Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20

Customer incivility and customer problem-solving

behaviour in frontline employees: testing a
moderated mediation model

Shaker Bani-Melhem , Rawan Mazen Abukhait , Faridahwati Mohd.

Shamsudin & Martin West

To cite this article: Shaker Bani-Melhem , Rawan Mazen Abukhait , Faridahwati Mohd. Shamsudin
& Martin West (2020): Customer incivility and customer problem-solving behaviour in frontline
employees: testing a moderated mediation model, Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2020.1842187

Published online: 06 Nov 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctqm20
Total Quality Management, 2020
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2020.1842187

Customer incivility and customer problem-solving behaviour in

frontline employees: testing a moderated mediation model
Shaker Bani-Melhema*, Rawan Mazen Abukhaitb, Faridahwati Mohd. Shamsudinc and
Martin Westb
a
College of Business Administration, Management, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab
Emirates; bCollege of Business Administration, Management, Ajman University, Ajman, United
Arab Emirates; cAl Akhawayn University in Ifrane, School of Business Administration, AUI in
Ifran, Morocco

Due to its prevalence and lasting implications, frontline employees’ (FLEs) experience
of customer incivility has long occupied both managers and the human resources field as
a whole. The current research employs the conservation of resources theory (COR) and
justice theory to examine the influence of customer incivility on the customer problem-
solving behaviour of FLEs via the mediation of employee burnout. Furthermore, it
examines what alleviates the adverse influences of customer incivility by assessing
the moderating roles of perceived supervisor justice and employee resilience. Using
structural equation modelling (SEM), the research model is analysed based on a
sample of 243 FLE-supervisor dyads in various hospitality organisations using a
time-lagged research method, whereby supervisor-assessed FLEs’ customer problem-
solving behaviours were also examined. The results demonstrate that customer
incivility indirectly (via burnout) and directly has a negative influence on FLE
willingness to engage in customer problem-solving behaviours. This influence is
alleviated when a supervisor is perceived to be just and the employees are resilient.
For managers, these research findings illustrate the significance of understanding what
lessens the negative impact of customer incivility on the willingness to engage in
customer problem-solving behaviours.
Keywords: customer incivility; customer problem-solving behaviour; burnout;
supervisor justice; employee resilience; United Arab Emirates (UAE) hospitality sector

Introduction
Customer interaction is a fundamental aspect of the daily responsibilities of frontline employ-
ees (FLEs). Thus, it is not surprising that they commonly bear the brunt of customer dissatis-
faction and are frequently subjected to impolite and rude behaviours. Customer incivility,
which violates the social norms of courtesy and respect, is often relatively mild; nevertheless,
FLEs are subjected to it regularly (Bani-Melhem et al., 2020). Sliter et al. (2012) found that
more than 70% of employees have encountered discourteous customers. Meanwhile, in a
survey of 438 restaurant employees designed to evaluate their work-related stress, Human Per-
formance (2014) found that the majority of respondents unduly correlate their high levels of
stress with the negative behaviours of customers. The question is whether despite being the
subject of customer incivility, are FLEs still willing to entertain customer requests to solve
service delivery problems? Customer problem-solving behaviour, which is an organisationally
valued performance outcome, refers to employee willingness to handle customer concerns,
challenges, and problems and show a sincere interest in solving them (Gong & Yi, 2018).

*Corresponding author. Email: ssaleh@sharjah.ac.ae

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 S.Bani-Melhem et al.

Employees who have to deal with rude and difficult customers are likely to experience
burnout or emotional exhaustion (Maslach & Jackson, 1981), and when they do, their
ability to solve customer problems is likely to be adversely affected. We define burnout
as an ‘affective state of repeated resource loss that is not adequately balanced by the recov-
ery of resources’ (Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004). However, a literature search indicates
that burnout as a possible process to clarify how customer incivility could affect customer
problem-solving behaviour seems to have been neglected (see, for example, Taylor et al.,
2012; Zhu et al., 2019).
In a work environment where FLEs can frequently experience customer incivility,
making them experience burn out or emotional exhaustion, perceived supervisor justice
may alleviate this negative influence of customer incivility on burnout, and consequently,
on customer problem-solving behaviour. Perceived supervisor justice is defined as the
extent of employee perceptions of how fair and supportive their supervisors are in handling
problems caused by customer incivility (Gong et al., 2014). Because supervisor behaviours
can create a work context that influences employee attitudes and behaviours (Meyer et al.,
2018), we examine whether supervisors’ ability to impart coping capabilities and provide
employees with social support can minimise the negative emotions that result from dys-
functional customer behaviours.
Furthermore, while almost all FLEs are likely to feel burnt out due to customer incivi-
lity, we speculate that different FLEs respond to such a negative experience differently. To
be specific, we propose that employee resilience mitigates the effect of customer incivility.
Employee resilience is defined as ‘the individual capacity to rebound or bounce back from
adversity, conflict, and failure or even positive events, progress, and increased responsibil-
ity’ (Luthans, 2002, p. 702). In the hospitality industry, where customers are the key stake-
holder, having a resilient personality can help FLEs to continue providing services to the
customers despite their negative experiences.

Purpose and theory

Against this backdrop, we propose a conceptual model that considers burnout to mediate
the effect of customer incivility on customer problem-solving behaviour. The model also
includes perceived supervisor justice, which may lessen the adverse effect of customer inci-
vility on burnout. The present study explicitly aims to investigate (a) the effect of customer
incivility on burnout, (b) the impact of burnout on customer problem-solving behaviour, (c)
the role of burnout as a mediator in the incivility and customer problem-solving behaviour
relationship, (d) employee resilience as a moderator of the impact of customer incivility on
burnout, and (e) the role of supervisor justice in moderating the relationship between cus-
tomer incivility and burnout.
Based on the conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989) and justice theory
(Folger & Cropanzano, 2001), we integrate the moderating variables of supervisor justice
and employee resilience to clarify what mitigates the negative impact of customer incivility
on burnout and customer problem-solving behaviour and how. Understanding the role of
the situation and individual characteristics is consistent with the person-situation interac-
tionist perspective (Schneider et al., 2005). Furthermore, the proposal of a two-stage mod-
erated mediation framework in this research is expected to offer a novel perception on how
experiencing customer incivility affects FLE willingness to engage in customer problem-
solving behaviour and when this effect will be more pronounced. Our initial hypothetical
model is illustrated in Figure 1.
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 3

Figure 1. The hypothetical model.

