Next Article in Journal
Enriching the Typology of Social Entrepreneurs: The Transnational Dimension
Previous Article in Journal
Evolution and Challenges of Sustainability Reporting in the Banking Sector: A Systematic Literature Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Administrative Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 12
10.3390/admsci14120334
admsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploring the Influence of Employee Personality on Incivility and Innovative Deviance Among Frontline Hotel Employees: The Mediating Role of Perceived Stress

by
Uju Violet Alola
1,
Serdar Egeli
1 and
Chukwuemeka Echebiri
2,*
1
Department of Tourism Guidance, Faculty of Economics, Administrative and Social Sciences, Istanbul Gelisim University, Istanbul 34310, Turkey
2
Inland School of Business and Social Sciences, University of Inland Norway, 2624 Lillehammer, Norway
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14(12), 334; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14120334
Submission received: 29 August 2024 / Revised: 9 December 2024 / Accepted: 11 December 2024 / Published: 18 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Organizational Behavior)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study looked at the complex interactions between agreeableness as a personality trait and five deviant workplace behaviours (including experienced incivility and innovative deviant behaviour) and the role of perceived stress as a mediating mechanism in front-of-house hotel workers. The study adopted a convenience sampling approach to improve access to frontline employees in the hotel sector in Turkey; a total of 500 questionnaires were collected, and 360 were usable. A partial least square structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was used to test the conceptual model and hypothesised associations. The findings show that agreeableness has a negative association with perceived stress and experienced incivility but is positively correlated with innovative deviant behaviour. In contrast, perceived stress is negatively correlated with innovative deviant behaviour but positively associated with experienced incivility. We also found that perceived stress serves as a mediating mechanism in this relationship. According to the findings, the personalities of employees and how they perceive stress could shape how it impacts workplace deviance, depending on whether it is constructive or destructive. The study’s findings have significance for managerial policies aimed at building a collaborative and innovative workplace and understanding how personality traits and perceived stress impact broader workplace deviance.

