .003 .013
Main effect
Experienced incivility .240** .253**
Witnessed incivility .255** .263**
Interaction effect
Experienced incivility 9 Witnessed incivility .132*
R2 .042 .174** .191*
DR2 .132** .017*
n = 306; *p ˂ 0.05; **p ˂ 0.01.

© 2018 Australian HR Institute 15

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 

4.0

Perceived insider status

3.5

3.0

2.5 High witnessed incivility

Low witnessed incivility
2.0
low high
Experienced workplace incivility

Figure 2 Moderating effect of witnessed incivility on the relationship between workplace incivility
and perceived insider status

Table 5 Results of moderated mediation test

Witnessed incivility Indirect effect SE 95% CI

Low witnessed incivility .1072 .0336 [ .1835, .0516]

Middle witnessed incivility .0733 .0232 [ .1253, .0335]
High witnessed incivility .0395 .0277 [ .1017, .0091]
Low witnessed incivility refers to one standard deviation below the mean of witnessed incivility;
middle witnessed incivility refers to the mean of witnessed incivility; high witnessed incivility refers
to one standard deviation above the mean of witnessed incivility.

his or her insider status in the organization and thus influence their creativity, while the
direct relationship between experienced incivility and creativity as well as the indirect rela-
tionship via PIS will be buffered when employees witness more incivility.
Using 306 time-lagged supervisor–subordinate dyadic data from four Chinese com-
panies, our study found that workplace incivility is significantly and negatively related to
employee creativity, and PIS mediates the effect of workplace incivility on employee cre-
ativity. In addition, we suggest that witnessed incivility moderates the relationship
between workplace incivility and PIS and the mediation effect of PIS on the relationship
between workplace incivility and employee creativity.

Theoretical implications
The present study makes three major theoretical contributions to the literature. First, our
study contributes to workplace incivility literature by offering an additional account to
understand the relationship between workplace incivility and employee creativity.
Through introducing and empirically testing the social identity perspective, we offered an
additional account to look at the consequences of incivility, especially on employees’ cre-
ativity. As suggested in existing literature, incivility was defined as ‘a type of low-intensity

16 © 2018 Australian HR Institute

 Xiaojun Zhan, Zhicheng Li and Wenhao Luo

interpersonal deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target’ (Andersson and
Pearson 1999, 457). Although it might be categorized as less damaging to targeted
employees, experienced incivility could profoundly reduce their perceived value in the
organization and their relationship quality with the organization, thereby causing negative
work outcomes. Building upon the idea that a higher level of insider status will trigger
enhanced intrinsic motivation to behave creatively in the workplace, we hypothesized and
found a negative relationship between incivility and creativity. Accordingly, the social
identity perspective extends studies on the consequences of workplace incivility in that it
considers the interactions between employees and the organization, going beyond existing
approaches such as emotional feelings, job attitude (e.g. satisfaction and engagement),
and resource depletion. In particular, the social identity approach emphasizes how
employees define themselves within the organization through interacting with organiza-
tional members, such as their supervisors and colleagues. In Chinese organizations, we
considered the role of PIS rather than organizational identification by recognizing the
higher power distance orientation and collectivism character of Chinese culture. When
realizing that they are an insider rather than an outsider of the organization, employees
generate a stronger sense of meaningfulness as organizational members and that provides
a further elevated motivation to undertake more responsibilities, act proactively and cre-
atively. To sum up, the social identity approach in our study is not only an additional lens
in the study of incivility, but also fits well when examining the relationship between incivil-
ity and creativity in Chinese organizations.
Second, the present study contributes to the incivility research by looking at the inter-
actions of two forms of incivility. Although the distinction between experienced and wit-
nessed incivility has been well established in prior studies, the overwhelming majority of
previous research paid attention to either the direct participants of workplace incivility
(i.e. instigator or victim) or the indirect participant of workplace incivility (i.e. observer)
separately. In doing so, previous studies found both experienced incivility and witnessed
incivility cause detrimental psychological, behavioral and cognitive consequences (Chen
et al. 2013; Reich and Hershcovis 2015). As far as we know, the present study is an early
attempt to investigate the two different participants of incivility simultaneously. Our
study empirically suggests that witnessed incivility could buffer the negative consequence
of experienced incivility on creativity because witnessed incivility provides signal informa-
tion for employees to make sense of incivility situations in such a way that they are not the
exclusive target, thereby reducing the burden on their self-worth and identity. Our find-
ings thus extend the scope of boundary conditions of incivility beyond personal character-
istics emphasized in past studies. Recognizing that employees’ perception of other
employees’ incivility experiences can exacerbate or mitigate the negative impact of work-
place incivility on their PIS and creativity at work, we could develop a more complete
understanding of the social dynamics of incivility among employees. It is notable that wit-
nessed incivility buffers the negative effect of experienced incivility on employee PIS and
creativity only at middle and low level, whereas the moderation effect no longer exists
when witnessed incivility is high (see Table 5). This suggests an accumulation effect of
© 2018 Australian HR Institute 17
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 