Relevance and significance of the study

Our study is relevant and significant in various ways. Firstly, we consider employee will-
ingness to solve customer problems because it is an understudied potential behavioural
outcome of customer incivility. Despite having to deal with demanding, difficult or even
rude customers, by solving the problems that customers face, employees can correct
service failure, solve customer problems, and prevent negative word-of-mouth (Arnold
& Walsh, 2015). Secondly, past studies have primarily focused on the adverse conse-
quences of customer incivility on employees, such as psychological withdrawal behaviour
and counterproductive work behaviour (Bedi & Schat, 2017; Han et al., 2016; Skarlicki
et al., 2016; Torres et al., 2017). However, scarce attention has been paid to investigating
the effect of such a phenomenon on other types of positive behaviour, such as customer
problem-solving behaviour, and if such an influence exists, then how and why. A better
understanding of the influence of customer incivility on the positive behaviour of employ-
ees is crucial because of theoretical and practical concerns.
Thirdly, despite much of the literature showing that negative experiences can make
employees burnt out or emotionally exhausted (Chen et al., 2012; Choi et al., 2019), the
evidence of the linkages between customer incivility, burnout, and customer problem-
solving behaviour is not clear cut. Furthermore, past studies appear to have neglected
burnout as a possible process to explain why customer incivility might affect positive
employee behaviours (see, for example, Taylor et al., 2012; Zhu et al., 2019). By investi-
gating the mediation of burnout, we could offer an insight into why customer incivility
affects customer problem-solving behaviour.
Fourthly, examining the moderation by supervisor justice and employee resilience is
important to establish the boundary conditions that are likely to mitigate the adverse
effects of customer incivility and burnout. This aspect is relevant as, according to COR
theory, supervisor justice and employee resilience are resources FLEs can use to cope
with negative experiences at work. Furthermore, the findings could shed light on which
type of resources are more effective in mitigating the feelings of burnout. Such evidence
has serious theoretical and practical implications.
4 S.Bani-Melhem et al.

Literature review
Customer incivility
The literature on incivility can be located in the broader literature of deviant workplace
behaviour; however, instead of focusing on deviant behaviour by employees, we consider
the negative behaviour of customers because it tends to be given less emphasis despite
being a common and exasperating phenomenon (Zhu et al., 2019). In this study, we
define customer incivility as an employee’s feelings that customers are treating them in
an impolite, rude or discourteous manner (Walker et al., 2014). While it has been con-
sidered less severe than other negative behaviours, customer incivility has been shown
to have adverse consequences for organisational effectiveness (Garcia et al., 2019;
Torres et al., 2017).

Experienced customer incivility and burnout

In the hospitality industry, FLEs have to endure difficult and rude customers as part of their
job (Han et al., 2016). Hereby, they may be frequently subjected to aggression, rude behav-
iour, verbal abuse, and even physical harm. These negative experiences can cause signifi-
cant stress as, according to emotional labour theory, the conflict between the dysfunctional
behaviour of customers and the unwavering positive emotion that employees must exhibit
induces psychological tension (Grandey, 2003). In the process of navigating this conflict,
they must repress negative emotions, such as exasperation, through effort, leading to
emotional exhaustion, reduced self-esteem, burnout, and depression (Al-Hawari et al.,
2020; Henkel et al., 2017). When employees feel burnt out or emotionally exhausted
(Maslach & Jackson, 1981), they are highly likely to demonstrate a callous or uncaring atti-
tude, affecting their sense of accomplishment and undermining job performance. When this
happens, the organisation’s bottom line is likely to be adversely affected (Alola et al., 2019;
van Jaarsveld et al., 2010). COR theory can be applied to elucidate why customer incivility
is expected to increase employee burnout. According to this theory, burnout occurs because
people who experience a perceived or actual loss of resources are unable to regain these
resources, and thus individuals exhibit signs of disengagement to protect themselves
against the further depletion of resources (Demerouti et al., 2001). Customer incivility in
particular has the potential to threaten and deplete the resources valued by employees,
such as resourcefulness, self-esteem, and energy (Hobfoll, 1989; Yagil, 2017). The validity
of this theory has been established in past studies (Lee & Ok, 2014). Hence, we propose the
following:
Hypothesis 1: Experienced customer incivility positively affects employee burnout.

Burnout and customer problem-solving behaviour

The literature indicates a requirement for creative thinking based solutions to customer pro-
blems (Groza et al., 2016), and employees who exhibit the ability to be creative can more
readily recognise customers’ needs (Martinaityte et al., 2019). However, when employees
are burnt out, their personal resources are restricted and they will be more likely to adopt a
defensive posture to protect those resources (Hobfoll, 2001). They will also not be motiv-
ated to invest their resources in completing their work-related tasks and responsibilities.
Consistent with COR theory, burnt out and exhausted employees are less likely to have
an interest in exploring and developing creative solutions and ideas. They are also less
likely to have the drive to deal with a high degree of uncertainty and a lack of clarity
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 5

and to risk making poor decisions or implementing ineffective solutions (Shin et al., 2015),
harming customer service delivery. Hence, the following hypothesis is formulated:
Hypothesis 2: Burnout negatively affects customer problem-solving behaviour.

The mediating role of burnout

According to COR theory, when FLEs encounter and respond to a high level of customer
discourteousness, they are likely to experience burnout or emotional exhaustion (Maslach
& Jackson, 1981). This is because the affective reaction and response to the enduring stress,
i.e. burnout, can deplete an individual’s cognitive resources and emotional energy over time
(Shirom, 2003), as postulated by COR theory. When FLEs continue to encounter resource
loss without the ability or opportunity to effectively compensate through resource replace-
ment (i.e. by exploiting alternative resources), they may grow concerned that the resources
they have are not sufficient to rise to the demands of the job and, as such, are more likely to
experience burnout. If employees’ emotional resources are depleted, they will not have the
energy to maintain their work efforts and effectively execute job-related tasks (Lee & Ash-
forth, 1996; Wright & Cropanzano, 1998), for example, solving problems in the work
setting. In addition, employees who are emotionally drained may attempt to address the
reduction in emotional resources by removing themselves from customers (e.g. by treating
them as impersonal objects) as a means of preserving their limited resources (Wright &
Hobfoll, 2004). In such a situation, it is unlikely that employees with a high level of
burnout will be able to produce a positive experience for the customers with whom they
interact. Hence, we offer the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Employee burnout mediates the relationship between customer incivility and
customer problem-solving behaviour.

