Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103997

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Effects of customer incivility on frontline employees and the moderating role T

of supervisor leadership style
Achilleas Boukisa, Koritos Christosb,∗, Kate L. Dauntc, Avraam Papastathopoulosd
a
University of Sussex Business School, Jubilee Building JUB-214, UK
b
ALBA Graduate Business School, American College of Greece, 6-8 Xenias Street, 115 28, Greece
c
Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Aberconway Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff, CF10 3EU, UK
d
College of Business, Abu Dhabi University, P.O. Box 59911, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Customer incivility toward frontline employees (FLEs) is a widespread phenomenon within tourism and hos-
Frontline employees pitality industries, severely depleting the psychological resources of FLEs and delivered customer service.
Customer incivility Drawing on the job demands-resources and conservation of resources frameworks, the current research com-
Supervisor pares the effects of the two most common forms of customer incivility on FLEs' psychological responses and
Leadership style
behavioral intentions (study 1). Moreover, this work explores the degree to which supervisor leadership style can
Hospitality
mitigate the depleting effects of these two forms of customer incivility on FLEs (study 2). Findings demonstrate
that FLEs' responses to customer incivility episodes remain contingent upon supervisor's leadership style and
acknowledge that an empowering (vs. laissez-faire) leadership style can better mitigate the depleting effects of
both customer incivility forms on FLEs' role stress, rumination, retaliation and withdrawal intentions. The im-
plications of these findings for tourism and hospitality theory and practicing managers are discussed.

1. Introduction cause of burnout (Gallup, 2018), whereas Porath and Pearson (2012)
report from a sample of thousands of employees surveyed over 14-
Chick-fil-A restaurant, Washington D. C, September 2018: A customer years, an astonishing 98% has repeatedly experienced uncivil beha-
verbally attacks an order taker in front of other customers and other viors. These alarming statistics have attracted scholarly attention on the
members of staff; the shift manager intervenes kindly asking the yelling management of incivility episodes in tourism and hospitality industries.
customer to leave the restaurant. In response, the customer escalates into a Pertinent works uncover the detrimental effects of customer incivility
fight with the employee, with other customers becoming involved, resulting in towards FLEs' morale and subjective wellbeing including, emotional
the shift manager physically attacking the perpetrator. Customer-captured exhaustion (Hu, Hu, & King, 2017), increased turnover intentions (Han,
videos of the event go viral, undermining Chick-Fil-A's long-standing re- Bonn, & Cho, 2016), as well as reduced service performance (Cho,
putation as the most friendly fast-food restaurant chain across the US (The Bonn, Han, & Lee, 2016).
Washington Post, 2018). However, as the well-established service-profit-chain model de-
As the above incident showcases, customer incivility, defined as monstrates (Heskett, Jones, Loveman, Earl Sasser, & Schlesinger, 1994;
“the low-quality interpersonal treatment that employees receive from Hogreve, Iseke, Derfuss, & Eller, 2017), satisfied employees drive cus-
their customers during service interactions” (Koopmann, Wang, Liu, & tomer satisfaction and loyalty, and firm profitability, with recent re-
Song, 2015), can have detrimental effects on employees, customer search in tourism and hospitality confirming these relationships (e.g.,
service experience, and the overall reputation of the brand. Customer Solnet, Ford, & McLennan, 2018). As such, the extensively documented
incivility is a global phenomenon with a national survey of fast food deleterious effects of customer incivility on employee morale and sub-
workers in Australia revealing that 87% of them have been treated jective wellbeing (Koopmann et al., 2015) are likely to impede cus-
uncivilly by their customers (ABC News, 2018). Likewise, the 2017 tomer satisfaction, loyalty and ultimately harm firm performance.
Gallup survey among employees in the US, places mistreatment in the Given the breadth and severity of the negative outcomes of cus-
workplace by managers, coworkers and customers as the number one tomer incivility, the majority of research in management and tourism/

Corresponding author.
∗

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Boukis), [email protected] (C. Koritos), [email protected] (K.L. Daunt),
[email protected] (A. Papastathopoulos).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.103997
Received 4 March 2019; Received in revised form 5 August 2019; Accepted 16 September 2019
0261-5177/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Boukis, et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103997

hospitality literatures has focused on exploring the antecedents and aspects of the job that determine one's achievement of work goals and
boundary conditions that trigger customer incivility towards FLEs, as reduce the psychological costs deriving from job demands (Bakker &
well as documenting the consequences of customer incivility towards Demerouti, 2007). JD-R is instrumental in explaining the importance of
FLEs (Cortina, Kabat-Farr, Magley, & Nelson, 2017; Gong, Yi, & Choi, interaction effects that different job demands and resources have on
2014). Nevertheless, scarce evidence exists on the role of supervisors employee burnout and engagement. Building on this framework, we
and their leadership style in helping FLEs regain the emotional and argue that customer incivility toward FLEs becomes a job demand that
cognitive resources consumed during customer incivility episodes and motivates them to seek out supportive resources available in their
restore their morale and subjective wellbeing, which are key in al- proximal environment (Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou,
lowing FLEs to maintain their service performance standards (Myrden & 2007), whereas supervisor support, under specific circumstances, might
Kelloway, 2015). With the exception of two studies that explore the represent a job resource for FLEs to tackle customer incivility.
buffering role of generic supervisor support on FLEs' responses to cus-
tomer incivility (i.e. Han et al., 2016; Karatepe, 2011), research on 2.1.2. Conservation of resources
other managerial actions, such as leadership style or interaction ap- Having identified how these two aspects of FLEs' working environ-
proach, that may mitigate the consequences of different forms of cus- ment can act as job demands or resources, we draw on COR to shed
tomer incivility on FLEs, is lacking (Cortina et al., 2017; Schilpzand, De light on the responses that FLEs are likely to take toward minimizing
Pater, & Erez, 2016; Zhu, Lam, & Lai, 2019). resource loss and/or recovering their lost resources caused by job de-
Drawing on the premises of the job demands-resources (JD-R) mands (i.e. customer incivility). The key tenet of the COR framework is
(Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001) and conservation that individuals attempt to acquire, maintain and protect valued re-
of resources (COR) (Hobfoll, 1989) frameworks, we utilize an experi- sources, such as objects (e.g., reservations system), conditions (e.g.,
mental methodological approach seeking to explore how two of the position in the hotel hierarchy), personal characteristics (e.g., self-ef-
most common forms of customer incivility of FLEs (i.e., verbal ag- ficacy) and social support (e.g., supervisor support) (Hobfoll, 1989,
gression and demand for untenable service levels) affect FLEs' psycho- 2011). COR suggests that a loss of valued resources results in increased
logical responses and behavioral intentions (study 1). Findings add to stress and motivates employees towards seeking ways for replenishing
the tourism/hospitality literature in confirming the differential effect of lost resources (Halbesleben, Neveu, Paustian-Underdahl, & Westman,
these two incivility forms on FLEs' role stress, rumination (i.e. psy- 2014; Hobfoll, Halbesleben, Neveu, & Westman, 2018). Resource loss
chological responses), retaliation and withdrawal intentions (i.e. be- impairs employees' morale and subjective wellbeing, as it leads to in-
havioral intentions). In addition, this research also addresses the buf- creased employee burnout (Halbesleben, 2006), job dissatisfaction, and
fering effect of two common supervisor leadership styles (i.e. increased turnover intentions (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999) among
empowering and laissez-faire styles) on the aforementioned FLE out- others. Simultaneously, social support (from supervisors, co-workers) is
comes during episodes of customer incivility (study 2), showcasing the one of the most commonly sought-after resources from employees
value of different leadership styles in dealing with customer incivility. seeking to replenish resources depleted in their work (Bordia, Restubog,
The manuscript is organized as follows; first, we present the theo- Bordia, & Tang, 2017; Campbell, Perry, Maertz, Allen, & Griffeth, 2013)
retical frameworks driving our conceptualization, the forms of cus- and restore their damaged morale and subjective wellbeing. Hence,
tomer incivility on which we focus, the variables of interest capturing COR adds explanatory power to the effects of job demands and re-
FLEs' psychological and behavioral responses, and the two diverse su- sources on FLEs' role (van Woerkom, Bakker, & Nishii, 2016) and de-
pervisors' leadership styles. Next, a detailed description of the two ex- lineates the conditions that trigger FLEs' quest for valued resources.
perimental studies is presented. Finally, the implications of our findings Combining the JD-R and COR frameworks provides a solid theoretical
for academics and managers in tourism/hospitality industries are dis- underpinning of how and why supervisory support can mitigate the
cussed, followed by a presentation of the limitations of the study and adverse effects of customer incivility of FLEs on their psychological
suggestions for future research. responses and behavioral intentions.

2. Literature review 2.1.3. Conceptual framework

As is depicted in Fig. 1, following JD-R, customer incivility towards
2.1. Theoretical foundations FLEs represents a focal job demand, positively affecting FLEs perceived
role stress and rumination, as well as FLEs' intentions to retaliate mis-
The current study is underpinned by two pertinent theoretical fra- behaving customers, and withdraw from their role (study 1). Viewing
meworks: the conservation of resources (COR) framework (Hobfoll, supervisor support as the focal job resource and as a means for re-
1989) and the job demands-resources framework (JD-R) (Demerouti plenishing valued resources caused by customer incivility, as COR
et al., 2001). proposes, we subsequently explore whether supervisor support results
in FLEs experiencing reduced role stress and rumination as well as
2.1.1. Job demands-resources lowering their intentions to retaliate against customers and withdraw
As a response to the numerous determinants of employee burnout from their role (study 2). However, rather than merely conceptualizing
and engagement, scholars have proposed the JD-R framework supervisor support as being either present or absent, we assume that the
(Demerouti et al., 2001). JD-R argues that occupations have different nature of supervisor support, and ultimately its effect on FLEs' psy-
sources of job stress for employees, which can be classified in two chological responses and behavioral intentions, is reflected upon su-
general categories (i.e. job demands and job resources) (Bakker & pervisors' leadership style. Next, we introduce the constructs of our
Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti et al., 2001). The framework also identi- conceptual framework and present the corresponding hypotheses.
fies a diverse set of personal and organizational factors that may act
either as (job) demands or resources (Demerouti et al., 2001). In par- 2.2. Customer incivility as job demand
ticular, JD-R acknowledges that employee burnout is caused by job
demands, which include various “physical, psychological, social, or or- Customer incivility can range from low-intensity deviance with
ganizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or ambiguous intent to harm customers (Andersson & Pearson, 1999) to
psychological effort and are therefore associated with certain physio- psychological and physical aggression, whereby customers have un-
logical and/or psychological costs” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014, p. ambiguous intention to harm the FLE or the organization (Cortina,
501). On the contrary, employee engagement is primarily driven from Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001). While research within tourism
job resources, which capture organizational, psychological and social and hospitality mostly focuses on more severe forms of customer