witnessed incivility and its potential harm, which enriches our knowledge of incivility. To
sum up, there is an accumulation effect for both experienced and witnessed incivility
(Andersson and Pearson 1999). Employees who frequently witness a higher level of incivil-
ity would also be negatively influenced.
Last but not least, our study adds new evidence on the antecedents and mechanisms of
employee creativity. As suggested in existing studies, negative treatments (such as deviance
behavior, abusive supervisor, etc.) can lead to a lower level of creativity due to multiple
mechanisms. Our study confirms that incivility, even characterized as low and small in
strength, could also be a damaging factor on employee creativity. Moreover, the media-
tion effect of PIS also sheds light on how employees’ perceived insider identity can affect
their creativity; the mediation effect of PIS could also be applied in examining other ante-
cedents of creativity. Because of the interactive nature of incivility, the moderated media-
tion model in our study demonstrates how incivility influences creativity by framing
incivility experiences as one contextual factor that could affect employees’ identity within
the organization.

Managerial implications
Our study also provides several important managerial implications as follows. First, our
findings show that workplace incivility is costly for both employees and organizations in
China, even though its mild character would make it easily tolerated by Chinese employ-
ees with high collectivism and power distance orientation. In our research, we find that
workplace incivility undermines employee creativity by decreasing employees’ PIS within
their organizations. Thereby, a direct approach for managers would be to reduce the
occurrence of workplace incivility, which can be achieved by evoking attention to this
mild form of deviant behavior in the workplace and establishing regulation policies on
interpersonal incivility (Leiter et al. 2011). To effectively reduce the occurrence and nega-
tive consequences of incivility in interactions, organizations should develop explicit
norms of work relationships, as well as encouraging a friendly way of coping with supervi-
sors and colleagues. Because leaders are more likely to be the sources of uncivil behaviors,
middle managers should be offered specific training on how to effectively supervise their
subordinates in a respectful way. The human resource department could also review man-
agement practices to make sure that those ambiguous incivilities are not being ignored.
Second, our findings suggest that PIS drives the deleterious effects of incivility. Given
that PIS seems to be a key mechanism accounting for the harm caused by incivility espe-
cially in China, interventions designed to foster insider status perceptions may weaken
such deleterious effects. For example, organizations could provide more support to
employees and show concern for employees’ contribution and well-being, offer more
opportunities for employees to engage in pro-diversity practice, and design more practices
that can satisfy employees’ need for self-worth. These employee-orientated practices
would be more effective in Chinese organizations that put a lot emphasis on relationships
and group harmony (Huang et al. 2016; Luo et al. 2016). It is noteworthy that employees’
PIS is largely influenced by how well they are getting along with other members, especially
18 © 2018 Australian HR Institute
 Xiaojun Zhan, Zhicheng Li and Wenhao Luo

those who can help employees to define themselves and confirm their self-worth. As such,
with intention to enhance employees’ PIS, organizations should engage in efforts to shape
a supportive and empowering climate so that employees see themselves as valuable in
achieving organizational goals.
Third, our research shows that witnessed incivility (at moderate and low level, but
not at high level) moderates the negative association between workplace incivility and
PIS and the indirect effect of PIS in the association between workplace incivility and
employee creativity. This suggests that the accumulation of witnessed incivility may
also go beyond employees’ limits of tolerance and consequently leads to negative
results. Accordingly, it is worthwhile for organizations and supervisors to be aware
that rudeness episodes targeting a single employee may cause related effects on many
other employees, thereby leading to group-based consequences. In Chinese organiza-
tions, even though employees are more likely to bear incivility and keep silent when
confronted with it, they might strongly resist or even engage in counterproductive
conduct when they perceive a higher level of incivility. Supervisors therefore should
always reflect on their own behaviors and verbal expression so as to reduce the poten-
tial accumulation of harm to employees. Previous studies have also found that work-
place incivility can shape particular types of organizational climate and might be a
shared stressor in workplace. Although our findings suggest that witnessed incivility
made the sense-making process of incivility experiences much easier for employees, it
is still necessary to eradicate workplace incivility to contain its harmfulness on individ-
ual employees and the organization as a whole. Organizations should label rude behav-
iors as inappropriate and unapproved, reducing the possibility of being uncivilly
treated themselves or witnessing rudeness in interactions among other organizational
members. Additionally, Chinese organizations should encourage open communication
between employees and co-workers as well as supervisors, thus creating more oppor-
tunities for employees to accurately make sense of their own experience in the work-
place (De Luque and Sommer 2000).