Moderating impact of employee resilience

Personality theories highlight that the personality of an individual can impact his or her
response to the external environment. In a hospitality work environment where rude and
discourteous customers are common, FLEs differ in how they react and respond to such
situations, consistent with personality theories (Al-Hawari et al., 2020). Extant studies on
personality have found that FLEs who exhibit personal traits not aligned with the positive
and enthusiastic emotions that must be conveyed to customers (for example, FLEs who are
shy or emotionally unstable) are more likely to suffer from exhaustion because of the effort
required to process their emotions (Judge, 2009). Hence, in this study, we examine the role
of resilience in affecting FLE emotions and burnout.
Resilience can be viewed as a state-like aptitude to recover from adverse events, deal
with the challenges that emerge in everyday life, successfully maintain equilibrium, and
positively recover from stressful events (Luthans, 2002). Researchers have frequently
described how resilient individuals are likely to exhibit a higher level of well-being,
perform to a higher standard in their jobs, show lower levels of distress, be more willing
to engage in creative exploration, be less likely to suffer from depression, and be more posi-
tive in their outlook (Luthans, 2002; Melnyk et al., 2013). Per COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989),
resilience represents a fundamental psychological resource that can facilitate an individual’s
ability to overcome professional challenges (Campbell-Sills et al., 2006). Resilient workers
tend to react to complaints positively and are likely to perceive customer encounters as chal-
lenging instead of threatening. They also remain calm in demanding situations and shield
their emotional resources (Parker et al., 2015). As a result, they deliver high-quality
6 S.Bani-Melhem et al.

customer service, even in situations where customers are discourteous. Thus, we anticipate
that employees who demonstrate a high degree of emotional resilience are more able to
endure the negative implications of customer incivility. Hence, we formulate the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: Employee resilience moderates the impacts of customer incivility on customer
problem-solving behaviour (via burnout), such that the unfavourable effects are weaker at
higher levels of employee resilience.

Moderating impact of perceived supervisor justice

In line with COR theory, when interactions with dysfunctional customers cause employees
to experience a loss of resources, they anticipate compensation via an intervention that deli-
vers a just settlement. If this is not forthcoming, they are likely to perceive the organisation
negatively and feel that an injustice has been done. On the contrary, fair and positive evalu-
ations foster affective and cognitive reactions in the form of satisfaction (Vermunt &
Steensma, 2005). Hence, we consider perceived supervisor justice as a potential interven-
tion to compensate for the loss of employee personal resources, i.e. feeling burnt out or
exhausted, as a result of customer incivility. The perception of supervisor justice refers
to the extent of an employee’s perceptions of how fair and supportive their supervisors
are in handling problems caused by customer incivility (Gong et al., 2014).
According to justice theory, there is a correlation between supervisor justice sources and
how employees respond to (un)fair treatment, and this subsequently influences how an
employee reacts to an issue (Rupp & Paddock, 2010). Supervisors can impact the emotions
of employees more than alternative within-organisation justice sources because they rep-
resent the face of the organisation (Skarlicki et al., 2016). They also have discretion in treat-
ing employees with dignity and respect (i.e. interactional justice), offering adequate
information and explanation to employees about work processes and decisions (i.e. infor-
mational justice), and providing input about the compensation and reward employees
should receive to the management (distributive justice) (Skarlicki et al., 2016).
In the hospitality industry, supervisors can play a fundamental role in reducing the adverse
outcomes associated with customer impoliteness by offering supplementary resources to
counteract the negative emotions that employees are subjected to during such encounters
(Skarlicki et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2011). This is because the equitable conduct and
backing of the supervisors can increase employees’ beliefs that their supervisors value their
efforts (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011). When employees feel their supervisor treats
them fairly, their sense of dignity and self-esteem are heightened (Tyler, 1989), resulting in
enhanced effort in solving customer problems. Hence, the following hypothesis is offered:
Hypothesis 5: Perceived supervisor justice moderates the impacts of experienced customer inci-
vility on customer problem-solving behaviour (via burnout), such that the unfavourable
impacts are weaker when employees have a high level of perception of supervisor justice.

Methods
Participants and procedure
The study explored full-time FLEs working in the hospitality industry of the United Arab
Emirates (UAE) whose job involved direct contact with customers. Respondents were
selected via convenience sampling, and their data were gathered using a questionnaire,
which was first written and English and then translated to Arabic. As recommended by
Brislin (1970), the questionnaire’s accuracy was verified using back-translation. FLEs in
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 7

the organisations that participated in this study were accessed through the researchers’ pro-
fessional and personal contacts.
The data were accumulated via two stages of paper-based surveys that were adminis-
tered to FLEs with a two-week break between each round. The third survey was completed
by the supervisors. The surveys were accompanied by a cover letter that explained the
purpose of the study. The participants were assured that their responses would be treated
anonymously and that their information would not be accessed by anyone outside the
research team as only aggregate data would be used during the study.
The first survey questioned the FLEs about their experience with customer incivility,
their resilience, and their perception of supervisor justice. The second survey asked them
questions about burnout. The third survey was used to measure their problem-solving beha-
viours, which were rated by their supervisor. In the surveys, an identification code, incon-
spicuously noted on each questionnaire, was assigned to each respondent (employer and
employee) to enable the employees to be matched to their direct supervisors.
Of the 400 surveys distributed, 312 complete employee responses were received after
round 1 (Time 1). In the second round (Time 2), 312 questionnaires (Time 2) were distrib-
uted to the same participants. At the end of round two, 243 completed questionnaires were
returned; thus, a response rate of 60% was achieved. We likewise gathered 243 surveys
from the supervisors concerning FLEs’ customer problem-solving behaviours. Of the
employee participants, 51.9% were male, the majority of respondents (47.3%) were aged
between 21 and 30 years, the majority (63%) had a bachelor’s degree, and 69.5% had a
job experience of between 1 and 10 years. The details about the characteristics of respon-
dents are presented in Table 1.