2
A. Boukis, et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103997

2009). Role stress results from FLE's need for flexibility while addres-
sing each customer's unique needs, along with role expectations that
should be met during interactions with customers (Wegge, Vogt, &
Wecking, 2007). Role stress is influenced by managerial actions, in-
cluding the extent to which managers clearly set priorities for em-
ployees, communicate tasks to be performed, and articulate evaluation
mechanisms (Thomas & Lankau, 2009). Customer incivility acts as a
role stressor to FLEs as it threatens their self-efficacy, goal success, and
resources (Dormann & Zapf, 2004) and prior work affirms its impact on
role stress of call-centre representatives (Wegge et al., 2007). Evidence
in tourism and hospitality suggests role stress as a mediator between
customers' incivility and FLEs' emotional exhaustion (Hu et al., 2017)
and job satisfaction (Kim, Ro, Hutchinson, & Kwun, 2014). Similarly, a
number of uncivil customer behaviours (e.g., disproportionate or am-
biguous customer expectations, customer verbal aggression, customer
negativity, etc.), which increase FLEs' stress and emotional exhaustion,
are often investigated in the tourism and hospitality literature (e.g.
Choi, Kim, Terry, Lee, & Lee, 2014).
FLEs' cognitive responses following customer incivility episodes
have received comparatively less attention than their emotional coun-
terparts. For example, customer incivility makes it harder for FLEs to
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of the research. recall customer-related information (Rafaeli et al., 2012) and reduces
FLEs' ability for creative problem solving and their engagement in
incivility, including sexual harassment and physical assault (Bhati & complex thought processing (Miron-Spektor, Efrat-Treister, Rafaeli, &
Pearce, 2016; Ram, 2018), extensive evidence across other service in- Schwarz-Cohen, 2011). Despite the paucity of research on the cognitive
dustries suggests that other seemingly less severe forms of customer consequences of customer incivility towards FLEs, pertinent work views
incivility are more prevalent but produce equally detrimental effects on employee rumination (i.e., the focused attention on the symptoms of
FLEs (Cortina et al., 2017; Schilpzand et al., 2016). one's distress, and on its possible causes and consequences, as opposed
In seeking to uncover the main causes of FLEs' stress and burnout in to its solutions - Nolen-Hoeksema, Wisco, & Lyubomirsky, 2008), as one
customer-employee interactions, Dormann and Zapf (2004) identified of the most typical cognitive responses following customer incivility
four main themes, two of which relate to customer incivility towards (e.g., Baranik, Wang, Gong, & Shi, 2017; Walker, van Jaarsveld, &
FLEs, namely customer verbal aggression and disproportionate cus- Skarlicki, 2014; Wang et al., 2013).
tomer demands. Confirming the prevalence of these two forms of un- FLEs may perceive customer incivility episodes as a signal of failure
civil customer behaviors towards FLEs, Koopmann et al. (2015) argue to fulfil their main task (i.e. serving the customer). However, unless the
that uncivil behaviors (i.e. verbal aggression and demands for unten- goal is achieved or abandoned, such episodes signal personal failure
able service levels) associated with customers' urge to attain their leading FLEs to “re-experience the failure and its negative emotion over
consumption goals rather than to intentionally harm FLEs, are the most time, because rumination increases negatively biased thinking and
prevalent forms of customer incivility that threaten FLEs' morale and pessimism while reducing efforts toward goal completion and mood-
work well-being. enhancing behaviors” (Koopmann et al., 2015, p. 39). Indeed, within a
Following similar treatments of customer incivility towards em- call centre context, customer incivility results in driving customer reps
ployees in pertinent literature (e.g., Sliter, Jex, Wolford, & McInnerney, to ruminate more the night following such episodes (Wang et al., 2013)
2010; van Jaarsveld, Walker, & Skarlicki, 2010), we consider verbal and in more long-lasting effects on customer reps' rumination (Baranik
aggression and demands for untenable service levels (henceforth excessive et al., 2017).
demands) as job demands, which deplete FLE resources (e.g., Goldberg
& Grandey, 2007; Wang, Liao, Zhan, & Shi, 2011). These forms of 2.3.2. Behavioral responses
customer incivility breach the norms of social interactions and place Akin with psychological responses, researchers have explored, both
greater job demands (emotional and interpersonal) on FLEs, since ser- directly and indirectly (i.e. via psychological responses), a number of
vice rules expect from FLEs to handle customers with professionalism, FLE behavioral responses to customer incivility. For example, customer
respect and courtesy (Grandey, Kern, & Frone, 2007; Sliter et al., 2010). incivility blocks FLEs' key mental processes, such as memory and
In line with COR premises, FLEs experience a primary resource loss due creative thinking, that are instrumental in their attempt to successfully
to customer incivility and a secondary resource loss due to their efforts handle customer demands, negatively affecting their job performance
to deal with this episode, following customer service norms (Grandey, (Miron-Spektor et al., 2011; Rafaeli et al., 2012). Of the many possible
Foo, Groth, & Goodwin, 2012; Hobfoll et al., 2018). FLE behavioral responses following incidents of customer incivility, two
have attracted research scrutiny (Cortina et al., 2017; Schilpzand et al.,
2016). First, FLEs' retaliation behaviour (including incivility and sabo-
2.3. FLEs responses to customer incivility
tage) towards uncivil customers can result in customer rage and nega-
tive exchange spirals (Bushman, Bonacci, Pedersen, Vasquez, & Miller,
The FLEs' responses to customer incivility explored in the past lit-
2005; Groth & Grandey, 2012). In essence, FLEs' depleted resources
erature can be grouped in two broad categories, namely psychological
from uncivil customers, lead to a failure to self-regulate (Vancouver,
(emotional and cognitive) and behavioral ones (Cortina et al., 2017). To
2000), driving them to reciprocate such customer behaviours (Skarlicki,
more accurately capture the effect of customer incivility on FLEs, we
van Jaarsveld, & Walker, 2008).
focus on both psychological and behavioral FLE responses.
The second behavioral response following customer incivility to-
wards FLEs is withdrawal. Withdrawal is any purposeful behaviour
2.3.1. Psychological responses through which FLEs aspire to avoid their job or reduce their psycho-
One of the most typical FLEs' emotional responses following cus- logical attraction to or interest in it (Sliter, SLITER, & Jex, 2012). Job
tomer incivility is role stress (Harris & Reynolds, 2003; Kern & Grandey, withdrawal involves physical withdrawal from the workplace (such as

3
A. Boukis, et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103997

being absent or late) or intention to avoid or leave the organization. The Early research demonstrates that supervisor leadership style criti-
focus of this work centres on employees' daily withdrawal from their cally affects employee morale and subjective wellbeing with “em-
job (Scott & Barnes, 2011; Sliter et al., 2012). Empirical evidence link ployee-oriented” leaders to have a significantly more positive effect on
customer incivility with withdrawal behaviour (Cortina et al., 2001), employees' morale compared to a “production-oriented” leadership
more frequent absenteeism (Sliter et al., 2012) and job resignation style (Pestonjee & Singh, 1977). Subsequent research consistently de-
(Porath and Pearson, 2012). Complementary insights from tourism and monstrates the critical role of various supervisor leadership styles on
hospitality literatures acknowledge the effects of customer incivility on employee morale and subjective wellbeing such as ethical leaders
FLEs' withdrawal behaviours, via emotional dissonance and exhaustion (Yang, 2014), transformational leaders (Vincent-Höper, Muser, &
(Karatepe, Yorganci, & Haktanir, 2009) and confirm that customer in- Janneck, 2012) and empowering leaders (Kim & Beehr, 2018), among
civility towards restaurant employees results in uncivil behaviours to- others. Relatedly, Myrden and Kelloway (2015) demonstrate the crucial
wards their co-workers (Kim & Qu, 2019). role of transformational leaders in enhancing the relationship among
employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction and loyalty, and company
2.4. Supervisor support as job resource profitability, in line with the premises of the service-profit chain model.
However, besides positive effects, leadership styles can also have ne-
Supervisor support is defined as the extent to which immediate su- gative effects on employees' morale and subjective wellbeing (Seltzer &
pervisors show an active interest in their role and value their sub- Numerof, 1988) such as the depletion of employees' resources (Tepper,
ordinates' contribution (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Simon, & Park, 2017), job withdrawal (e.g., Chi & Liang, 2013), and
Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002; Zhu et al., 2019). Despite the various types negative role performance (Barling & Frone, 2017) among others.
of support that FLEs could receive from their peers or other customers, In tourism and hospitality, researchers have pointed towards the
supervisor support remains one of the few firm-anticipated resources instrumental role of empowering leadership style as a context-specific
available to them (Zhu et al., 2019). Through their access to organi- effective leadership behaviour in the relationship between supervisors
zational resources, elevated decision-making status and managerial and FLEs. For example, supervisors' empowering leadership style re-
experience, supervisors represent a rich pool of resources where FLEs duces FLEs' service sabotage behaviors through increasing FLEs' work
dealing with customer incivility can turn to, so to regain lost resources engagement levels (Zhou, Ma, & Dong, 2018) and positively affects
and restore their morale and subjective wellbeing (e.g., Casper, Harris, restaurant FLE's psychological empowerment, (Namasivayam, Guchait,
Taylor-Bianco, & Wayne, 2011; Crain et al., 2014). & Lei, 2014). Essentially, supervisors employing an empowering lea-
Within tourism and hospitality, scholars advocate that supervisor dership style provide their subordinates with the necessary authority
support FLEs' morale and subjective wellbeing in several ways (Kara, and autonomy to exercise control over decisions regarding customer
Uysal, Sirgy, & Lee, 2013). For instance, supervisory support negatively needs, without consulting or being guided by them (Gong et al., 2014;
affects FLEs' perceptions of work-family conflicts (Karatepe & Kilic, 2007), Kim & Beehr, 2018). During customer incivility episodes, empowering
has a positive effect on FLEs' service performance through enhancing their supervisors would adopt a more decentralized approach and empower
perceptions of psychological safety (Guchait, Paşamehmetoğlu, & FLEs to act based on their own judgement, without constant consulta-
Dawson, 2014), and it enhances FLEs' leader-member exchange percep- tion with them.
tions, which in turn increase FLEs' citizenship behaviors (Li, Kim, & Zhao, Acknowledging the instrumental role empowering and laissez-faire
2017). Nevertheless, a number of studies in the field also report mixed leadership styles play in tourism and hospitality research (e.g., Elsetouhi,
effects of supervisor support on FLEs' morale and subjective wellbeing. Hammad, Nagm, & Elbaz, 2018; Zhou et al., 2018), the current study
For instance, supervisory support appears to have no effect on all three explores the extent to which these two leadership styles moderate the
components of work engagement within a sample of hotel FLEs (Karatepe, effects of customer incivility on FLEs' role stress, rumination, retaliation,
2011; Karatepe & Kilic, 2007). and withdrawal. The next two sections delineate the research hypotheses
Drawing on the management literature, it appears that the effec- for each of the experimental studies and describe the experimental pro-
tiveness of supervisors' support largely depends on the way through cedure, empirical analyses and results of the two studies.
which they handle their subordinates, or simply put, on their leadership
style. Over time, researchers have developed a variety of leadership 3. Study 1
typologies, which comprise similarities and overlaps with regards to their
conceptualization and operationalization (Anderson & Sun, 2017). One 3.1. Hypotheses
of the earliest typologies (Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939), comprises of
three styles, namely autocratic leaders the “hands-on leaders who take The aim of study 1 is to compare the effects of two customer in-
charge and set clear expectations for the what, when, why, and how tasks civility forms (i.e. customer verbal aggression and excessive demands)
done by followers should be completed … take sole responsibility for on FLEs' psychological (role stress, rumination) and behavioral (re-
making decisions without input from followers in the organization”; taliation, withdrawal) responses. Verbal aggression refers to situations
democratic leader who “promotes input on decisions, both large and where a customer raises their voice at an FLE, uses condescending
small, from followers within the organization and further promotes a language, and/or becomes irritated with an FLE (Grandey et al., 2007).
spirit of collaboration in the completion of goals and tasks”; and laissez- Demanding customers place exorbitant demands on FLEs, that are
faire leaders who “are completely hands off when comes to how followers evidently outside the FLEs' (and even the organization's) capacity to
complete their tasks and provide significant amounts of decision making deal with them (Wang et al., 2011). Following the premises of JD-R,
authority amongst followers” (Gandolfi & Stone, 2017, pp. 25–26). both forms of customer incivility represent a focal job demand for FLEs;
Subsequent typologies of leadership styles (e.g. full-range leadership not only do they breach social interaction norms, but also result in FLEs
theory) appear to revolve around the same limited set of leadership seeking ways to recover their lost cognitive and emotional resources,
behaviors giving birth to similar leadership styles (Antonakis, Avolio, & opening up a new round of resource depletion (e.g., Goldberg &
Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Antonakis & House, 2013), aspiring to capture Grandey, 2007; Wang et al., 2011). Despite evidence indicating the
leadership behaviors that are present across a wide range of situations/ diverse effect of these two forms of customer incivility on FLEs' cog-
contexts (Anderson & Sun, 2017). However, such “broadband” leader- nitive (vs emotional) resources and that they might be both experienced
ship styles have led to concerns over their ability to account for situa- from FLEs during their shift (Wang et al., 2011), prior work has ex-
tion/context-specific leadership behaviors, resulting in an explosion in plored the effects of these two forms of customer incivility in an in-
research around situation/context-specific leadership styles (Anderson dependent fashion (for an exception see Choi et al. (2014)).
& Sun, 2017; Sun & Anderson, 2012). To hypothesize the differential effects of each of the two forms of