Limitations and future directions

Despite theoretical and practical contributions mentioned above, several limitations
should be noted. First, although we measured the key variables at two different times, we
still did not have a rigorous longitudinal research design, as we did not measure the
changing effects of the key variables in the research model. This constrains us from exam-
ining the dynamic change in the variables, and we cannot unequivocally claim a causal
relationship between workplace incivility and employee creativity, which may restrict our
conclusions on the causal direction of the paths tested in the research model. Moreover,
because employees under supervision of the same leader might have common perceptions
of incivility, paired data collection cannot exclude the nested nature of incivility in a single
workplace. Therefore, it would be beneficial for future studies to adopt more rigorous lon-
gitudinal designs, dynamic perspective design or experimental designs.

© 2018 Australian HR Institute 19

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 

Second, although we collected data in multiple industries, all our participants were
from China. Our sample restricts the generalizability of our research findings to other cul-
tural contexts, even to other Asian countries. As noted earlier, our theoretical model is
based on the cultural characteristics of Chinese organizations. In particular, it is possible
that individuals in collectivist cultures (such as east Asian countries) value their relation-
ships with the organization more than those in individualistic cultures; thus the role of
PIS might be much more salient in collectivist cultures such as China. In countries with
high individualism, employees might not care so much about whether they are insiders or
outsiders. They may not define their own identity and value primarily through organiza-
tional interactions. In other words, we are still not sure whether the mediating role of PIS
works as well in individualist countries such as the United States. Consequently, we rec-
ommend that future studies examine the role of social identity across various cultural con-
texts to address these issues and to explain any cross-cultural differences that might
emerge.
Third, we draw on the social identity perspective to investigate the mechanism of work-
place incivility on employee creativity and to examine workplace incivility from the target’s
and observer’s perspective in tandem for the same employee. However, we are unaware of
whether witnessed incivility could influence observers’ social identification process at the
same time. Previous studies have demonstrated that even without direct participation in
incivility interactions, witnessed incivility could influence observers’ emotions, cognition
and behaviors (Reich and Hershcovis 2015). Given that most of the emphasis has been on
direct targets in incivility interactions, it is necessary and valuable to consider the role and
reactions of observers (Schilpzand, Leavitt and Lim 2016; Schilpzand, Pater, and Erez 2016).
Therefore, we suggest that future research examine the social identity perspective from the
observer’s side and compare the research findings with those from the target’s perspective.
A final limitation is that we examined witnessed incivility only as a moderator on the
relationship between workplace incivility and PIS. However, previous studies have found
that employees’ personal characteristics (such as trait hostility and narcissism) and situa-
tional factors (such as organizational politics, family support, organizational support and
group regard) could also moderate the association between workplace incivility and
employee work outcomes. Our study has not offered an integrated examination of these dif-
ferent types of boundary conditions. Additionally, it is possible that other variables could
also moderate the association between workplace incivility and employee creativity, such as
cultural orientation, similarity between instigator and the victim, trust, and so on. To sum
up, it is beneficial and necessary for future studies to explore different boundary conditions
of the incivility–outcomes relationship in more comprehensive and overarching ways.

Acknowledgement
The present study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China
(71640015, 71662013, 71362010), Yuyou Talent Program of North China University of
Technology, and Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi province (20181BAA208040).

20 © 2018 Australian HR Institute

 Xiaojun Zhan, Zhicheng Li and Wenhao Luo

Xiaojun Zhan (PhD, Jiangxi Univ of Finance & Economics) is an associate professor in Research
Center of Cluster and Enterprise Development at Jiangxi University of Finance & Economics. His
research focuses on workplace incivility and dark side behaviors in organizations.

Zhicheng Li (PhD, Sun Yat-sen Univ) is an assistant professor in School of Tourism and Urban
Management at Jiangxi University of Finance & Economics. Her research focuses on workplace
incivility and creativity.