Measurements
All constructs measures applied in this study survey were adopted from validated scales. A
five-point scale was used to measure the key variables. All measures items are presented in
Appendix 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of respondents.

Characteristic description Frequency Percentage
Gender
Male 126 51.9
Female 117 48.1
Total 243 100%
Age
21–30 115 47.3
31–40 98 40.3
Above 41 30 12.4
Total 243 100%
Educational level
Diploma 44 18.1
Bachelor 153 63.0
Master 46 18.9
Total 243 100%
Job experience
1–10 years 169 69.5
More than 11 years 74 30.5
Total 285 100%
8 S.Bani-Melhem et al.

Customer problem-solving behaviour (rated by supervisor) was operationalised by

three items adapted from the previous work of Dabholkar et al. (1996). Sample items
included ‘When a customer has a problem, this employee shows a sincere interest in
solving it’. The construct reliability of the scale has been found to be above 0.7 (Gong
& Yi, 2018).
Customer incivility. A five-item measure adapted from Sliter et al. (2012), based on
Burnfield et al. (2004), was employed. Respondents rated how often they usually experi-
enced customer incivility on a five-point scale that ranged from 1 (‘less than once per
month or never’) to 5 (‘several times per day’). Sample items included ‘Customers are con-
descending to me’. The alpha reliability of the scale was reported to be above 0.7 (Hur et al.,
2016)
Burnout. A four-item scale was used to measure this construct (Maslach & Jackson,
1981). Sample items included ‘I feel used up at the end of the workday’. The reliability
of the scale was reported to be above 0.7 (McCarty & Skogan, 2013).
Employee resilience. A four-item measure used to assess the ability to cope with stress
in a highly adaptive manner was used (Sinclair & Wallston, 2004). Sample items included ‘I
actively look for ways to replace the losses I encounter in life’. The reliability of the scale
used was reported to be above 0.7 (Al-Hawari et al., 2020).
Perceived supervisor justice. A three-item instrument developed by Homburg and Fürst
(2005) was used to measure this construct. Sample items included ‘Overall, the manager’s
handling procedure for the problems caused by dysfunctional customers is fair’. The
reliability of the scale was reported to be above 0.7 (Gong et al., 2014).

Non- response bias and common method bias

Before starting the data analysis, non-response bias was controlled by comparing early
respondents (n = 195) with late respondents (n = 48) in terms of their education and job
experience as well as by using two indicators of the customer incivility and burnout (Arm-
strong & Overton, 1977). The results from the Mann–Whitney U test verified that there
were no significant differences (p < 0.01). Therefore, the responses from early and late
respondents could be combined for data analysis.
In addition, common method bias was tested using Harman’s single-factor test (Hoyle,
1995) to diagnose whether more than one factor emerged from the EFA of all survey items
and to ensure that there was no bias in the dataset. The results of an un-rotated EFA of all
study items revealed 4 factors in total explaining 76.430% of the variance. Given that a
single factor solution did not result and a general factor did not account for most of the var-
iance, common method bias was not considered an issue in this study (Hoyle, 1995). Hence,
potential biases as a result of having the variables from a single source are unlikely to be
severe in this study.

Results
Measurement results
The findings from the confirmatory factor analysis suggest the removal of one item from
employee resilience (RS4) because it has a standardised loading of less than 0.50. The find-
ings show that the four-factor measurement model fit the data well (χ2 = 182.069, df = 125,
χ2/df = 1.457; GFI = 0.923; AGFI = 0.894; CFI = 0.980; TLI = 0.976; IFI = 0.980; RMSEA
= 0.043). As presented in Table 1, the standardised loadings range from 0.62 to 0.94. All
these loadings are significant (p < 0.01). The average variance extracted by each latent
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 9

variable is > 0.50 (experienced customer incivility = 0.68; burnout = 0.66; customer
problem-solving behaviour = 0.72; perceived justice = 0.65; and employee resilience
0.57). As depicted in Table 2, the composite reliability for each latent variable is > 0.60,
providing evidence of internal consistency and reliability (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). Overall,
the findings indicate that convergent validity is confirmed.
Table 3 includes the correlations of the latent variables. The discriminant validity of the
measures is also verified since the square root of the average variance extracted by each
latent variable is greater than the correlation of a variable with other variables (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981). The means and standard deviations as well as the correlations of the
observed variables are provided in Table 3.

Structural model test results

The structural model that consists of direct and mediating effects fits the data well (χ2 =
155.039, df = 91, χ2/df = 1.704, GFI = 0.927, AGFI = 0.890; CFI=0.970, TLI = 0.960, IFI
= 0.970, RMSEA = 0.054). Table 4 displays the outcomes of the assessment of the three
structural models and associated hypotheses. Structural model#1 designates that experi-
enced customer incivility has a significant adverse impact on customer problem-solving
(β = −0.243, p < 0.001) without the presence of burnout. Employee burnout is added to
the model in structural model#2, and the findings show that customer incivility has a sig-
nificant positive effect on burnout (β = 0.356, p < 0.001, H1+ = Supported). The result also
indicates that burnout has a significant negative effect on customer problem-solving (β =

Table 2. Convergent validity and internal reliability.

Items Cronbach’s Composite
Construct loading Alpha reliability AVE
Experienced customer incivility 0.91 0.91 0.68
(ECI)
ECI1 0.72
ECI2 0.62
ECI3 0.75
ECI4 0.86
ECI5 0.82
Burnout (BURN) 0.89 0.89 0.66
BURN1 0.68
BURN2 0.60
BURN3 0.79
BURN4 0.87
Customers Problem Solving 0.91 0.89 0.72
(CPS)
CPS1 0.80
CPS2 0.82
CPS3 0.81
Perceived Justice (PJ) 0.90 0.84 0.65
PJ1 0.82
PJ2 0.94
PJ3 0.52
Employee resilience (RS) 0.90 0.80 0.57
RS1 0.59
RS2 0.73
RS3 0.73
10 S.Bani-Melhem et al.

Table 3. Discriminant validity and descriptive statistics.