4
A. Boukis, et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103997

customer incivility on FLEs, we first suggest that FLEs' responses can be experimental approach. A scenario-based approach mitigates many of
grouped in two categories based on the psychological mechanism the documented biases associated with retrospective self-reports, in-
(emotional vs. cognitive) on which they ground and the immediacy at cluding memory lapse and rationalization tendencies, while offering a
which these responses take place. More specifically, FLEs' role stress more rigorous and versatile operationalization of the study constructs
and retaliatory intentions are mainly premised on human affect. FLEs' (Smith, Bolton, & Wagner, 1999). Study 1 participants were full-time
efforts to respond to customer expectations while also becoming re- FLEs in five-star hotels. The frequency of interactions among hotel
cipient of uncivil behaviours from the very same customers which they customers and FLEs and the likelihood for FLEs to experience customer
must serve, leads to increased levels of arousal combined with low le- incivility, including verbal aggression and excessive demands, increases
vels of pleasure, a condition of distress (Russell, 1980). Likewise, re- the realism of the scenarios (Daunt & Harris, 2011).
taliation is widely considered to be an outcome of failure in emotion The research team contacted all 46 five-star hotels located in Abu
self-regulation (Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996), which points to the Dhabi (UAE), listed in Booking.com at the time the research took place,
emotional basis of such employee reactions. and solicited the collaboration of the hotel management. Eight out of
On the other hand, FLEs' rumination and withdrawal from job are the 46 hotels declined to take part in the study.1 Following employees'
more likely to be premised on human cognition. Rumination refers to consent guaranteeing anonymity of participation and responses, all
FLEs' meta-thoughts about an uncivil customer episode, whereas given participating hotels frequently conduct both off and online personnel
the important implications of quitting job, FLEs' withdrawal is likely to surveys as part of their HR function, using third party independent
be the results of careful retrospection and assessment of alternatives. In research agencies. Following the same participation consent and
both cases FLEs' cognitive activity is expected to be high (Nolen- anonymity policies, and in order to increase voluntary participation of
Hoeksema et al., 2008; Sliter et al., 2012). FLEs' and reduce selection bias, an invitation to take part to this re-
Furthermore, emotional responses premised on human affect are search project was sent to all FLEs of the 38 participating five-star
more likely to be triggered by less expected, surprising stimuli, whereas hotels by the research team with a clear indication that this study had
stimuli that are less surprising are likely to trigger cognitive responses been approved and was supported by the respective hotel management.
(Storbeck & Robinson, 2004). Compared to excessive demands, verbal This process resulted in a pool of 653 eligible FLEs/respondents, 17
aggression represents an unexpected violation of service encounter FLEs on average from each participating hotel. This group acted as a
norms and interaction expectations (Zhan, Wang, & Shi, 2013). Further, pool from which we randomly drew respondents for the needs of both
verbal aggression tends to have a stronger effect on FLEs' emotional state studies. Every respondent took part in only one task across both studies.
(e.g. anger) (Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007), due to the more intense A randomly selected sample of 30 FLEs from this pool were invited
(and negative) affective vocalizations characterizing the content of ag- to partake in scenario development for study 1 (16 FLEs finally parti-
gressive episodes (Zhan et al., 2013). Relatedly, customer verbal ag- cipated), a further randomly selected sample of 80 FLEs from the same
gression is perceived as a status threat, inducing anger and/or percep- pool were invited to pre-test the questionnaire for study 1 (59 FLEs took
tions of injustice that could increase FLEs' desire to reciprocate the source part). Additionally, a randomly selected sample of 179 FLEs from this
and punish the perpetrator (Lavelle et al., 2007), via sabotage activity or pool were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions of study 1
retaliatory acts (Skarlicki et al., 2008). Hence, we suggest that: (i.e., customer verbal aggression or customer excessive demands).
Among the 179 FLEs assigned to study 1, 120 provided with responses
H1a. Customer verbal aggression has a stronger effect on FLEs' role
with no missing data (response rate 67%). Approximately 41% of the
stress, than do excessive customer demands.
subjects had 1–3 years working experience (whereas 50% of them had
H1b. Customer verbal aggression has a stronger effect on FLEs' over 3 years of working experience), 66% of participants are females
intention to retaliate against customers than do excessive customer and their mean age was 31.3 years.
demands. To better develop an understanding of the nature, type and fre-
Alternatively, excessive demands are more likely to have a stronger quency of incivility episodes experienced by FLEs within the hotel
effect on FLEs' cognitive state for two reasons. First, FLEs need to evaluate context and to make experimental scenarios as externally valid as
the extent to which a customer demand falls outside their role capacity possible, we conducted 16 in-depth interviews with FLEs from across
and to decide whether they should meet it (or not), increasing the cog- the participating hotels (these respondents were excluded from both
nitive fatigue of such encounters. Second, excessive demands require that studies 1 and 2 and their respective pre-tests). An example of the cus-
FLEs consume an increasing amount of resources to meet the goals of such tomer verbal aggression scenario for a waiter working at the hotel
encounters, depleting their cognitive resources faster (Wang et al., 2011; restaurant (similar scenarios created for FLEs working on the hotel
Zhan et al., 2013). Under such circumstances, this heightened accessi- high-contact service offerings such as concierge, room service, restau-
bility of the goal failure experienced in FLE's memory sets rumination an rant, bars, spa, etc.) detailed that “(..) One of the customers you are
important cognitive outcome for FLEs. Relatedly, FLEs' coping with ex- serving yells at you for this delay saying “What sort of an effort do you call
cessive customer demands results in them suffering resource deprivation this? This is completely your own fault and you should get some more
and questioning their ability to successfully perform their role tasks. This training before working here,” whereas the customer excessive demands
increased role ambiguity, due to excessive customer demands, impairs scenario stated that “(…) Once you bring the order to one of the tables,
their perceptions of personal well-being, which is often associated with they ask you to take back their food because they claim it is not well cooked.
increased withdrawal intentions (Walsh, 2011). Hence, we suggest that: Once you bring it back, they say that it is overcooked. You offer to bring a
new dish, but once you serve it, they say that you're too late, and demand not
H2a. Excessive customer demands have a stronger effect on FLEs'
to pay for their meal due to your inability to cater to their needs.”
rumination, than does customer verbal aggression.
H2b. Excessive customer demands have a stronger effect on FLEs'
3.3. Pretesting
intentions to withdraw, than does customer verbal aggression.

To assess the extent to which the two scenarios employed in study 1

are indeed depicting the two forms of identified customer incivility
3.2. Participants and procedures

Following recent recommendations from the customer incivility 1

No significant observed differences exist among the participating and the
literature (e.g., Albrecht, Walsh, Brach, Gremler, & van Herpen, 2017; non-participating hotels in terms of available services, rooms capacity, number
Jerger & Wirtz, 2017), we test these hypotheses using a scenario-based of employees, location, and ownership (independent vs. affiliated).

5
A. Boukis, et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103997

Table 1
Correlations, descriptive statistics, reliability and validity of Study 1 variables.
Mean (SD) Cronbach's α CR FLE role stress FLE rumination FLE retaliation intentions FLE job withdrawal intentions

FLE role stress 2.63(1.10) 0.806 0.84 (0.58) (0.01) (0.41) (0.003)
FLE rumination 5.30(1.43) 0.899 0.92 .009 (0.65) (0.08) (0.62)
FLE retaliation intentions 2.62 (1.69) 0.876 0.88 .648** .096 (0.60) (0.01)
FLE job withdrawal intentions 5.20(1.71) 0.925 0.92 .057 .799** .117 (0.80)

FLE = Frontline Employees; CR = Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted on the diagonal; Squared correlations above diagonal; ** denotes
significance at the 1% level.