Wenhao Luo (PhD, Renmin Univ of China) is an assistant professor in School of Economics &
Management at North China University of Technology. His research focuses on follower-centered
leadership research and organizational behavior.

References
Aiken LS and SG West (1991) Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Sage, New-
bury Park, CA.
Amabile TM (1988) A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organiza-
tional Behavior 10, 123–167.
Amabile TM (1996) Creativity in context: update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview,
Boulder, CO.
Amabile TM and MG Pratt (2016) The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation
in organizations: making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior 36,
157–183.
Amabile TM, SG Barsade, JS Mueller and BM Staw (2005) Affect and creativity at work. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly 50(3), 367–403.
Andersson LM and CM Pearson (1999) Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace.
Academy of Management Review 24(3), 452–471.
Arbuckle JL (2002) AMOS 7.0. SPSS, Chicago, IL.
Armstrong-Stassen M and F Schlosser (2011) Perceived organizational membership and the reten-
tion of older workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior 32(2), 319–344.
Bai Q, W Lin and L Wang (2016) Family incivility and counterproductive work behavior: a moder-
ated mediation model of self-esteem and emotional regulation. Journal of Vocational Behavior
94, 11–19.
Baron RM and DA Kenny (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psycholog-
ical research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 51(6), 1173–1182.
Brislin RW (1980) Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In HC Triandis
and JW Berry (eds) Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, 389–444. McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY.
Bunk JA and VJ Magley (2013) The role of appraisals and emotions in understanding experiences
of workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 18(1), 87–105.
Chen ZX and S Aryee (2007) Delegation and employee work outcomes: an examination of the cul-
tural context of mediating processes in China. Academy of Management Journal 50(1), 226–238.

© 2018 Australian HR Institute 21

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 

Chen YY, DL Ferris, HK Kwan, M Yan, MJ Zhou and Y Hong (2013) Self-love’s lost labor: a self-
enhancement model of workplace incivility. Academy of Management Journal 56(4), 1199–1219.
Cortina LM, VJ Magley, JH Willams and RD Langhout (2001) Incivility in the workplace: incidence
and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 6(1), 64–80.
De Luque MF and SM Sommer (2000) The impact of culture on feedback-seeking behavior: an
integrated model and propositions. Academy of Management Review 25(4), 829–849.
Farmer SM, P Tierney and K Kung-McIntyre (2003) Employee creativity in Taiwan: an application
of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal 46(5), 618–630.
Ferris DL, M Chen and S Lim (2017) Comparing and contrasting workplace ostracism and incivil-
ity. Annual Review of Organization Psychology and Organization Behavior 4(1), 1–24.
Fuller JB, K Hester, T Barnett, L Frey, C Relyea and D Beu (2006) Perceived external prestige and
internal respect: new insights into the organizational identification process. Human Relations 59
(6), 815–846.
Ghosh R, TG Reio and H Bang (2013) Reducing turnover intent: supervisor and co-worker incivility
and socialization-related learning. Human Resource Development International 16(2), 169–185.
Han D, AK Lalwani and A Duhachek (2017) Power distance belief, power, and charitable giving.
Journal of Consumer Research 44(1), 182–195.
Hannah ST, RG Lord, SWJ Kozlowski, N Dimotakis, JM Schaubroeck, AC Peng, LK Trevino, BJ
Avolio and J Doty (2013) Joint influences of individual and work unit abusive supervision on
intentions and behaviors: a moderated mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology 98(4),
579–592.
Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regres-
sion-based approach. Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Hayes AF (2015) An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research
50(1), 1–22.
Hofstede G (1980) Motivation, leadership, and organization: do American theories apply abroad?
Organizational Dynamics 9(1), 42–63.
Hogg MA (2000) Social identity and social comparison. In J Suls and L Wheeler (ed) Handbook of
social comparison, 401–421. Springer, Boston, MA.
Horng J-S, C-Y Tsai, D-C Hu and C-H Liu (2016) The role of perceived insider status in employee
creativity: developing and testing a mediation and three-way interaction model. Asia Pacific
Journal of Tourism Research 21(Suppl 1), S53–S75.
Hu J and TA Judge (2017) Leader-team complementarity: exploring the interactive effects of leader
personality traits and team power distance value on team process and performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology 102(6), 935–955.
Huang W, H Li, S Wang and J Weng (2016) Can ‘democratic management’ improve labor relations
in market-driven China? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 54(2), 230–257.
Hui C, C Lee and H Wang (2015) Organizational inducements and employee citizenship behavior:
the mediating role of perceived insider status and the moderating role of collectivism. Human
Resource Management 54(3), 439–456.
Hur W, T Moon and J Jun (2016) The effect of workplace incivility on service employee creativity:
the mediating role of emotional exhaustion and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Service market-
ing 30(3), 302–315.
IBM Corp (2016) IBM statistics for windows, Version 24.0. IBM Corp, Armonk, NY.