Construct Mean SD ECI BURN CPS PJ RS
Experienced customer incivility (ECI) 2.28 0.971 0.824
Burnout (BURN) 2.43 0.925 0.504 0.815
Customers problem solving (CPS) 3.97 0.965 −0.180 −0.114 0.851
Perceived justice (PJ) 3.68 1.036 −0.221 −0.272 0.303 0.805
Employee resilience (RS) 3.82 1.026 −0.067 −0.199 0.307 0.359 0.756
Note: Diagonals represent the square root of the average variance extracted while the other entries represent the
correlations.

−0.221, p < 0.01, H2- = Supported). Based on the assessment of the first and second struc-
tural models, Table 4 also shows that burnout plays a partial mediator role in the relation-
ship between experienced customer incivility and FLEs’ customer problem-solving. Thus,
H3 is supported.
Table 5 illustrates the results of the bootstrapping examination with 10,000 samples
(Shrout & Bolger, 2002) to test the indirect effect via the mediating variable. The findings
show that experienced incivility from customers has a significant adverse indirect impact on
customer problem-solving through burnout (β = −0.076, p < 0.05, H3 = Supported).
In structural model#3 in Table 4, perceived justice and its interaction with experienced
customer incivility are included. The result indicates that the interaction between perceived
justice and experienced customer incivility has a significant negative effect on burnout (β =
−0.176, p < 0.05, H4 = Supported). The result also indicates a significant negative effect
from the interaction between employee resilience and experienced customer incivility on
burnout (β = −0.168, p < 0.05, H5 = Supported). The results of the hypotheses testing are
also offered in Figure 2.
Figure 2 shows the plot of the interaction between perceived justice and experienced
customer incivility on burnout. As shown in Figure 2, the detrimental effect of experienced
customer incivility on burnout is weaker at a higher level of perceived justice.
Figure 3 also shows the plot of the interaction between employee resilience and experi-
enced customer incivility on burnout. Figure 3 shows that the detrimental effect of

Table 4. Results of hypotheses assessment.

Structural model#1 Structural model#2 Structural model#3
CPS BURN CPS BURN CPS
ECI −0.243***a 0.356***b −0.167*c 0.414*** −0.167*
BURN – – −0.221**d – −0.219**
PJ – – – 0.061 –
RS – – – −0.124 –
PJ * ECI – – – −0.176*e –
RS * ECI – – – −0.168*f –
Gender 0.117 – 0.102 – 0.101
Age 0.029 – 0.040 – 0.038
Education 0.012 – 0.030 – 0.030
Experience 0.139 – 0.121 – 0.122
Note: bH1 was supported; dH2 was supported; a,b,d
H3 was supported; eH4 was supported; fH5 was supported;
∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.01; ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 11

Table 5. Bootstrap analysis of the mediation effect of burnout.

Direct Indirect
Total effect effect effect
PXY +
DV PXMPMY PXY PXM PMY PXMPMY
Customer problem solving −0.243*** −0.167* 0.356*** −0.221** −0.076*
(CPS)
Note: N = 243; PXY = path from Experienced Customer Incivility to dependent variable; PXM = path from
Experienced Customer Incivility to Burnout; PMY = path from Burnout to dependent variable; ∗p < 0.05.
∗∗p < 0.01. ∗∗∗p < 0.001.

experienced customer incivility on burnout will be weaker at a higher level of employee

resilience.

Discussion and implications

Our study asks whether customer incivility affects positive employee behaviour and if yes,
then why and how. Overall, our findings provide significant answers to these questions,
offering several theoretical implications. Firstly, supporting the literature, we observe
that customer incivility is likely to discourage employees from engaging in positive behav-
iour, such as customer problem-solving behaviour. Not only can customer incivility
promote the negative behaviours of employees, as demonstrated by past studies, but it is
also likely to inhibit the positive behaviours of employees that are of value to the organis-
ation. Our study, thus, provides support for the deleterious effect of customer incivility,
which could harm organisational effectiveness. Since we do not examine the consequences
of customer incivility, we invite future researchers to explore the short- and long-term
impacts on the organisation to offer a better theoretical understanding thereof. In so
doing, future research should consider a longitudinal research design to address such a
concern.
Secondly, our findings demonstrate the importance of emotional consequences as a
result of customer incivility, thereby supporting the vast literature on the negative role of
job stressors, such as customer incivility, on strain (Han et al., 2016). Although the prior
literature suggests that the recipients of customer incivility may withhold efforts in retalia-
tion (Taylor et al., 2012), we observe a greater likelihood that they are actually too burnt out

Figure 2. Perceived Justice (PJ) and employee resilience dampen the positive relationship between
experienced customer incivility and burnout.
12 S.Bani-Melhem et al.

Figure 3. Model of findings

to invest in the effort required to solve problems. While a one-off experience in customer
incivility is unlikely to make employees burnt out, repeated occurrences are potentially
damaging to employees’ emotions and feelings. The rude and difficult customers FLEs
often have to face while delivering customer services and interactions can drain their
already depleted resources, which could otherwise be used to help customers solve
service-related problems. When they are emotionally burnt out, quality service delivery
is likely to suffer, thus further exacerbating the conflict between employee and customer.
In this regard, the spiralling effect of customer (or workplace) incivility is likely to take
place, as speculated by Andersson and Pearson (1999). While this is a possible scenario,
future research may want to confirm this further.
The third theoretical implication relates to organisational support and personality as
important coping mechanisms against the effect of customer incivility. Some scholars
have framed customer incivility as a form of injustice (Bedi & Schat, 2017; Rupp et al.,
2008) which stimulates employee responses, particularly negative ones, such as revenge
and sabotage (Bedi & Schat, 2017; Skarlicki et al., 2016). While employees can demon-
strate counterproductive behaviour to reinstate justice, such a response is not necessarily
likely, especially when their job position would be put at risk. It should be noted here
that the FLEs in our study are primarily foreign nationals from the Philippines, who
make a significant contribution to their country’s economy through cash remittances
(Rowley, 2017). In 2016, cash remittances from Filipino workers outside the country
were worth USD26.9 billion, and Middle Eastern countries are the second biggest source
of foreign remittances (after the United States and the Americas) (Rowley, 2017). In this
context, foreign FLEs rely on supervisor justice as a way to cope with the debilitating
experience so that they can continue providing quality customer service (i.e. customer
problem-solving behaviour) as expected of the organisation and thus keep their job.
Even though we do not analyse the effect of nationality, such speculation is reasonable
since foreign workers are obliged to remain employed to provide for their families back
home (Rowley, 2017). Indirectly, our finding thus refutes the proposition made by Bedi
and Schat (2017) in that employees do not necessarily engage in counterproductive behav-
iour, such as revenge, to get back at uncivil customers because doing so would be risky.
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 13