(i.e., verbal aggression and excessive demands), a pre-test took place, 3.5. Analyses and results
whereby after reading each scenario, 59 FLEs from the participating
hotels (whom were excluded from both studies 1 and 2 as well as the Study 1 adopts a single factor design, with customer incivility to-
scenarios development procedures), rated the statements “To what ex- wards FLEs (excessive customer demands vs. verbal aggression) as the
tent do you think that this incident was …” on a scale from 1: “a non- independent variable, and FLEs' perceptions of role stress, rumination,
aggressive (non-demanding) customer behaviour,” to 7: “an aggressive retaliation, and withdrawal intentions as the dependent variables.
(demanding) customer behaviour”. Specific definitions of aggressive and Moreover, to test the robustness the hypothesized effects, we control for
demanding behaviour were presented to participants in line with per- two relevant variables. More particularly, it is plausible that FLEs who
tinent literature (i.e. Zhan et al., 2013). Results indicate that both the are often confronted with customer incivility in their work might have
customer verbal aggression [Maggr(SD) = 5.97(1.01), t = 45.08, developed psychological coping mechanisms, eventually reducing and
p < .001] and the customer excessive demands manipulations even turning insignificant the effects of customer incivility on the role
[Mdem(SD) = 6.05(0.93), t = 49.63, p < .001] are considered as such stress, rumination, retaliation and withdrawal intentions of the more
by respondents. Moreover, the same sample of FLEs examined the experienced FLEs (Grandey et al., 2007; Koopmann et al., 2015). To
realism of the two scenarios by rating the statement “To what extent do capture FLEs' prior exposure to customer incivility in their current post,
you think that this scenario is realistic?” on a scale from 1: “no realistic at we asked FLEs “How often have you faced similar incidents in your daily
all” to 7: “extremely realistic”. Results indicate that both the customer work?” To capture the extent to which FLEs have developed the ability
verbal aggression [Maggr (SD) = 5.76(1.22) t = 36.20 p < .001] and to cope with customer incivility in a manner that does not produce
the customer excessive demands scenarios [Mdem(SD) = 5.63(1.53) further distress, we followed Epstein's (1994) recommendation and
t = 28.24, p < .001] were considered strongly realistic. asked participants to rate themselves according to the following state-
ment: “I always take things personally at work.” We use analysis of cov-
ariance (ANCOVA) to test for the effects of our focal variable (form of
3.4. Measures and construct validity customer incivility) and the two FLEs' incivility experience-related
covariates on each of the four FLEs' responses.
To capture psychological and behavioral responses of FLEs resulting Results reveal a significant effect of customer incivility forms on role
from the two forms of customer incivility (i.e., customer verbal ag- stress [Maggr (SD) = 2.98(1.14), Mdemand (SD) = 2.25(0.97); F = 11.75,
gression and excessive demands), we used the most commonly em- p < .001], with customer verbal aggression having a significantly
ployed measurement scales within the incivility literature (Cortina stronger effect on role stress, compared to excessive customer demands,
et al., 2017; Schilpzand et al., 2016). FLEs' perceived role stress was fully confirming H1a. Of the two covariates prior exposure to customer
measured using four items from Motowidlo, Packard, and Manning incivility has a significant effect on role stress (F = 46.76, p < .000),
(1986), whereas FLEs' perceived rumination was captured with six but ability to cope with customer incivility has a non-significant effect
items from McCullough, Bono, and Root (2007). FLEs' retaliation in- on role stress (F = 2.07, p > .05). Results also indicate a significant
tentions were measured with the five items developed by Harris (2013), main effect of customer incivility forms on FLEs' retaliation intentions
and withdrawal intentions were measured with three items from Scott [Maggr (SD) = 3.18(1.99); Mdemand (SD) = 2.05(1.07), F = 10.25,
and Barnes (2011). All measurement scales appear in the appendix at p < .001], with customer verbal aggression having a significantly
the end of the paper. Table 1 contains correlations among study con- stronger effect on retaliation intentions compared to excessive customer
structs (below diagonal), as well as means and standard deviations, demands, fully confirming H1b. Of the two covariates prior exposure to
variances, reliability (Cronbach's α, Composite Reliability-CR) and va- customer incivility has a significant effect on retaliation intentions
lidity (Average Variance Extracted-AVE on the diagonal, squared cor- (F = 129.49, p < .000), but ability to cope with customer incivility has
relations above the diagonal). a non-significant effect on retaliation intentions (F = 0.01, p > .05).
Using confirmatory factor analysis all four constructs used in study Furthermore, study 1 results reveal a significant main effect of
1 displayed good construct validity, as indicated from the CFA indices customer incivility forms on rumination [Maggr (SD) = 2.05 (0.89);
for role stress (x2 = 35.55; Df = 2; CFI = 0.989; GFI = 0.988; Mdemand (SD) = 2.70(1.27), F = 3.12, p < .05], with excessive cus-
IFI = 0.987; RMSEA: 0.036), rumination (x2 = 43.51; Df = 9; tomer demands having a significantly stronger effect on rumination
CFI = 0.980; GFI = 0.954; IFI = 0.980; RMSEA = 0.018), and retalia- compared to customer verbal aggression, fully confirming H2a. Of the
tion intentions (x2 = 5.58; Df = 5; CFI = 0.998; GFI = 0.981; two covariates prior exposure to customer incivility has a significant
IFI = 0.998; RMSEA = 0.031). The study 1 measurement model indices effect on rumination (F = 60.88, p < .000), but ability to cope with
(including all construct items) indicate an acceptable model fit customer incivility has a non-significant effect on rumination
(x2 = 451.98; Df = 129; p < .001; CFI = 0.957; TLI = 0.935; (F = 1.79, p > .05). Finally, results reveal a significant main effect of
IFI = 0.958; RMSEA: 0.078). customer incivility forms on FLEs' withdrawal intentions [Maggr
(SD) = 4.59(2.05); Mdemand (SD) = 5.88(0.92); F = 32.75, p < .000],
with excessive customer demands having a significantly stronger effect
on withdrawal intentions compared to customer verbal aggression, fully
2
As a reference, the main effect of the form of customer incivility on FLEs' confirming H2b. Of the two covariates prior exposure to customer in-
retaliation intentions is not significant [Maggr(SD) = 4.77(1.03), civility has a significant effect on withdrawal intentions (F = 71.39,
Mdemand(SD) = 4.97(1.28); F = 0.07, p > .05]. p < .000), but ability to cope with customer incivility has a non-

6
A. Boukis, et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103997

Table 2
Summary of results from Study 1.
Role stress Rumination Retaliation intentions Withdrawal intentions

Form of customer incivility aggressive 2.98 (1.14) F = 11.75** 2.05 (0.89) F = 3.12* 3.18 (1.99) F = 10.25** 4.59 (2.05) F = 32.75**
demanding 2.25 (0.97) 2.70 (1.27) 2.05 (1.07) 5.88 (0.92)
Prior exposure to customer incivility F = 46.76** F = 60.88** F = 129.49** F = 71.39**
Ability to cope with customer incivility F = 2.07 F = 1.79 F = 0.01 F = 0.79
Levene's test of equality of error variances F = 0.166 F = 0.738 F = 2.05 F = 0.03

Note: Values in italics represent mean and values in parentheses denote standard deviations. *, and ** denote significance at the 5%, and 1% level, respectively.

significant effect on withdrawal intentions (F = 0.79, p > .05). As a depleting effect on FLEs' cognitive resources (Zhan et al., 2013). In
finale note Levene's test for equality of error variances is non-significant other words, the two forms of customer incivility have a significant
for all four FLEs' responses, suggesting that the variance across the two adverse effect on both FLEs' psychological (i.e., role stress and rumi-
groups is equal. Table 2 summarizes results from Study 1. nation) and behavioral (i.e., retaliation and withdrawal intentions)
Overall, study 1 results confirm that FLEs' psychological and beha- outcomes, albeit, to differing extents.
vioral responses to customers' display of verbal aggression and ex- According to COR, following resource depletion, FLEs will try to
cessive demands vary significantly. Whereas customer verbal aggres- minimize the experienced resource loss and attempt to replenish lost
sion is associated with higher FLE role stress and retaliation intentions, resources (Hobfoll et al., 2018). In this case, supervisor support can be
the display of excessive demands from the customers' side is associated enacted as a resource protection/replenishment mechanism (Guchait
with higher FLE rumination and stronger withdrawal intentions than et al., 2014; Karatepe, 2011; Karatepe & Kilic, 2007; Li, Kim, Zhao, &
verbal aggression. These results confirm prior findings on the impact of Roy, 2017). As supervisor support remains contingent upon their lea-
customer uncivil behaviours on FLEs, (e.g., Jerger & Wirtz, 2017; Wang dership style, the latter could support FLEs in recovering some of the
et al., 2011), but extend current knowledge in demonstrating that the resource depletion they suffered; it could also reduce the amount of
effects of different uncivil behaviours have a differential effect on FLEs' personal resources needed to invest themselves so that they deal with
responses in a systematic and predictable way. Results suggest a diverse such disruptive episodes (Gong et al., 2014). Indeed, research on lea-
depletion of resources for FLEs (emotional vs cognitive), for which dership suggests that various leadership styles result in significant
different treatments might be required. Nevertheless, these differential variation in how subordinates experience managerial actions such as
effects can be buffered from a variety of contextual factors during selection, support, rewards, etc., (Bass & Bass, 2008).
customer incivility episodes, prominent among which is supervisor Among the many attributes extant research associates with leader-
leadership style. To explore this issue, we conducted study 2. ship styles (Anderson & Sun, 2017), two of them are particularly re-
levant during customer incivility episodes. The first one concerns the
4. Study 2 extent to which supervisors provide their FLEs with guidance regarding
their customer service role (i.e., description of the tasks excellent cus-
4.1. Hypotheses tomer service consists of, and articulation of how to perform such tasks
successfully) (Martin, Liao, & Campbell, 2013). The second one con-
Study 2 examines the moderating role of supervisor leadership style cerns the extent to which supervisors provide FLEs with the autonomy
on the effect of the two forms of customer incivility on FLEs' psycho- to perform their customer service roles (Pieterse, van Knippenberg,
logical and behavioral outcomes. This focus is warranted on two Schippers, & Stam, 2009). The two leadership styles of interest, vary
grounds; first, scarce and conflicting evidence exists concerning whe- significantly across these two leadership attributes. More specifically,
ther supervisor support remains effective in helping FLEs recover from empowering leaders are characterized by high guidance and high au-
customer incivility within tourism and hospitality contexts (Zhu et al., tonomy, whereas laissez-faire leaders by low guidance and high au-
2019). More specifically, within a hotel context, supervisor support did tonomy (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Bass & Bass, 2008).
not moderate the relationship between customer incivility, and FLEs' Empowering supervisors provide FLEs with extensive autonomy at
psychological and behavioral responses (Karatepe, 2011). Countering handling customers, without being inattentive of their interactions with
this, within a full-service restaurant context, Han et al. (2016) found customers. Rather, empowering supervisors show confidence in the
that supervisor support significantly moderates the effect of customer ability of FLEs to handle customers and in their judgment, especially
incivility on FLEs' psychological responses. when consultation is needed for dealing with difficult customers
Second, the broader management literature documents that super- (Spreitzer, De Janasz, & Quinn, 1999). The trust that empowering su-
visor intervention on FLEs' role can be both destructive and con- pervisors instil in FLEs and the opportunity for FLEs to consult them
structive (Crawford, LePine, & Rich, 2010; Tepper et al., 2017) and that during customer incivility episodes, makes empowering supervisors a
this largely relates to the supervisor leadership style adopted (Skogstad, repository of resources that FLEs can utilize for replenishing consumed
Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007). Despite that super- resources and reduce the adverse effects of customer verbal aggression
visors constitute the only proximal resource that can be enacted to help (Hobfoll, 1989; Zhu et al., 2019).
FLEs cope with customers incivility and its disruptive consequences Despite the relatively high amount of autonomy, empowering and
(Gong et al., 2014), to this point no study has explored whether dif- laissez-faire supervisors provide FLEs with, the reasons behind it differ
ferent supervisor leadership styles moderate the relationship between markedly. In the case of empowering supervisors, autonomy is the
customer incivility and FLEs psychological responses and behavioral product of their trust on FLEs' ability to handle such episodes; For
intentions (Baranik et al., 2017; Walker et al., 2014). Drawing on COR laissez-faire supervisors, FLEs' autonomy stems by their reduced in-
premises, extensive research demonstrates that customer incivility re- terest and their intention to minimize involvement in FLEs' interactions
sults in the significant loss of psychological (emotional and cognitive) with customers, increasing FLEs' exposure to problem customers (Bass
resources due to FLEs' efforts to handle the experienced negative af- & Bass, 2008; Skogstad, Hetland, Glasø, & Einarsen, 2014). In this re-
fectivity caused by customer incivility via emotional regulation spect, it is likely that laissez-faire supervisors will neither intervene in
(Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004). Study 1 findings reveal that customer episodes of customer verbal aggression nor be prone to consult FLEs,
verbal aggression has a stronger depleting effect on FLEs' emotional resulting in FLEs feeling more threatened when working without im-
resources, whereas excessive customer demands have a stronger mediate access to supervisor support (Zhu et al., 2019). This would