22 © 2018 Australian HR Institute

 Xiaojun Zhan, Zhicheng Li and Wenhao Luo

Khazanchi S and SS Masterson (2011) Who and what is fair matters: a multi-foci social exchange
model of creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior 32(1), 86–106.
Leiter MP, HKS Laschinger, A Day and DG Oore (2011) The impact of civility interventions on
employee social behavior, distress and attitude. Journal of Applied Psychology 96(6), 1258–
1274.
Liao H, D Liu and R Loi (2010) Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: a social cognitive
perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on creativity. Academy
of Management Journal 53(5), 1090–1109.
Lim S and LM Cortina (2005) Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: the interface and
impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology 90(3), 483–496.
Lim S, LM Cortina and VJ Magley (2008) Personal and workgroup incivility: impact on work and
health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 93(1), 95–107.
Loh J, SL Restubog and TJ Zagenczyk. 2010. Consequences of workplace bullying on employee
identification and satisfaction among Australians and Singporeans. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology 41(2), 236–252.
Lu L (2008) Culture, self, and subjective well-being: cultural, psychological and social change per-
spectves. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient 51(4), 290–303.
Luo WH, LJ Song, DR Gebert, K Zhang and Y Feng (2016) How does leader communication style
promote employees’ commitment at times of change? Journal of Organizational Change Man-
agement 29(2), 242–262.
Lyu Y, X Zhou, W Li, J Wan, J Zhang and C Qiu (2016) The impact of abusive supervision on ser-
vice employees’ proactive customer service performance in the hotel industry. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 28(9), 1992–2012.
Mao C, C-H Chang, RE Johnson and J Sun (2017) Incivility and employee performance, citizen-
ship, and counterproductive behaviors: implication of the social context. Journal of Occupa-
tional Health Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000108
Masterson SS and CL Stamper (2003) Perceived organizational membership: an aggregate frame-
work representing the employee-organization relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior
23(5), 473–490.
Miner-Rubino K and WD Reed (2010) Testing a moderated mediational model of workgroup inci-
vility: the roles of organizational trust and group regard. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 40
(12), 3148–3168.
Moon C, M Weick and AK Uskul (2018) Cultural viriation in individuals’ responses to incivility by
perpetrators of different rank: the mediating role of descriptive and injunctive norms. European
Journal of Social Psychology 48(4), 472–489.
Ouyang K, W Lam and W Wang (2015) Roles of gender and identification on abusive supervision
and proactive behavior. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 32(3), 671–691.
Park JH, MZ Carter, RS DeFrank and Q Deng (2016) Abusive supervision, psychological distress,
and silence: the effects of gender dissimilarity between supervisors and subordinates. Journal of
Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3384-3.
Pearson C and C Porath (2009) The cost of bad behavior: how incivility is damaging your business
and what to do about it. Penguin, New York, NY.
Pearson CM, LM Andersson, M Lynne and JW Wegner (2001) When workers flout convention: a
study of workplace incivility. Human Relations 54(11), 1387–1419.