Our finding also points out that having a resilient personality helps alleviate the negative
effects of customer incivility on burnout and, hence, positive work behaviour. More impor-
tantly, our finding indicates that supervisor justice offers stronger mitigation than resilience,
implying that employee resilience is more effective when supervisors are perceived to
provide the necessary support (i.e. justice) during the delivery of customer services. Our
finding is not unexpected because, in a work context, supervisors or managers have the
authority and power to make decisions on work-related matters that affect employee atti-
tudes, emotions, and behaviour (Skarlicki et al., 2016). Without the backing and support
of supervisors and managers, employees in an unpleasant situation tend to be vulnerable
and at the mercy of the customers. In this regard, employees are said to report to two
bosses: supervisors and customers (Eddleston et al., 2002).
Overall, our findings support COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), which suggests that people
typically obtain, preserve, and defend their emotional, physical, psychological, and social
resources. People who are exposed to customer incivility experience various emotions,
including sadness, distress, hostility, and irrationality (Liu et al., 2008). Specifically,
FLEs are regularly exposed to situations in which they encounter customer incivility. Sub-
sequently, they need to activate defence mechanisms to protect their personal resources and
deal with customer incivility – a process that often leaves them emotionally strained.
However, when facing resource loss, job resources in the form of supervisor justice and
support could help them cope with the high emotional demands, allowing them to
perform their job as expected. Similarly, despite the emotional drain as a result of customer
incivility, FLEs could draw upon their resilience to mitigate the energy lost from unpleasant
encounters with difficult and rude customers. By considering personal and job resources in
a single model to examine the mitigating the effect of customer incivility on the emotional
and behavioural consequences of employees, our study contributes further to the applica-
bility of COR theory in explaining under which conditions the negative effect of customer
incivility can be alleviated.

Managerial implications
Even though customer incivility is a low-intensity and undefined occurrence, it can be one
of the most severe forms of misconduct that FLEs encounter, and it can prompt them to
adopt negative views and attitudes (Torres et al., 2017). This study provides useful
insight into what the management of hospitality organisations can do to help mitigate the
negative effect of customer incivility to ensure continued quality service delivery to custo-
mers by FLEs who have to deal directly with rude and impolite customers.
First and foremost, we suggest that management explicitly recognises that customer
incivility represents a significant problem that the organisation needs to address. By
raising awareness of the issues, the organisation can mentally prepare FLEs to anticipate
and deal with negative behaviours and thereby reduce the preliminary shock and emotional
fatigue associated with customer incivility. One means by which firms can gain insights into
the incidents that occur is by providing employees with a safe environment in which they
can share their experiences and feedback, for example, through 360-degree reviews that
showcase the full continuum of behaviours. By providing FLEs with a chance to provide
anonymous feedback on their supervisors, the firm can also encourage them to give
honest opinions. The management could also conduct research using regular meetings,
surveys or interviews of workgroups to obtain information and feedback from FLEs regard-
ing how they understand and deal with customer incivility and the resultant emotions as
well as their suggestions for improvement. The information provided can be used to
14 S.Bani-Melhem et al.

deliver a response strategy through which the impacts of customer incivility can be miti-
gated. In addition to employee and customer feedback, management should provide train-
ing to supervisors and employees to make them more aware of and more sensitive to the
issue of customer incivility and its implications. For example, employees and supervisors
could be educated on the main causes of incivility and how to cope with such causes,
such as strategies to defuse upset customers. They could also be trained to differentiate
the serious behaviours of aggression from the minor behaviours of incivility, which
entail different responses.
Our findings highlight the fundamental role that supervisor justice plays in how
employees react to customer incivility in the hospitality industry. Such findings are impor-
tant because although hospitality organisations may not be in a position to control how con-
sumers treat FLEs directly, they do influence how supervisors treat employees. As justice is
a subjective concept, supervisors need to frequently survey employees to gain insights into
their perceptions of how they are treated and subsequently determine appropriate interven-
tion goals.
Finally, on resilience, managers of organisations need to provide psychological resili-
ence training programmes and other suitable training interventions to FLEs to improve
their ability to deal with customer issues, address complaints, and exhibit customer-oriented
behaviours. To increase individual resources, training programmes should foster service
providers’ ability to regulate their emotions, apply coping mechanisms, engage in de-esca-
lation activities, and recognise the importance of preventing confrontations. Furthermore,
hospitality organisations can significantly benefit from recruiting highly resilient employees
for customer-contact positions by developing and implementing a system through which
they can assess potential employees’ resilience levels.

Limitations and future directions

While this study contributes significantly to the knowledge of customer incivility, three
vital boundaries should be expanded in subsequent investigations. Firstly, our data were
gathered from UAE hospitality FLEs. Future studies in this area are encouraged to
explore the same model and constructs in other countries. This would facilitate an important
comparison, allowing any differences to the current findings to be examined.
Secondly, the present study was conducted within a hospitality setting. Therefore,
future research may explore other service industries, as well as non-service organisations
that utilise customer service as part of their business process, to examine this study’s
model usefulness in explicating the positive behaviour of FLEs. Thirdly, future studies
may want to consider both positive and negative employee behaviours in a single study
to examine how employees are more likely to react and in which situations. In this way,
it would be possible to better map the effect of customer incivility on various forms of
employee behaviour and organisational performance. Relatedly, we suggest that future
research also focus on the positive impact of customer incivility on organisations. For
instance, does customer incivility improve the organisational work processes and
systems related to the delivery of customer services? The positive effects of customer inci-
vility are yet to be considered (Fisk et al., 2010), perhaps because debunking the negative
effects of such a phenomenon have yet to raise the attention of management/organisational
behaviour scholars, who tend to offer prescriptive recommendations to managers of what
and how to address negative workplace phenomena, including customer incivility. Investi-
gating the positive effects of customer incivility requires a different methodological
approach, which a cross-sectional study cannot deliver.
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 15