7
A. Boukis, et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103997

result in FLEs experiencing more intense resource loss and disruptive FLEs' (a) role stress, (b) rumination, (c) retaliation intentions, and (d)
psychological and behavioral outcomes (Hobfoll, 2011; Hobfoll et al., withdrawal intentions under a laissez-faire supervisor compared to an
2018). empowering supervisor.
In short, empowering supervisors, regardless of their intention to
intervene in episodes of customer aggression, actively display trust to
FLEs with regards to their ability to handle such episodes. Moreover, 4.2. Participants and procedures
they act as a psychological shield for FLEs, reducing resource loss and
the adverse effects on their psychological responses and behavioral Study 2 adopts a scenario-based experimental approach and utilizes
intentions caused by customer verbal aggression (Halbesleben et al., a 2 (customer incivility: verbal aggression/excessive demands) x 2
2014; Hobfoll et al., 2018). Contrary, laissez-faire supervisors are (supervisor leadership style: empowering/laissez-faire) between-sub-
characterized by a lack of attention to FLEs' interactions with customers jects design. The 364 randomly selected employees that were not used
and are less likely to intervene for supporting FLEs or/and being in study 1 comprised the pool of FLEs/respondents for Study 2. One
available for consulting FLEs. Therefore, they are expected to increase hundred and sixty-five randomly selected FLEs from this sample were
FLEs' resource loss and the adverse effects on their psychological re- randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. Among them 122 FLEs
sponses and behavioral intentions caused by customer verbal aggres- completed the survey with no missing data (response rate of 74%).
sion (Hobfoll, 1989, 2011; Hobfoll et al., 2018). Put formally: Approximately 38.5% of the respondents had 1–3 years working ex-
perience, whereas 49.5% reported over 3 years of working experience.
H3. Customer verbal aggression has a significantly higher effect on Almost half of the sample were females, and their mean age was 32.03
FLEs' (a) role stress, (b) rumination, (c) retaliation intentions, and (d) years.
withdrawal intentions under a laissez-faire supervisor compared to an Study 2 participants were administered the exactly same two sce-
empowering supervisor. narios used in study 1 for customer incivility, one of the two experi-
In the case of excessive customer demands, FLEs judge such de- mental factors in study 2. To capture supervisor leadership styles, we
mands against organization-provided guidelines with regards to the draw on the 16 in-depth interviews with FLEs used for study 1 (these 16
minimum standards of customer service they should provide customers respondents were also excluded from study 2). This process yielded two
(Hartline & Ferrell, 1996). If such information has been clearly ar- supervisor responses to FLEs, each one representing a different super-
ticulated to FLEs, it is likely that the perceived loss of resources and the visor leadership style (i.e., “your supervisor is authorizing you to handle
subsequent adverse effects on their psychological and behavioral out- this issue using your own discretion and act as you think is right in this case”
comes caused by excessive customer demands might be reduced -empowering supervisor; “your supervisor is asking you to do whatever you
(Halbesleben et al., 2014; Hobfoll, 1989, 2011). think is right and handle this incident on your own, as it is your responsibility
Motivated by their inclination towards supporting FLEs to success- to deal with customers' problems” -laissez-faire supervisor).
fully handle customer needs and requests (Conger & Kanungo, 1988),
empowering supervisors provide FLEs with detailed description and 4.3. Pretesting
guidance on how to perform their customer service tasks, limiting the
range of available options FLEs could make when dealing with difficult To check the extent to which the two supervisor leadership styles
customers. While unlikely to intervene by themselves for regulating scenarios employed in study 2 correspond to definitions of the two lea-
customers persistently demanding service levels above those FLEs are dership styles (i.e., empowering and laissez-faire) provided by the re-
expected to provide, empowering supervisors are available to do so in search team, a pre-test took place with the 129 FLEs from the partici-
case FLEs seek their intervention (Lauzun, Morganson, Major, & Green, pating hotels who did not take part in any other part of study 1 or 2.
2010). Hence, clear guidelines on customer service levels provided by Specific definitions of the empowering and laissez-faire styles were pre-
empowering supervisor and their readiness to intervene upon FLEs' sented to participants in line with pertinent literature (Bass & Bass, 2008;
request, are likely to reduce FLEs' resource loss and the subsequent Skogstad et al., 2014). Results based on 107 FLEs (response rate 82%)
adverse effects on their psychological responses and behavioral inten- indicate that respondents rated the responses for each supervisor style on
tions caused by excessive customer demands (Hobfoll, 1989, 2011; a single question (1: Strongly Disagree – 7: Strongly Agree); responses
Hobfoll et al., 2018). coming from an empowering supervisor as corresponding to the defini-
Laissez-faire supervisors remain less prone to provide FLEs with tion of empowering leadership style [Mempower(SD) = 5.42(1.05);
clear guidance on how to perform their role tasks (by themselves or t = 53.12, p < .001], and a laissez-faire supervisor as corresponding
following FLEs' request), especially when dealing with customers with to the definition of laissez-faire leadership style [Mlaissez-
unreasonable demands (Bass & Bass, 2008; Skogstad et al., 2014).
faire(SD) = 5.36(1.21); t = 45.58, p < .001]. Moreover, these same 107
However, such a lack of clear guidance on the range of acceptable FLEs indicated the realism of the two supervisor responses by rating the
customer service responses that FLEs have, coupled with the low like- statement “To what extent do you think that this supervisor response is rea-
lihood of intervention by laissez-faire supervisors, increase FLEs' un- listic?” on a scale from 1: “no realistic at all” to 7: “extremely realistic”.
certainty on how to handle excessive customer demands. This results in Results indicate that responses were considered highly realistic for
an increase in FLEs' perceived resource loss and drives negative psy- both the empowering style [Mempower(SD) = 5.31(1.61); t = 33.79,
chological responses and behavioral intentions (Halbesleben et al., p < .001], and the laissez-faire style [Mlaissez-faire(SD) = 5.07(1.97)
2014; Hobfoll, 2011). t = 26.64, p < .001].
In all, empowering supervisors are more likely than laissez-faire
supervisors to provide FLEs with detailed guidance on how to meet
4.4. Measures and construct validity
their role expectations, while they remain more willing to intervene
(arbitrarily or following FLEs' request) for regulating customers per-
To capture psychological and behavioral responses of FLEs the same
sistently demanding service levels above those FLEs are expected to
measurement scales employed in study 1 were used. All measurement
provide. As a result, it is anticipated that empowering supervisors will
scales appear in the appendix at the end of the paper. Table 3 contains
reduce FLEs' resource loss and the subsequent adverse effects on their
correlations among study constructs (below diagonal), as well as
psychological responses and behavioral intentions caused by excessive
means, variances, reliability (Cronbach's α, Composite Reliability-CR)
customer demands, compared to laissez-faire supervisors (Hobfoll,
and validity (Average Variance Extracted-AVE on the diagonal, squared
1989, 2011; Hobfoll et al., 2018). Put formally:
correlations above diagonal).
H4. Excessive customer demands have a significantly higher effect on Using confirmatory factor analysis all four constructs used in study

8
A. Boukis, et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103997

Table 3
Correlations, descriptive statistics, reliability and validity of Study 2 variables.
Mean (SD) Cronbach's α CR FLE role stress FLE rumination FLE retaliation FLE job withdrawal

FLE stress 2.61(1.04) 0.861 0.86 (0.60) (0.41) (0.08) (0.36)

FLE rumination 2.53(1.08) 0.900 0.90 .648** (0.62) (0.10) (0.61)
FLE retaliation 4.81(1.36) 0.930 0.93 -.286** -.318** (0.73) (0.06)
FLE job withdrawal 2.95(1.18) 0.894 0.89 .607** .783** -.247** (0.73)

Note: FLE = Frontline Employees; CR = Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted on the diagonal; Squared correlations above diagonal; ** denotes
significance at the 1% level.

1 displayed good construct validity, as indicated from the following stress (F = 7.85, p < .01) but ability to cope with customer incivility
CFA indices; for role stress (x2 = 10.35; Df = 2; CFI = 0.974; has a non-significant effect on role stress (F = 0.16, p > .05).
GFI = 0.971; IFI = 0.975; RMSEA: 0.052); for rumination (x2 = 21.61; Moreover, regarding the moderating effect of supervisor leadership
Df = 9; CFI = 0.979; GFI = 0.961; IFI = 0.979; RMSEA = 0.076) style on the effects of both forms of customer incivility on FLEs' rumi-
and for retaliation intentions (x2 = 17.26; Df = 5; CFI = 0.983; nation, ANCOVA results also confirm our expectation. More specifically,
GFI = 0.962; IFI = 0.984; RMSEA = 0.046). The measurement model the main effect of supervisor leadership style on FLEs' rumination is sig-
(with all construct items) indices in study 2 indicate a good model fit nificant (F = 9.58, p < .005), with FLEs' rumination being significantly
(x2 = 206.319; Df = 129; p < .001; CFI = 0.980; TLI = 0.975; lower under an empowering supervisor [Mempower(SD) = 2.49(1.09)]
GFI = 0.916; IFI = 0.980; RMSEA = 0.045). compared to a laissez-faire supervisor [Mlaissez(SD) = 3.04(0.93)], across
both forms of customer incivility (see Fig. 3). These results fully support
H3b and H4b. While the main effect of the form of customer
4.5. Analyses and results incivility on FLEs' rumination is significant [Maggr(SD) = 2.56(1.01),
Mdemand(SD) = 2.96(1.06); F = 6.13, p < .05], its interaction with su-
Study 2 adopts a 2 × 2 factorial design and the variables manipu- pervisor leadership style has no significant effect (F = 0.15, p > .05) on
lated are the two most frequent forms of customer incivility towards FLEs' rumination, providing with additional support H3b and H4b. Of the
FLEs (customer verbal aggression and excessive customer demands) and two covariates prior exposure to customer incivility has a significant ef-
two supervisor leadership styles (i.e. empowering and laissez-faire). fect on rumination (F = 4.84, p < .05), but ability to cope with customer
Similarly to Study 1, we test the robustness of the hypothesized effects incivility has a non-significant effect on rumination (F = 0.80, p > .05).
by controlling for FLEs' prior exposure to customer incivility and ability In addition, regarding the moderating effect of supervisor leadership
to cope with customer incivility, and we use analysis of covariance style on the effects of both forms of customer incivility on FLEs' re-
(ANCOVA) to test for the effects of our two focal variables (i.e., form of taliation intentions, ANCOVA partially confirms our expectation. More
customer incivility and supervisor leadership style), their interaction specifically, the main effect of supervisor leadership style on FLEs' re-
effect, and the two FLEs' incivility experience-related covariates on each taliation intentions is significant (F = 6.82, p < .01), with FLEs' re-
of the four FLEs' responses. taliation intentions being significantly lower under an empowering su-
With regards to the moderating effect of supervisor leadership style pervisor [Mempower(SD) = 4.59(1.28)] compared to a laissez-faire
on the effects of both forms of customer incivility on FLEs' role stress, supervisor [Mlaissez(SD) = 5.17(0.95)]. However, this effect does not
ANCOVA results confirm our expectations. More specifically, the main hold across both forms of customer incivility as the significant interaction
effect of supervisor leadership style on FLEs' role stress is significant between supervisor leadership style and form of customer incivility
(F = 8.29, p < .005), with FLEs' role stress being significantly lower suggests (F = 7.55, p < .01)2. To further explore the moderating effect
under an empowering supervisor [Mempower(SD) = 2.43(1.03)] com- of each of the two supervisor leadership styles on the effect of each of the
pared to a laissez-faire supervisor [Mlaissez(SD) = 2.94(0.92)], across two forms of customer incivility on FLEs' retaliation intentions, we run
both forms of customer incivility (see Fig. 2). These results fully support simple effects analysis. Results suggest that while empowering super-
H3a and H4a. As expected, neither the main effect of the form of cus- visors are more effective than laissez-faire supervisors at reducing FLEs'
tomer incivility [Maggr(SD) = 2.76(0.87), Mdemand(SD) = 2.60(1.13); retaliation intentions in situations of excessive customer demands
F = 0.73, p > .05], nor its interaction with supervisor leadership style [Mempower(SE) = 4.46(0.20); Mlaissez(SE) = 5.49(0.20); F = 5.04,
(F = 0.03, p > .05) have a significant effect on FLEs' role stress, pro- p < .05], the two types of leadership are equally effective at reducing
viding with additional support H3a and H4a. Of the two covariates FLEs' retaliation intentions in situations of customer verbal aggression
prior exposure to customer incivility has a significant effect on role

Fig. 2. Estimated marginal means of role stress. Fig. 3. Estimated marginal means of rumination.