© 2018 Australian HR Institute 23

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 

Podsakoff PM, SB MacKenzie, J Lee and NP Podsakoff (2003) Common method biases in behav-
ioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology 88(5), 879–903.
Porath CL and A Erez (2007) Does rudeness really matter? The effects of rudeness on task perfor-
mance and helpfulness. Academy of Management Journal 50(5), 1181–1197.
Porath CL and A Erez (2009) Overlooked but not untouched: how rudeness reduces onlookers’ per-
formance on routine creative tasks. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 109
(1), 29–44.
Porath CL and CM Pearson (2010) The cost of bad behavior. Organizational Dynamics 39(1), 64–
71.
Reich TC and MS Hershcovis (2015) Observing workplace incivility. Journal of Applied Psychology
100(1), 203–215.
Robinson SL, W Wang and C Kiewitz (2014) Coworkers behaving badly: the impact of coworker
deviant behavior upon individual employees. Annual Review of Organization Psychology and
Organization Behavior 1(1), 123–143.
Sakurai K and SM Jex (2012) Coworker incivility and incivility targets’ work effort and counterpro-
ductive work behaviors: the moderating role of supervisor social support. Journal of Occupa-
tional Health Psychology 17(2), 150–161.
Schilpzand P, K Leavitt and S Lim (2016) Incivility hates company: shared incivility attenuates
rumination, stress, and psychological withdrawal by reducing self-blame. Organizational Behav-
ior and Human Decision Processes 133(1), 33–44.
Schilpzand P, IE Pater and A Erez (2016) Workplace incivility: a review of the literature and agenda
for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior 37(S1), S57–S88.
Sharifirad MS (2016) Can incivility impair team’s creative performance through paralyzing employ-
ee’s knowledge sharing? A multi-level approach. Leadership & Organization development Journal
37(2), 200–225.
Shin S and J Zhou (2003) Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: evidence from
Korea. Academy of Management Journal 46(6), 703–714.
Singelis T, H Triandis, D Bhawuk and M Gelfand (1995) Horizontal and vertical dimensions of
individualism and collectivism: a theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural
Research 29(3), 240–275.
Sluss DM, RE Ployhart, MG Cobb and BE Ashforth (2012) Generalizing newcomers’ relational and
oorganizational identifications: processes and prototypicality. Academy of Management Journal
55(4), 949–975.
Srivastava S and J Beer (2005) How self-evaluations relate to being liked by others: integrating
sociometer and attachment perspective. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 89(6), 966–
977.
Stamper CL and SS Masterson (2002) Insider or outsider? How employee perceptions of insider sta-
tus affect their behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23(8), 875–894.
Tajfel H and JC Turner (1985) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S Worchel and
WG Austin (eds) Psychology of intergroup relations, 2nd edn. Nelson-Hall, Chicago, IL.
Tang G, B Yu, FL Cooke and Y Chen (2017) High-performance work system and employee creativ-
ity: the roles of perceived organizational support and developed management. Personnel Review
46(7), 1318–1334.

24 © 2018 Australian HR Institute

 Xiaojun Zhan, Zhicheng Li and Wenhao Luo

Tierney P and SM Farmer (2002) Creative self-efficacy: its potential antecedents and relationship to
creative performance. Academy of Management Journal 45(6), 1137–1148.
Tierney P and SM Farmer (2011) Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over
time. Journal of Applied Psychology 96(2), 277–293.
Turner JC (1975) Social comparison and social identity: some prospects for intergroup behavior.
European Journal of Social Psychology 5(1), 1–34.
Walker DD, DD van Jaarsveld and DP Skarlicki (2014) Exploring the effects of individual customer
incivility encounters on employee incivility: the moderating roles of entity (in)civility and nega-
tive affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology 99(1), 151–161.
Wang W, J Mao, W Wu and J Liu (2012) Abusive supervision and workplace deviance: the mediat-
ing role of interactional justice and the moderating role of power distance. Asia Pacific Journal
of Human Resources 50(1), 43–60.
Wilson NL and CM Holmvall (2013) The development and validation of the incivility from cus-
tomers scale. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 18(3), 310–326.
Woolum A, T Foulk, K Lanaj and A Erez (2017) Rude color glasses: the contaminating effects of
witnessed morning rudeness on perceptions and behaviors throughout the workday. Journal of
Applied Psychology 102(12), 1658–1672.
Wu C-H, J Liu, HK Kwan and C Lee (2016) Why and when workplace ostracism inhibits organiza-
tional citizenship behaviors: an organizational identification perspective. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology 101(3), 362–378.
Wu LZ, H Zhang, RK Chiu, HK Kwan and X He (2014) Hostile attribution bias and negative
reciprocity beliefs exacerbate incivility’s effects on interpersonal deviance. Journal of Business
Ethics 120(2), 189–199.
Yeung A and B Griffin (2008) Workplace incivility: does it matter in Asia? People and Strategy 31
(3), 14–19.
Zhang X and KM Bartol (2010) Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the influ-
ence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement.
Academy of Management Journal 53(1), 107–128.
Zhang H, HK Kwan, X Zhang and LZ Wu (2014) High core self-evaluators maintain creativity: a
motivational model of abusive supervision. Journal of Management, 40(4), 1151–1174.
Zhao HD, M Kessel and J Kratzer (2014) Supervisor–subordinate relationship, differentiation,
and employee creativity: a self-categorization perspective. Journal of Creative Behavior 48(3),
165–184.

© 2018 Australian HR Institute 25