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References
Al-Hawari, M. A., Bani-Melhem, S., & Quratulain, S. (2020). Do frontline employees cope
effectively with abusive supervision and customer incivility? Testing the effect of
employee resilience. Journal of Business and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10869-019-09621-2
Alola, U. V., Olugbade, O. A., Avci, T., & Öztüren, A. (2019). Customer incivility and employees’
outcomes in the hotel: Testing the mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Tourism
Management Perspectives, 29, 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2018.10.004
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the work-
place. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.
2202131
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of
Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377701400320
Arnold, K. A., & Walsh, M. M. (2015). Customer incivility and employee well-being: Testing the
moderating effects of meaning, perspective taking and transformational leadership. Work &
Stress, 29(4), 362–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2015.1075234
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
Bani-Melhem, S., Quratulain, S., & Al-Hawari, M. A. (2020). Customer incivility and frontline
employees’ revenge intentions: Interaction effects of employee empowerment and turnover
intentions. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19368623.2019.1646180
Bedi, A., & Schat, A. (2017). Employee revenge against uncivil customers. Journal of Services
Marketing, 31(6), 636–649. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2016-0003
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
Burnfield, J. L., Clark, O. L., Devendorf, S. A., & Jex, S. M. (2004, April). Understanding workplace
incivility: Scale development and validation. 19th annual conference of the society for indus-
trial and organizational psychology, Chicago.
Campbell-Sills, L., Cohan, S. L., & Stein, M. B. (2006). Relationship of resilience to personality,
coping, and psychiatric symptoms in young adults. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(4),
585–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.05.001
Chen, Z., Sun, H., Lam, W., Hu, Q., Huo, Y., & Zhong, J. A. (2012). Chinese hotel employees in the
smiling masks: Roles of job satisfaction, burnout, and supervisory support in relationships
between emotional labor and performance. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 23(4), 826–845. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.579918
Choi, H. M., Mohammad, A. A., & Kim, W. G. (2019). Understanding hotel frontline employees’
emotional intelligence, emotional labor, job stress, coping strategies and burnout.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 82, 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhm.2019.05.002
Dabholkar, P. A., Thorpe, D. I., & Rentz, J. O. (1996). A measure of service quality for retail stores:
Scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(1), 3–16.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02893933
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources
model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.86.3.499
Eddleston, K. A., Kidder, D. L., & Litzky, B. E. (2002). Who’s the boss? Contending with competing
expectations from customers and management. The Academy of Management Executive, 16,
85–95. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2002.8951332
Eisenberger, R., & Stinglhamber, F. (2011). Perceived organisational support: Fostering enthusiastic
and productive employees. American Psychological Association.
Fisk, R., Grove, S., Harris, L. C., Keeffe, D. A., Daunt, K. L., Russell-Bennett, R., & Wirtz, J. (2010).
Customers behaving badly: A state of the art review, research agenda and implications for
16 S.Bani-Melhem et al.

practitioners. Journal of Services Marketing, 24(6), 417–429. https://doi.org/10.1108/

08876041011072537
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg, & R.
Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organisational justice (pp. 1–55). Stanford University Press.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable vari-
ables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.
1177/002224378101800104
Garcia, P. R. J. M., Restubog, S. L. D., Lu, V. N., Amarnani, R. K., Wang, L., & Capezio, A. (2019).
Attributions of blame for customer mistreatment: Implications for employees’ service perform-
ance and customers’ negative word of mouth. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 110, 203–213.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.12.001
Gong, T., & Yi, Y. (2018). The effect of service quality on customer satisfaction, loyalty, and happi-
ness in five Asian countries. Psychology & Marketing, 35(6), 427–442. https://doi.org/10.
1002/mar.21096
Gong, T., Yi, Y., & Choi, J. N. (2014). Helping employees deal with dysfunctional customers: The
underlying employee perceived justice mechanism. Journal of Service Research, 17(1), 102–
116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670513504463
Grandey, A. A. (2003). When ‘the show must go on’: Surface acting and deep acting as determinants
of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46
(1), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040678
Groza, M. D., Locander, D. A., & Howlett, C. H. (2016). Linking thinking styles to sales perform-
ance: The importance of creativity and subjective knowledge. Journal of Business Research,
69(10), 4185–4193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.006
Halbesleben, J. R., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). Burnout in organizational life. Journal of Management,
30(6), 859–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.004
Han, S. J., Bonn, M. A., & Cho, M. (2016). The relationship between customer incivility, restaurant
frontline service employee burnout and turnover intention. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 52, 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.10.002
Henkel, A. P., Boegershausen, J., Rafaeli, A., & Lemmink, J. (2017). The social dimension of service
interactions: Observer reactions to customer incivility. Journal of Service Research, 20(2),
120–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670516685179
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualising stress. American
Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process:
Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 337–421. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062
Homburg, C., & Fürst, A. (2005). How organisational complaint handling drives customer loyalty: An
analysis of the mechanistic and the organic approach. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 95–114.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.3.95.66367
Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Sage.
Human Performance. (2014, September 19). Is your restaurant server’s smile genuine?. https://www.
cbia.com/news/hr-safety/is-your-restaurant-servers-smile-genuine/
Hur, W., Moon, T., & Jun, J. (2016). The effect of workplace incivility on service employee creativity:
The mediating role of emotional exhaustion and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Services
Marketing, 30(3), 302–315. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-10-2014-0342
Judge, T. A. (2009). Core self-evaluations and work success. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 18(1), 58–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01606.x
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimen-
sions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.81.2.123
Lee, J. J., & Ok, C. M. (2014). Understanding hotel employees’ service sabotage: Emotional labor
perspective based on conservation of resources theory. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 36, 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.08.014
Liu, Y., Prati, L. M., Perrewe, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2008). The relationship between emotional
resources and emotional labor: An exploratory study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
38(10), 2410–2439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00398.x
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organisational behaviour. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 23(6), 695–706. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.165
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 17