9
A. Boukis, et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103997

associated with higher FLE retaliation intentions and role stress

whereas the display of excessive customer demands is associated with
higher FLE rumination and withdrawal intentions than verbal aggres-
sion. Building on these insights, study 2 results confirm our expecta-
tions that the supervisor's leadership style is not equally instrumental in
each form of customer incivility.
To detail, FLEs' role stress remains significantly lower under an
empowering leadership style compared to a laissez-faire one, for both
forms of customer incivility. Similarly, FLEs' rumination remains lower
under an empowering leadership style compared to a laissez-faire one,
for both forms of customer incivility. FLEs' retaliation intentions remain
lower in empowering leadership, compared to laissez-faire one, but for
excessive customer demands only. Last, FLEs' withdrawal intentions
remain lower under an empowering leadership style compared to a
laissez-faire one, across both forms of customer incivility.
Fig. 4. Estimated marginal means of retaliation intentions. From a customer incivility perspective, study 2 results suggest that
supervisor leadership style (empowering vs. laissez-faire) can sig-
[Mempower(SE) = 4.71(0.19); Mlaissez(SE) = 4.84(0.20); F = 0.79, nificantly mitigate the depleting effects of excessive customer demands
p > .05] (see Fig. 4). These results fail to provide support for H3c but on both FLEs psychological responses and behavioral intentions.
fully support H4c. Of the two covariates ability to cope with customer However, in episodes of customer verbal aggression supervisor lea-
incivility has a significant effect on retaliation intentions (F = 7.10, dership style (empowering vs. laissez-faire) can claim a mitigating ef-
p < .01), but prior exposure to customer incivility has a non-significant fect on the negative effect of such episodes on FLEs' behavioral inten-
effect on retaliation intentions (F = 0.53, p > .05). tions (i.e., retaliation and withdrawal) but not on FLEs' psychological
Finally, regarding the moderating effect of supervisor leadership style responses.
on the effects of both forms of customer incivility on FLEs' withdrawal
intentions, ANCOVA results also confirm our expectation. More specifi- 5. Implications for tourism management
cally, the main effect of supervisor leadership style on FLEs' withdrawal
intentions is significant (F = 17.25, p < .000), with FLEs' withdrawal National surveys and academic research eloquently demonstrates
intentions being significantly lower under an empowering supervisor the deleterious effects of customer incivility on employee morale and
[Mempower(SD) = 2.80(1.20)] compared to a laissez-faire supervisor subjective wellbeing as evidenced by FLEs' increased levels of job stress
[Mlaissez(SD) = 3.58(0.92)], across both forms of customer incivility (see and psychological distress (e.g., Cortina et al., 2001; Lim & Cortina,
Fig. 5). These results fully support H3d and H4d. While, the main effect 2005) an increased occurrence of negative emotions Wegge et al., 2007,
of the form of customer incivility on FLEs' withdrawal intentions is sig- lower job satisfaction (e.g., Penney & Spector, 2005), lower afterwork
nificant [Maggr(SD) = 2.87(1.08), Mdemand(SD) = 3.51(1.11); F = 11.97, psychological detachment and next-morning recovery (e.g., Nicholson
p < .005], its interaction with supervisor leadership style has no sig- & Griffin, 2015), higher work-to-family conflict (e.g., Lim & Lee, 2011),
nificant effect (F = 0.60, p > .05) on FLEs' withdrawal intentions, pro- incivility perpetration (e.g., van Jaarsveld et al., 2010), and higher
viding with additional support H3d and H4d. Of the two covariates prior turnover intentions (e.g., Wilson & Holmvall, 2013) among others.
exposure to customer incivility has a significant effect on withdrawal However, within high contact service contexts, such as tourism and
intentions (F = 5.18, p < .05), but ability to cope with customer in- hospitality, FLE morale and subjective wellbeing critically affect cus-
civility has a non-significant effect on withdrawal intentions (F = 0.36, tomer satisfaction and loyalty and the profitability of the firm (Heskett
p > .05). et al., 1994).
Levene's test for equality of error variances is non-significant for all Driven by these observations this work aspires to examine first, the
four FLEs' responses, suggesting that the variance across all groups is effects of customer-perpetrated verbal aggression and excessive de-
equal. Table 4 summarizes results from Study 2. Overall, study 2 results mands on FLEs' psychological and behavioral responses and second,
suggest a degree of variation with regards to the role of the two lea- assess the moderating role of supervisory leadership style on these ef-
dership styles on the effects of customer aggression and customer ex- fects. Distinct from previous research in tourism and hospitality lit-
cessive demands on FLEs' psychological responses and behavioral in- eratures, which typically centre on the most severe forms of customer
tentions. Study 1 findings reveal that customer verbal aggression is incivility, the current study contributes to this field via the application
of an alternative foci. That is, the current study differentiates between
two of the most pertinent forms of customer incivility and investigates
how these forms individually impact FLEs' psychological and beha-
vioral responses. The study findings contribute to our understanding of
the impact of customer incivility because they reveal that different
forms impact FLEs psychological and behavioral wellbeing to different
degrees. Thus, our results indicate that theoretically and practically not
all forms of customer incivility are equal with regards to their impact on
FLEs.
The current study is also the first to discern between the roles that
different styles of leadership support play in buffering episodes of
customer incivility for FLEs. Building on the nuanced findings of study
1 and on extant literature which considers the critical role that super-
visor leadership style has on employee morale and subjective wellbeing
(Pestonjee & Singh, 1977; Seltzer & Numerof, 1988), study 2 findings
show that support per se does not necessarily have a positive impact on
employees' psychological and behavioral responses to negative epi-
Fig. 5. Estimated Marginal Means of Withdrawal intentions. sodes. Rather, the style of support is important to determine the

10
A. Boukis, et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103997

Table 4
Summary of results from Study 2.
Role stress Rumination Retaliation intentions Withdrawal intentions

Supervisor leadership style empowering 2.43 (1.03) F = 8.29* 2.49 (1.09) F = 9.58* 4.59 (1.28) F = 6.82** 2.80 (1.20) F = 11.97**
demanding 2.94 (0.92) 3.04 (0.93) 5.17 (0.95) 3.58 (0.92)
Form of customer incivility aggressive 2.76 (0.87) F = 0.73 2.56 (1.01) F = 6.13* 4.77 (1.03) F = 0.07 2.87 (1.08) F = 11.97**
demanding 2.60 (1.13) 2.96 (1.06) 4.97 (1.28) 3.51 (1.11)
Supervisor leadership style x Form of customer incivility F = 0.03 F = 0.15 F = 7.55** F = 0.60
Prior exposure to customer incivility F = 7.85** F = 4.84* F = 0.53 F = 5.18*
Ability to cope with customer incivility F = 2.07 F = 0.80 F = 7.10** F = 0.36
Levene's test of equality of error variances F = 1.41 F = 1.06 F = 1.13 F = 1.02

Note: Values in italics represent mean and values in parentheses denote standard deviations. *, and ** denote significance at the 5%, and 1% level, respectively.

outcome for the targeted FLE. Taken together results from both studies and associated behaviors. First, the study findings show that not all
shed light on the mixed findings in recent studies that have sought to forms of customer incivility affect FLEs in the same manner and that
assess the consequences of different forms of customer incivility on the different forms of uncivil customer behaviour can produce different
one hand, and the role of supervisor support across a number of FLEs' negative effects for FLEs. Armed with this insight, managers might
responses, on the other (Guchait et al., 2014; Karatepe, 2011; Karatepe consider if their firm is vulnerable to specific forms of customer in-
& Kilic, 2007; Li et al., 2017). More specifically, by exploring the effects civility, or if within their organization certain frontline facing roles are
of more than one customer incivility forms (i.e., customer verbal ag- more likely to encounter certain forms and act accordingly. For ex-
gression and excessive customer demands), on both FLEs' psychological ample, FLEs working in roles that face excessive customer demands
responses and behavioral intentions, under two distinctive supervisor might be offered extra support, training and the opportunity to rotate
leadership styles (i.e., empowering and laissez-faire), our research can roles in order to pacify potential job withdrawal intentions. The current
confidently suggest that the effects of customer incivility across FLEs' findings also provide insight into guidance to managers regarding how
psychological responses and behavioral intentions differ in predictable best to support FLEs who have encounters uncivil customer behaviour.
ways (study 1 and study 2), and the nature of supervisor support is For example, our findings show that FLEs who have encountered an
contingent upon the supervisor leadership style (study 2). episode of customer verbal aggression are likely to experience increased
The current study also makes an important theoretical contribution role stress and increased retaliatory intentions. Utilizing this knowledge
to our understanding of the dynamics between customer incivility and can aid managers in where best to focus their managerial efforts. Thus,
FLE outcomes via the simultaneous application of COR and JD-R fra- managers may implement FLE training (e.g. mindfulness practices) that
meworks (Demerouti et al., 2001; Hobfoll, 1989). The fusion of these assists employees to not personally absorb the stress associated with
two complimentary frameworks offers new insights into the roles of job their role and instead repurpose this energy in a more constructive
demands and job resources for FLEs who face different forms of cus- manner.
tomer incivility. Specifically, we show that COR adds to the explanatory Second, our study reveals important nuances between the impact of
power of JD-R because the framework elucidates the processes through the leadership style enacted within the firm. Overwhelmingly, our
which resource loss is mitigated, minimized and recovered. Our find- findings show that an empowering leadership style has a more positive
ings demonstrate that FLEs experience reduced role stress, rumination impact on FLEs' wellbeing than does a laissez-faire style regardless of
and withdrawal intentions when managed under an empowering lea- the form of uncivil behaviour encountered (except for retaliatory in-
dership style compared to FLEs confronting a laissez-faire supervisory tentions where both styles performed equally). These findings highlight
style for both customer incivility conditions. That is, regardless of the importance to tourism and hospitality firms to provide colleagues
whether an FLE confronts customer perpetrated verbal aggression or working on the front line of service provision with a supportive and
excessive demands, our findings show that an empowering leadership encouraging working environment. Customer incivilities are dynamic
style, which embodies supportive resources, mitigates the negative and inflammatory. Fostering a working culture in which FLEs are em-
impact on FLEs psychological and behavioral wellbeing to a greater powered and well-equipped to tackle such negative incidences not only
degree than does the less resource centered laissez-faire supervisory increases the resilience and wellbeing of FLEs, but also creates a cus-
style. tomer-centric environment in which employees can respond to custo-
The current study makes an important methodological contribution mers' needs and deescalate potential situations before they gain trac-
to the field of hospitality and tourism research as it utilizes an experi- tion. In this sense, our work demonstrates that the benefits of an
mental design that enables the collection and examination of causal empowering leadership style go beyond those traditionally documented
data, enabling the investigation of statistical cause and effect relation- (Hobfoll et al., 2018) and highlights that leadership style is an im-
ships. Furthermore, the current study employs a large sample of real- portant factor in the management of the prevalent upwards trend of
life FLE workers, who hold experience of working in the hospitality customer misbehavior within tourism settings (Ram, 2018).
industry and attending to real customers. Thus, our identified sample
were well placed to engage with the scenarios (and indeed a sample of
which were involved in their development). The combination of data 6. Limitations and suggestions for future research
that enables causal inference from a research sample who have first-
hand experience of work on the frontline of hotel services and thus can Despite the contributions described above, this research has several
more accurately project uncivil customer events compared with a limitations. First, the current research centres its investigation on two
sample obtained from the general population, increases the validity, pertinent forms of customer incivility. However, these forms are not
reliability and rigor of our data and associated research findings. exhaustive and while they focus on uncivil behaviour, tourism firms
The current study also makes an important contribution to practi- may find themselves faced with a wide range of forms of customer
tioners. In drilling down the intricacies of different episodes of cus- misbehaviours. As a result, future research might examine the impact of
tomer incivility in a hospitality/tourism context, our findings provide a broader range of customer misbehaviours that vary both with regards
an important steer for those working in the tourism industry as to the to their severity of harm against the FLE, the frequency of perpetration
negative impact of customer incivility on FLEs' psychological health and their public visibility, and probe the different impacts that such
unwanted customer behaviours have on FLEs' psychological and