1. Introduction

In an ever-growing and increasingly competitive and uncertain business world, businesses and organisations increasingly demand new ideas and greater employee involvement to carry out their activities effectively (Echebiri 2021). As such, employees with high levels of professional and creative ideals can promote company innovation and generate valuable ideas. These creative ideas could sometimes be rejected for several reasons, including limited resources or uncertainty about the positive outcome of them. Hence, this rejection by the organisation pushes some personnel to exhibit new behaviours against formal authority due to personality differences.
Generally, personality is a complex concept that entails a combination of an individual’s behavioural, cognitive, and emotional patterns (Boyle et al. 2008). It is linked to the Big-Five framework, which indicates that personality can be classified into five broad domains (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience), and these predominantly explain differences in human personality (Gosling et al. 2003). Overall, employee personality plays a crucial role in influencing organisational performance by providing a vital lens for personnel managers to distinguish employees with certain tendencies (Doan et al. 2021). However, it has also been linked to several organisational outcomes. Previous studies demonstrate the effect of personality traits on job performance and role-play (Barrick et al. 2001; Hurtz and Donovan 2000), job satisfaction (Judge and Bono 2001), creativity (Kim et al. 2009; Neubert et al. 2016; Yang et al. 2017), innovative behaviour (Hughes et al. 2018), and team dynamics (Huynh et al. 2019).
For example, individuals who are open to new experiences have higher scores for the acceptance of new ideas and unorthodox beliefs, exhibit originality, intellectual curiosity, and adaptability, and have a sense of cultural discipline (Matzler et al. 2006). Therefore, it is safe to say that hotel employees with higher degrees of openness to new experiences are more likely to engage in innovative work behaviours (Yesil and Sozbilir 2013). Furthermore, openness to new experiences was found to be favourably related to the development and execution of ideas (Echebiri 2021). Extraversion, on the other hand, was found to be positively related to sharing innovative ideas (Robbins and Galperin 2010). The study by of Lan et al. (2023) gave an insight into the duality of conscientiousness. The finding reveals that conscientiousness will not directly affect learning but will instead influence outcomes indirectly by triggering a self-regulation mechanism through self-efficacy and self-deception (Dudley et al. 2006); conscientiousness affects individual job outcomes.
Although the effect of employee personality traits on experienced incivility has gained attention in organisational research in the context of hotel frontline employees, understanding the role of agreeableness in shaping behaviour is crucial for creating a positive work environment and improving organisational outcomes (Chen et al. 2023). Shahreki et al. (2021) examined the relationship between different personality traits in line with employee performance in the hotel industry and found that agreeableness is most significant regarding individual performance. Agreeableness reflects cooperation, empathy, and kindness and is a protective factor against experiencing incivility as a positive personality trait (Schilpzand et al. 2016; Sliter et al. 2015). According to a study conducted in the hotel industry, Blau and Andersson (2005) established that employees with higher levels of agreeableness were less likely to perceive incivility from customers and coworkers. Consequently, this study focuses on agreeableness, a positive personality dimension, to ascertain the influence on innovative deviant behaviour and experienced incivility.
Innovative deviant work behaviour refers to proactive and unconventional actions taken by employees to improve work processes and outcomes. Personality traits play an influencing role in employees engaging in such behaviour. These employees, in their quest to be proactive and embrace change, might display innovative deviant behaviour. Scholars have examined innovative deviant behaviour as a similar concept to innovative behaviour (Yu et al. 2024; Yang et al. 2022; Bani-Melhem et al. 2020) and deviant behaviour (Raza et al. 2024; Muhammad and Sarwar 2021), but this is one of the few studies in the literature to examine innovative deviant behaviour in the hotel industry.
Constructive innovative deviant behaviours are crucial for an organisation; this helps in forming positive employee citizenship behaviours, thus improving organisational processes and efficiency and aiding organisational innovative change (Liu and Liu 2024). This behaviour, with a positive intent that aligns with organisational goals, quickens decision making and bypasses bureaucracy to deliver speedy results (Pereira-Morales et al. 2024). In contrast, destructive innovative deviant behaviour which involves deviation from organisational norms, compromising and undermining trust, cause operational harm by compromising security due to the implementation of unauthorised operations as a result of self-serving motives (Gatzweiler et al. 2017).
In several organisational contexts, perceived stress emerges as an essential factor influencing employee behaviour. Perceived stress is an individual’s subjective assessment of the demands and difficulties faced at work. Studies have examined the relationship between perceived stress and innovative deviant behaviour as a coping mechanism. Although some of these behaviours are seen as beneficial to the organisation, some are negative and detrimental to the growth of an organisation (Zhang and Bednall 2016). Some of these adverse effects can be addressed promptly by the organisation. For example, stress management programmes (Biding and Nordin 2014), conflict resolution (Jung and Yoon 2018), and cultural values (Kim et al. 2018; Eid and Agag 2020) should be introduced to promote innovation and constructive behaviour, which may promote a healthy and positive work environment.
Despite several studies shedding light on the relationship between these variables, little is known about the relationship between agreeableness, perceived stress, innovative deviant behaviour, and experienced incivility. Also, research is needed to further explain the specific boundaries and conditions under which perceived stress will mediate the relationship between these variables. Furthermore, this study sheds more light on the long-term effect of these dynamics on organisation and employee well-being. Specifically, the study objective centres clearly on exploring the relationship between employee personality traits (agreeableness) on innovative deviant behaviour and workplace incivility among frontline employees in the hotel industry in Turkey. Several studies have established some findings on how personality traits impact different organisational constructs (Acaray and Yildirim 2017; Çöp et al. 2022); however, little is known about this personality trait (agreeableness) as an individual trait and innovate deviant behaviour. Additionally, the study explores the mediating role of perceived stress on innovative deviance and incivility and the effect of stress within the organisation on these variables. Also, the study provides practical insights for hotel management to work towards a reduction in stress, which reduces incivility and results in positive work environment that promotes constructive innovation.
The rest of the study will unfold as follows: Next, we review the theoretical underpinnings of this study. Then, there will be a literature review outlining the development of our hypothesis. The methodology will be followed a the presentation of the results, as well as a discussion of the implications/conclusions.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development

The Conservation of Resources theory (CORs) hypothesised by Hobfoll (1989), is the theoretical underpinning used to develop the hypothesis in this study. It offers a helpful framework for examining how agreeableness, perceived stress, and resource dynamics interact. According to the CORs theory, people want to acquire, protect, and enhance their resources, which include psychological, social, and material resources. The idea is that when people sense a threat to their resources or a loss of resources, they become worried, and the inability to regain them results in stress. Employee personality traits can be considered as personal resources, so when these resources are tampered with, by things like work pressures and the risk of losing resources, the employee becomes stressed out. Service sector employees are more exposed to stressors, like customer incivility and depression, than employees in any other industry (Alola et al. 2019).
However, people who possess qualities like agreeableness may have more personal resources, enabling them to handle challenges more successfully and experience lower stress levels. Understanding the importance of agreeableness and resource dynamics within the context of the COR theory can help organisations implement initiatives that increase personal resources, reduce stress, and promote employee well-being (Hobfoll 1989).

3. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

3.1. Agreeable Personality Traits and Perceived Stress

Consistent with the CORs theory, studies on organisational psychology and stress research have investigated the subtle relationship between agreeableness and perceived stress (Kim and Jung 2022; Mathisen et al. 2011). These findings highlight the importance of personality factors in shaping stress levels. Welbourne et al. (2020) found that agreeableness, as a personality trait, is associated with positive outcomes. Individuals high in agreeableness tend to be more prosocial, showing more concern for social integration. They may exhibit a more optimistic and resilient way of solving problems and perceive stressors as being less threatening and manageable (Finley et al. 2017). As a result of these improved social resources, such an interpersonal orientation may act as a stress reduction mechanism (Ozbay et al. 2007).
Conversely, those with low levels of agreeableness are more pessimistic and may find it difficult to establish and preserve supportive connections, leading to perceived stress (Hampson et al. 2007). Similarly, the study by Agbaria and Mokh (2022) ascertained that agreeable individuals focus on problem-solving and social support and that social support increases their ability to cope (perceived stress). This supports the fact that agreeable individuals are also associated with traits such as generosity, trustworthiness (McCrae and John 1992), empathetic behaviour (Graziano et al. 2007), and peacefulness (Bresin and Robinson 2015). Building on the existing literature, we argue that agreeableness will likely impact an individual’s perception of stress. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1. 
Agreeableness as a personality trait is negatively related to perceived stress.

3.2. Agreeable Personality Traits and Innovative Deviant Behaviour

Deviant behaviour refers to work behaviours outside the norms established within the organisation. However, the perception and overall impact on the organisation influence the categorisation of this behaviour as either destructive deviance, focusing on the adverse effects, or constructive, which emphasises the perceived positive effects (Acharya and Taylor 2012; Appelbaum et al. 2007). Generally, innovative deviant behaviour is “the behaviour of an employee who continues to improve or implement an idea proposed after the superior supervisor denies it” (Xu and Zhao 2020, p. 3).
Previous studies point to the relationship between agreeableness and innovative deviant behaviour, shedding light on the underlying mechanisms and supporting the association between these factors. For instance, agreeable people tend to uphold social standards and respect and value collaboration. As a result, they are less likely to cause conflict in interpersonal relationships. Thus, this will make them maintain the status quo in the workplace and will instead prefer not to change any rules laid down by the organisation or try to put in more effort beyond the stated norms, which cause innovative deviant behaviour.
In a different study, Fan et al. (2022) looked at stress’s role in employee innovative behaviour in 54 companies; their findings show that employee innovation is hindered by organisational stress and that an employee’s personality is highly influenced by proactive innovation. They further stated that the organisational environment contributes to employee innovative behaviour. While the literature gives valuable insights into the relationship between employee personality and innovative deviant behaviour, it is essential to note that organisational characteristics such as a supportive and encouraging work environment are equally important. Organisations that foster a creative culture, allow autonomy, and recognise and reward innovative efforts are more likely to support and perpetuate the positive association between agreeableness and innovative deviant behaviour. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
H2a. 
There is a positive relationship between agreeableness and innovative deviant behaviour.

3.3. Agreeable Personality Traits and Experienced Incivility

Unlike the innovative deviant behaviour discussed above, which has positive connotations, incivility is associated with adverse outcomes since such behaviours go against workplace norms and behaviours (Cortina et al. 2001). Workplace incivility is a form of low-intensity deviant behaviour (Andersson and Pearson 1999). The literature suggests that workplace incivility can emanate from fellow employees. Conversely, it could result from customers due to customer–employee contact in predominantly service-oriented organisations (Alola et al. 2019; Cortina et al. 2001). According to Lee et al. (2024), employees are influenced by uncivil activities around them, and individuals high in agreeableness are less likely to engage in recuperative uncivil behaviour. According to Alola et al. (2019), service failures are the primary source of complaints and frustration experienced by customers, which result in customer incivility. Overall, they have detrimental effects on employee’s well-being and organisational outcomes. This has necessitated continued attention to further understand how organisations can minimise their negative impact (Alola et al. 2021).
Consequently, the Conservation of Resources (CORs) theory has been applied as a lens to explore how employee personality traits serve as personal resources that can influence the experience of incivility (Sliter et al. 2015; Welbourne et al. 2020). For example, previous studies indicate that agreeableness is linked to an increased sensitivity to incivility and the potential for beneficial consequences, like successful conflict resolution (Cortina et al. 2001). Individuals high in agreeableness, characterised by their cooperative and empathetic nature, may be more susceptible to experiencing incivility. Their tendency to prioritise harmonious relationships and avoid conflict can make them targets for uncivil behaviours from more dominant or aggressive colleagues. However, this desire to maintain harmony in the organisation and overlook uncivil behaviour is likely to increase the act of incivility.
In other words, employees with certain personality features, like agreeableness, may be more prone to facing incivility in environments that do not match their personal traits. According to Sliter et al. (2015), repeated exposure to uncivil behaviour may damage people’s trust and altruistic attitudes, which might lower their level of agreeableness as a coping strategy. Moreover, consistent exposure to uncivil behaviour might cause defensive or aggressive reactions in contrast to the agreeable nature of the employee. Consequently, the interventions based on the CORs theory emphasise the importance of creating a positive work environment, promoting respectful communication, and providing support mechanisms to protect employees’ resources and mitigate the impact of incivility (Chris et al. 2022; Leiter et al. 2011). However, this is dependent on the personality of the employee in question. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed.
H2b. 
There is a negative relationship between agreeableness and experienced incivility.