Martinaityte, I., Sacramento, C., & Aryee, S. (2019). Delighting the customer: Creativity-oriented
high-performance work systems, frontline employee creative performance, and customer satis-
faction. Journal of Management, 45(2), 728–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316672532
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 2(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205
McCarty, W. P., & Skogan, W. G. (2013). Job-related burnout among civilian and sworn police per-
sonnel. Police Quarterly, 16(1), 66–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611112457357
Melnyk, B. M., Hrabe, D. P., & Szalacha, L. A. (2013). Relationships among work stress, job satis-
faction, mental health, and healthy lifestyle behaviours in new graduate nurses attending the
nurse athlete program: A call to action for nursing leaders. Nursing Administration
Quarterly, 37(4), 278–285. https://doi.org/10.1097/NAQ.0b013e3182a2f963
Meyer, M., Ohana, M., & Stinglhamber, F. (2018). The impact of supervisor interpersonal justice on
supervisor-directed citizenship behaviours in social enterprises: A moderated mediation model.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(20), 2927–2948. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1380060
Parker, S. L., Jimmieson, N. L., Walsh, A. J., & Loakes, J. L. (2015). Trait resilience fosters adaptive
coping when control opportunities are high: Implications for the motivating potential of active
work. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(3), 583–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-
014-9383-4
Rowley, A. (2017, October 11). Remittances remain crucial to Philippines economy. Retrieved
January 30, 2020, from https://www.thenational.ae/business/remittances-remain-crucial-to-
philippines-economy-1.666517
Rupp, D. E., McCance, A. S., Spencer, S., & Sonntag, K. (2008). Customer (in)justice and emotional
labor: The role of perspective taking, anger, and emotional regulation. Journal of Management,
34(5), 903–924. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307309261
Rupp, D. E., & Paddock, E. L. (2010). From justice events to justice climate: A multi-level temporal
model of information aggregation and judgment. In E. Mannix, M. Neale, & E. Mullen (Eds.),
Fairness and groups (research on managing groups and teams (Vol. 13, pp. 245–273).
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., Mayer, D. M., Saltz, J. L., & Niles-Jolly, K. (2005). Understanding
organisation-customer links in service settings. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6),
1017–1032. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.19573107
Shin, I., Hur, W. M., & Oh, H. (2015). Essential precursors and effects of employee creativity in a
service context. Career Development International, 20(7), 733–752. https://doi.org/10.1108/
CDI-10-2014-0137
Shirom, A. (2003). Job-related burnout: A review. In J. C. Quick, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of
occupational health psychology (pp. 245–264). American Psychological Association. https://
doi.org/10.1037/10474-012
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New pro-
cedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.
1037/1082-989X.7.4.422
Sinclair, V. G., & Wallston, K. A. (2004). The development and psychometric evaluation of the brief
resilient coping scale. Assessment, 11(1), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191103258144
Skarlicki, D. P., van Jaarsveld, D. D., Shao, R., Song, Y. H., & Wang, M. (2016). Extending the multi-
foci perspective: The role of supervisor justice and moral identity in the relationship between
customer justice and customer-directed sabotage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 108–
121. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000034
Sliter, M., Sliter, K., & Jex, S. (2012). The employee as a punching bag: The effect of multiple sources
of incivility on employee withdrawal behaviour and sales performance. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 33(1), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.767
Taylor, S. G., Bedeian, A. G., & Kluemper, D. H. (2012). Linking workplace incivility to citizenship
performance: The combined effects of affective commitment and conscientiousness. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 33(7), 878–893. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.773
Torres, E. N., van Niekerk, M., & Orlowski, M. (2017). Customer and employee incivility and its
causal effects in the hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management,
26(1), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2016.1178620
18 S.Bani-Melhem et al.

Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 830–838. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.
830
van Jaarsveld, D. D., Walker, D. D., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2010). The role of job demands and emotional
exhaustion in the relationship between customer and employee incivility. Journal of
Management, 36(6), 1486–1504. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310368998
Vermunt, R., & Steensma, H. (2005). How can justice be used to manage stress in organisations? In J.
Greenberg, & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organisational justice (pp. 383–410).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Walker, D. D., van Jaarsveld, D. D., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2014). Exploring the effects of individual
customer incivility encounters on employee incivility: The moderating roles of entity (in)civi-
lity and negative affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 151. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0034350
Wang, H., Tsui, A. S., & Xin, K. R. (2011). CEO leadership behaviours, organisational performance,
and employees’ attitudes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
leaqua.2010.12.009
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance and
voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 486–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.83.3.486
Wright, T. A., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2004). Commitment, psychological well-being and job performance:
An examination of conservation of resources (COR) theory and job burnout. Journal of
Business & Management, 9(4), 389–406.
Yagil, D. (2017). There is no dark side of customer aggression− it’s all dark. Journal of Marketing
Management, 33(15–16), 1413–1420. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2017.1357332
Zhu, J. N., Lam, L. W., & Lai, J. Y. (2019). Returning good for evil: A study of customer incivility
and extra-role customer service. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 81, 65–72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.03.004
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 19

Appendix 1

Items measurement (instruments) of the study.

Experienced customer incivility (ECI)

ECI1 Customers make insulting comments to me.
ECI2 Customers take out anger on employees.
ECI3 Customers do not trust the information that I give them and ask to speak with someone of
higher authority.
ECI4 Customers are condescending to me.
ECI5 Customers make comments that question my competence.
Burnout (BURN)
BURN1 I feel used up at the end of the workday.
BURN1 I feel burned out from my work.
BURN1 I feel frustrated by my job.
BURN1 I feel emotionally drained from work.
Customer problem solving behaviour (ER)
CPS1 When a customer has a problem, this employee shows a sincere interest in solving it
CPS 2 This employee willingly handles customer concerns and challenges
CPS 3 This employee handles customer complaints directly and immediately.
Perceived Justice (PJ)
PJ1 Overall, the manager’s handling procedure for the problems caused by dysfunctional
customers is fair.
PJ2 Overall, the manager’s handling behaviour for the problems caused by dysfunctional
customers is fair
PJ3 Overall, the compensation I received from the company due to the problems caused by
dysfunctional customers is fair
Employee resilience (ER)
ER1 I actively look for ways to replace the losses I encounter in life
ER2 I believe that I can grow in positive ways by dealing with difficult situations
ER3 I look for creative ways to alter difficult situations
ER4 Regardless of what happens to me, I believe I can control my reaction to it