11
A. Boukis, et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103997

behavioral wellbeing. co-worker support would be far more effective at reducing the negative
Second, although the current research was led by extant literature as effects on FLEs' psychological and behavioral responses.
to the importance of the two leadership styles investigated, this focus Finally, this research utilised a large sample size from multiple FLEs
limits a broader understanding of the role that nuanced types of su- working in multiple hotels within a single country. As such, the gen-
pervisory leadership styles might play in mitigating or fuelling negative eralisability of our findings to other countries and cultures might be
FLE outcomes following incidents of customer incivility. In this vein, limited. In response, future research should investigate the mechanisms
future research might investigate the impact of additional types of su- of interest across diverse geographical regions and cultures. Such in-
pervisory styles such as a directive, servant, or transformational lea- vestigations might yield insight into cultural nuances of forms of cus-
dership style. tomer uncivil behaviours and differences in supervisory styles and their
Third, while our study demonstrates that supervisor support is an resulting effects on FLEs.
indispensable resource in FLEs dealing with customer uncivil beha-
viours, in practice, FLEs can also draw from alternative organizational Author Contribution
resources. For example, research has demonstrated that co-worker
support reduces employee stress caused by mistreatment behaviours Achilleas Boukis: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal ana-
(Sloan, 2012) and employee turnover (Tews, Michel, & Ellingson, lysis, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft.
2013). Hence, an avenue for future research is to compare the relative Christos Koritos: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology,
impact of supervisor to co-worker support on FLEs' ability to dealing Writing – original draft, Kate Daunt: Conceptualization, Writing –
with various forms of customer incivility. For example, following from original draft. Avraam Papastathopoulos: Data curation, Formal
results of study 2, we would expect that given a laissez faire supervisor, analysis, Methodology, Project administration.

Appendix. Study 1 and 2 variables measures and standardised factor loadings (Study 1/Study 2)

Role stress (based on Motowidlo et al., 1986) - After this incident:

RS1: I think that this job is extremely stressful (0.66/0.81)
RS2: I am stressed because of the work (0.65/0.82)
RS3: A great deal of stress was caused to me because of the job (0.83/0.81)
RS4: I think my job is extremely stressful (0.68/0.78)
Rumination (McCullough et al., 2007) - After this incident:
R1: I couldn't stop thinking about what they did to me (0.75/0.80)
R2: Even when I was engaged in other tasks, I thought about how these customers hurt me (0.83/0.80)
R3: I found it difficult not to think about the hurt that they caused me (0.85/0.83)
R4: Strong feelings about what these customers did to me kept bubbling up (0.95/0.79)
R5: Thoughts and feelings about how they hurt me kept running through my head (0.59/0.76)
R6: Images of the incident kept coming back to me (0.67/0.66)
Retaliation intentions (adapted from Harris, 2013) - After this incident, I could consider:
RE1: doing something bad to this customer (0.78/0.72)
RE2: causing troubles to other customers (0.68/0.86)
RE3: taking action to get other customers annoyed (0.92/0.89)
RE4: getting this customer get what he deserves in a future visit to the restaurant (0.86/0.92)
RE5: punishing this customer somehow in a future visit to the restaurant (0.61/0.88)
Daily job withdrawal (Scott & Barnes, 2011) - After this incident:
JW1: I thought about being absent (0.85/0.83)
JW2: I daydreamed (0.93/0.88)
JW3: I thought about leaving current job (0.92/0.87)

References Baranik, L. E., Wang, M., Gong, Y., & Shi, J. (2017). Customer mistreatment, employee
health, and job performance. Journal of Management, 43(4), 1261–1282.
Barling, J., & Frone, M. R. (2017). If only my leader would just do Something ! Passive
ABC News. (2018). Survey finds fast-food workers spat on, abused and threatened. leadership undermines employee well-being through role stressors and psychological
Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-10/fast-food-workers-urge- resource depletion. Stress and Health, 33(3), 211–222.
customers-to-stop-the-abuse/10601502. Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
Albrecht, A. K., Walsh, G., Brach, S., Gremler, D. D., & van Herpen, E. (2017). The in- managerial applications (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
fluence of service employees and other customers on customer unfriendliness: A so- Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: An overview.
cial norms perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(6), 827–847. Psychological Inquiry, 7(1), 1–15.
Anderson, M. H., & Sun, P. Y. T. (2017). Reviewing leadership styles: Overlaps and the Bhati, A., & Pearce, P. (2016). Vandalism and tourism settings: An integrative review.
need for a new ‘Full-Range’ theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, Tourism Management, 57, 91–105.
19(1), 76–96. Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, S., & Tang, R. L. (2017). Effects of resource avail-
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in ability on social exchange relationships: The case of employee psychological contract
the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471. obligations. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1447–1471.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An Bushman, B. J., Bonacci, A. M., Pedersen, W. C., Vasquez, E. A., & Miller, N. (2005).
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor Chewing on it can chew you up: Effects of rumination on triggered displaced ag-
leadership questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261–295. gression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 969–983.
Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2013). The full-range leadership theory: The way forward. Campbell, N. S., Perry, S. J., Maertz, C. P., Allen, D. G., & Griffeth, R. W. (2013). All you
Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead 10th anniversary edition (5, need is … resources: The effects of justice and support on burnout and turnover.
3–33). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Human Relations, 66(6), 759–782.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Manual and sampler Casper, W. J., Harris, C., Taylor-Bianco, A., & Wayne, J. H. (2011). Work–family conflict,
set (3rd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden. perceived supervisor support and organizational commitment among Brazilian pro-
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands‐resources model: State of the art. fessionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(3), 640–652.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. Chi, S.-C. S., & Liang, S.-G. (2013). Corrigendum to “when do subordinates'’ emotion-
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job demands-resources theory. Wellbeing: Vol. III, regulation strategies matter? Abusive supervision, subordinates' emotional exhaus-
(pp. 1–28). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. tion, and work withdrawal” [lead. Quart. 28 (2013) 125–137]. The Leadership
Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources Quarterly, 24(4), 623.
boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Cho, M., Bonn, M. A., Han, S. J., & Lee, K. H. (2016). Workplace incivility and its effect
Educational Psychology, 99(2), 274–284. upon restaurant frontline service employee emotions and service performance.

12
A. Boukis, et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103997

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(12), 2888–2912. 41–61.

Choi, C. H., Kim, T. (Terry), Lee, G., & Lee, S. K. (2014). Testing the stressor–strai- Hu, H.-H., Hu, H.-Y., & King, B. (2017). Impacts of misbehaving air passengers on
n–outcome model of customer-related social stressors in predicting emotional ex- frontline employees: Role stress and emotional labor. International Journal of
haustion, customer orientation and service recovery performance. International Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(7), 1793–1813.
Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 272–285. van Jaarsveld, D. D., Walker, D. D., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2010). The role of job demands and
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory emotional exhaustion in the relationship between customer and employee incivility.
and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471–482. Journal of Management, 36(6), 1486–1504.
Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Magley, V. J., & Nelson, K. (2017). Researching rudeness: Jerger, C., & Wirtz, J. (2017). Service employee responses to angry customer complaints.
The past, present, and future of the science of incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Journal of Service Research, 20(4), 362–378.
Psychology, 22(3), 299–313. Karatepe, O. M. (2011). Customer aggression, emotional exhaustion, and hotel employee
Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the outcomes: A study in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,
workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 28(3), 279–295.
64–80. Karatepe, O. M., & Kilic, H. (2007). Relationships of supervisor support and conflicts in
Crain, T. L., Hammer, L. B., Bodner, T., Kossek, E. E., Moen, P., Lilienthal, R., et al. the work–family interface with the selected job outcomes of frontline employees.
(2014). Work–family conflict, family-supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB), and Tourism Management, 28(1), 238–252.
sleep outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(2), 155–167. Karatepe, O. M., Yorganci, I., & Haktanir, M. (2009). Outcomes of customer verbal ag-
Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to gression among hotel employees. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Management, 21(6), 713–733.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834–848. Kara, D., Uysal, M., Sirgy, M. J., & Lee, G. (2013). The effects of leadership style on
Daunt, K. L., & Harris, L. C. (2011). Customers acting badly: Evidence from the hospitality employee well-being in hospitality. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
industry. Journal of Business Research, 64(10), 1034–1042. 34, 9–18.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands- Kern, J. H., & Grandey, A. A. (2009). Customer incivility as a social stressor: The role of
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. race and racial identity for service employees. Journal of Occupational Health
Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (2004). Customer-related social stressors and burnout. Journal of Psychology, 14(1), 46–57.
Occupational Health Psychology, 9(1), 61–82. Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2018). Can empowering leaders affect subordinates' well-being
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. and careers because they encourage subordinates' job crafting behaviors? Journal of
(2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(2), 184–196.
support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565–573. Kim, H., & Qu, H. (2019). The effects of experienced customer incivility on employees'
Elsetouhi, A. M., Hammad, A. A., Nagm, A.-E. A., & Elbaz, A. M. (2018). Perceived leader behavior toward customers and coworkers. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
behavioral integrity and employee voice in SMEs travel agents: The mediating role of 43(1), 58–77.
empowering leader behaviors. Tourism Management, 65, 100–115. Kim, G., Ro, H., Hutchinson, J., & Kwun, D. J. (2014). The effect of jay-customer beha-
Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. viors on employee job stress and job satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality &
American Psychologist, 49(8), 709–724. Tourism Administration, 15(4), 394–416.
Gallup (2018). Employee burnout, Part 1: The 5 main causes. Retrieved from https:// Koopmann, J., Wang, M., Liu, Y., & Song, Y. (2015). Customer mistreatment: A review of
www.gallup.com/workplace/237059/employee-burnout-part-main-causes.aspx. conceptualizations and a multilevel theoretical model. Mistreatment in organizations:
Gandolfi, F., & Stone, S. (2017). The emergence of leadership styles: A clarified cate- Vol. 13, (pp. 33–79). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
gorization. Review of International Comparative Management, 18(1), 18–30. Lauzun, H. M., Morganson, V. J., Major, D. A., & Green, A. P. (2010). Seeking work-life
Goldberg, L. S., & Grandey, A. A. (2007). Display rules versus display autonomy: Emotion balance: Employees' requests, supervisors' responses, and organizational barriers.
regulation, emotional exhaustion, and task performance in a call center simulation. Psychologist-Manager Journal, 13(3), 184–205.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 301–318. Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study
Gong, T., Yi, Y., & Choi, J. N. (2014). Helping employees deal with dysfunctional cus- of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model†.
tomers. Journal of Service Research, 17(1), 102–116. Journal of Management, 33(6), 841–866.
Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experi-
work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), 350–370. mentally created “social climates.”. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 269–299.
Grandey, A. A., Dickter, D. N., & Sin, H.-P. (2004). The customer is not always right: Li, J.(J.), Kim, W. G., & Zhao, X. (Roy) (2017). Multilevel model of management support
Customer aggression and emotion regulation of service employees. Journal of and casino employee turnover intention. Tourism Management, 59, 193–204.
Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 397–418. Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The in-
Grandey, A., Foo, S. C., Groth, M., & Goodwin, R. E. (2012). Free to be you and me: A terface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied
climate of authenticity alleviates burnout from emotional labor. Journal of Psychology, 90(3), 483–496.
Occupational Health Psychology, 17(1), 1–14. Lim, S., & Lee, A. (2011). Work and nonwork outcomes of workplace incivility: Does
Grandey, A. A., Kern, J. H., & Frone, M. R. (2007). Verbal abuse from outsiders versus family support help? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(1), 95–111.
insiders: Comparing frequency, impact on emotional exhaustion, and the role of Martin, S. L., Liao, H., & Campbell, E. M. (2013). Directive versus empowering leadership:
emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(1), 63–79. A field experiment comparing impacts on task proficiency and proactivity. Academy
Groth, M., & Grandey, A. (2012). From bad to worse. Organizational Psychology Review, of Management Journal, 56(5), 1372–1395.
2(3), 208–233. McCullough, M. E., Bono, G., & Root, L. M. (2007). Rumination, emotion, and forgiveness:
Guchait, P., Paşamehmetoğlu, A., & Dawson, M. (2014). Perceived supervisor and co- Three longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3),
worker support for error management: Impact on perceived psychological safety and 490–505.
service recovery performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 41, Miron-Spektor, E., Efrat-Treister, D., Rafaeli, A., & Schwarz-Cohen, O. (2011). Others'
28–37. anger makes people work harder not smarter: The effect of observing anger and
Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2006). Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test sarcasm on creative and analytic thinking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5),
of the conservation of resources model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1065–1075.
1134–1145. Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S., & Manning, M. R. (1986). Occupational stress: Its causes
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J.-P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). and consequences for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 618–629.
Getting to the “COR”. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334–1364. Myrden, S. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2015). Leading to customer loyalty: A daily test of the
Han, S. J., Bonn, M. A., & Cho, M. (2016). The relationship between customer incivility, service-profit chain. Journal of Services Marketing, 29(6/7), 585–598.
restaurant frontline service employee burnout and turnover intention. International Namasivayam, K., Guchait, P., & Lei, P. (2014). The influence of leader empowering
Journal of Hospitality Management, 52, 97–106. behaviors and employee psychological empowerment on customer satisfaction.
Harris, L. C. (2013). Service employees and customer phone rage: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(1), 69–84.
European Journal of Marketing, 47(3/4), 463–484. Nicholson, T., & Griffin, B. (2015). Here today but not gone tomorrow: Incivility affects
Harris, L. C., & Reynolds, K. L. (2003). The consequences of dysfunctional customer be- after-work and next-day recovery. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(2),
havior. Journal of Service Research, 6(2), 144–161. 218–225.
Hartline, M. D., & Ferrell, O. C. (1996). The management of customer-contact service Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination.
employees: An empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 52. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(5), 400–424.
Heskett, J. L., Jones, T. O., Loveman, G. W., Earl Sasser, W., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1994). Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work
Putting the service-profit chain to work. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 164–174. behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Behavior, 26(7), 777–796.
American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. Pestonjee, D. M., & Singh, A. P. (1977). Supervisory orientation and employees' morale.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resources theory: Its implication for stress, health, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 50(2), 85–91.
and resilience. The Oxford handbook of stress, health, and coping (pp. 127–147). New Pieterse, A. N., van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2009). Transformational
York, NY, US: Oxford University Press. and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psy-
Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J.-P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of re- chological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 609–623.
sources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their con- Porath, C. L., & Pearson, C. M. (2012). Emotional and behavioral responses to workplace
sequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, incivility and the impact of hierarchical status. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
5(1), 103–128. 42, E326–E357.
Hogreve, J., Iseke, A., Derfuss, K., & Eller, T. (2017). The service–profit chain: A meta- Rafaeli, A., Erez, A., Ravid, S., Derfler-Rozin, R., Treister, D. E., & Scheyer, R. (2012).
analytic test of a comprehensive theoretical framework. Journal of Marketing, 81(3), When customers exhibit verbal aggression, employees pay cognitive costs. Journal of

13
A. Boukis, et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103997

Applied Psychology, 97(5), 931–950. Wilson, N. L., & Holmvall, C. M. (2013). The development and validation of the incivility
Ram, Y. (2018). Hostility or hospitality? A review on violence, bullying and sexual har- from customers scale. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(3), 310–326.
assment in the tourism and hospitality industry. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(7), van Woerkom, M., Bakker, A. B., & Nishii, L. H. (2016). Accumulative job demands and
760–774. support for strength use: Fine-tuning the job demands-resources model using con-
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social servation of resources theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 141–150.
Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178. Yang, C. (2014). Does ethical leadership lead to happy workers? A study on the impact of
Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I. E., & Erez, A. (2016). Workplace incivility: A review of the ethical leadership, subjective well-being, and life happiness in the Chinese culture.
literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(5), Journal of Business Ethics, 123(3), 513–525.
S57–S88. Zhan, Y., Wang, M., & Shi, J. (2013). Lagged influences of customer mistreatment on em-
Scott, B. A., & Barnes, C. M. (2011). A multilevel field investigation of emotional labor, ployee mood: Moderating roles of maladaptive emotion regulation strategies (203–224).
affect, work withdrawal, and gender. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), Zhou, X., Ma, J., & Dong, X. (2018). Empowering supervision and service sabotage: A
116–136. moderated mediation model based on conservation of resources theory. Tourism
Seltzer, J., & Numerof, R. E. (1988). Supervisory leadership and subordinate burnout. Management, 64, 170–187.
Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 439–446. Zhu, J. N. Y., Lam, L. W., & Lai, J. Y. M. (2019). Returning good for evil: A study of
Skarlicki, D. P., van Jaarsveld, D. D., & Walker, D. D. (2008). Getting even for customer customer incivility and extra-role customer service. International Journal of Hospitality
mistreatment: The role of moral identity in the relationship between customer in- Management, 81, 65–72.
terpersonal injustice and employee sabotage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6),
1335–1347.
Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The de- Achilleas Boukis (PhD) is an Assistant Professor in
structiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Marketing at University of Sussex Business School. He holds
Psychology, 12(1), 80–92. a PhD. from Strathclyde University (2014) and his main
Skogstad, A., Hetland, J., Glasø, L., & Einarsen, S. (2014). Is avoidant leadership a root research interests lie within the services marketing,
cause of subordinate stress? Longitudinal relationships between laissez-faire leader- branding and innovation management. He has published
ship and role ambiguity. Work & Stress, 28(4), 323–341. his research in academic journals such as Journal of Business
Sliter, M., Jex, S., Wolford, K., & McInnerney, J. (2010). How rude! Emotional labor as a Research, European Management Review, Services Industries
mediator between customer incivility and employee outcomes. Journal of Journal, and Journal of Services Marketing.
Occupational Health Psychology, 15(4), 468–481.
Sliter, M., SLITER, K., & Jex, S. (2012). The employee as a punching bag: The effect of
multiple sources of incivility on employee withdrawal behavior and sales perfor-
mance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 121–139.
Sloan, M. M. (2012). Unfair treatment in the workplace and worker well-being. Work and
Occupations, 39(1), 3–34.
Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with
service encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, Christos Koritos (PhD) is Associate Professor of Marketing
36(3), 356. at the ALBA Graduate Business School of the American
Solnet, D., Ford, R., & McLennan, C.-L. (2018). What matters most in the service-profit College of Greece. His research and teaching interests are in
chain? An empirical test in a restaurant company. International Journal of the fields of consumer behaviour and services marketing.
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(1), 260–285. He has published in the Journal of Product Innovation
Spreitzer, G. M., De Janasz, S. C., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Empowered to lead: The role of Management, Tourism Management, International Journal of
psychological empowerment in leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(4), Contemporary Hospitality Management, Journal of Advertising,
511–526. Journal of Business Research, and European Journal of
Storbeck, J., & Robinson, M. D. (2004). Preferences and inferences in encoding visual Marketing, among others.
objects: A systematic comparison of semantic and affective priming. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(1), 81–93.
Sun, P. Y. T., & Anderson, M. H. (2012). Civic capacity: Building on transformational
leadership to explain successful integrative public leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 23(3), 309–323.
Tepper, B. J., Simon, L., & Park, H. M. (2017). Abusive supervision. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 123–152.
Tews, M. J., Michel, J. W., & Ellingson, J. E. (2013). The impact of coworker support on Kate L. Daunt (PhD) is a Professor of Marketing at Cardiff
employee turnover in the hospitality industry. Group & Organization Management, Business School, Cardiff University, UK. Kate's research in-
38(5), 630–653. terests include services marketing, deviance during service
The Washington Post. (2018). An angry Chick-fil-A customer sucker-punched an em- and service design. Previously, her work has been published
ployee. It did not end well. Retrieved September 7, 2018, from https://www. in the Journal of Retailing, Journal of Service
washingtonpost.com/news/food/wp/2018/09/07/an-angry-chick-fil-a-customer- Research, European Journal of Marketing and the Journal of
sucker-punched-an-employee-it-did-not-end-well/?noredirect=on&utm_term=. Business Research.
b572f80448b4.
Thomas, C. H., & Lankau, M. J. (2009). Preventing burnout: The effects of LMX and
mentoring on socialization, role stress, and burnout. Human Resource Management,
48(3), 417–432.
Vancouver, J. B. (2000). Self-regulation in organizational settings. In M. Boekaerts, P. R.
Pintrich, & M. B. T.-H. of S.-R. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (303–341).
San Diego: Elsevier.
Vincent-Höper, S., Muser, C., & Janneck, M. (2012). Transformational leadership, work
engagement, and occupational success. Career Development International, 17(7), Avraam Papastathopoulos (PhD) is Assistant Professor of
663–682. Management at the College of Business, Abu Dhabi
Walker, D. D., van Jaarsveld, D. D., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2014). Exploring the effects of University. He has a diversified international experience of
individual customer incivility encounters on employee incivility: The moderating 15 years in various positions. Avraam scientific and re-
roles of entity (in)civility and negative affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, search interests mainly focus on strategic management,
99(1), 151–161. organizational behaviour and tourism studies. Avraam has
Walsh, G. (2011). Unfriendly customers as a social stressor – an indirect antecedent of published in the International Journal of Tourism Research,
service employees' quitting intention. European Management Journal, 29(1), 67–78. Tourism Review, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and
Wang, M., Liao, H., Zhan, Y., & Shi, J. (2011). Daily customer mistreatment and employee Hospitality Research, Sustainable Development, Policing: An
sabotage against customers:examining emotion and resource perspectives. Academy International Journal.
of Management Journal, 54(2), 312–334.
Wang, M., Liu, S., Liao, H., Gong, Y., Kammeyer-Mueller, J., & Shi, J. (2013). Can't get it
out of my mind: Employee rumination after customer mistreatment and negative
mood in the next morning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 989–1004.
Wegge, J., Vogt, J., & Wecking, C. (2007). Customer-induced stress in call centre work: A
comparison of audio- and videoconference. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 80(4), 693–712.

14