3.4. Perceived Stress, Innovative Deviate Behaviour, and Experienced Incivility

Research has shown that perceived stress affects various aspects of well-being, including physical health, mental health, and general quality of life. Many studies have examined the relationships between perceived stress and other outcomes, such as personal health (Valikhani et al. 2019), psychological distress (Lee 2012), and psychological detachment (Sonnentag and Fritz 2015). The Conservation of Resources theory illustrates that perceived stress drains employees’ psychological resources. As previously stated, employees might engage in innovative deviant behaviour to regain the lost resources. When employees experience stress and there is no mechanism (supportive leadership or an innovative climate) in place to support them, they tend to engage in creative problem-solving and seek various ways to complete tasks at work, with or without resources (Janssen 2004). Researchers (e.g., Duke et al. 2009) have looked into people’s creative and unorthodox methods to manage stress, cope with challenging circumstances, and protect their resources. This study emphasised the resource-enhancing characteristics of innovative deviant behaviour and its potentially advantageous effects on people and organisations, with perceived stress as a trigger that promotes employees’ engagement in unethical innovative behaviour that violates organisational norms. Thus, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
H3a. 
There is a negative relationship between perceived stress and innovative deviant behaviour.
Additionally, previous studies show that the experience of incivility, such as rudeness, increases stress levels, diminishes job satisfaction, and negatively impacts organisational outcomes (Cortina et al. 2013). Thomas et al. (2022) argue that experienced incivility is connected with negative emotions and that repeated incivility escalates employees’ poor well-being. Iqbal et al. (2023), in their study on incivility with Chinese and Pakistani employees using a snowball data collection technique, found that perceived incivility increases work-related stress. Therefore, these empirical findings suggest a link between perceived stress and incivility in the workplace and innovative deviant behaviour. Based on the above discussion, we propose the following hypothesis.
H3b. 
There is a positive relationship between perceived stress and experienced incivility.

4. The Mediating Relationship of Perceived Stress with Agreeableness, Experienced Incivility, and Innovative Deviant Behaviour

Studies have investigated the mediating relationship of perceived stress with agreeableness as a personality trait and experienced incivility in the workplace, shedding light on the complex dynamics between these variables. Employee personality traits, such as agreeableness, strengthen the relationship between experienced incivility and stressors (Welbourne et al. 2020). The study by Naimon et al. (2013) found a relationship between incivility and agreeableness. This means that employees with agreeable characteristics are less likely to retaliate against negative behaviour.
Employee personality is a potential factor in the association between experienced incivility and perceived stress. For example, Welbourne et al. (2020), in their study using 252 employees in a two-wave survey, discovered that extremely diligent workers were less inclined to engage in rude behaviour toward others or experience feelings of exhaustion due to experienced incivility. Moreover, agreeableness was found to exert an effect on deviant behaviour and experienced incivility. According to the CORs theory, people work hard to get hold of and safeguard important resources, including psychological resources like self-worth and coping mechanisms (Hobfoll 1989).
The findings suggest that perceived stress acts as a mediating mechanism in the relationship between agreeableness and experienced incivility. In the extant heath literature, perceived stress has been shown to play a mediating role. For example, the study by Pereira-Morales et al. (2019) found a significant mediating relationship between employee personality and anxiety. Also, in the relationship between perceived stress and well-being (Achterberg et al. 2021), social support, and posttraumatic growth (Yeung and Lu 2018), Cheung et al. (2023) perceived stress acts as mediating mindfulness and resilience. From the hotel industry’s perspective, Mérida-López et al. (2023) argued perceived stress plays a mediating role between emotional intelligence and work engagement. Through its mediating role, perceived stress amplifies or attenuates the impact of agreeableness on the perception and experience of workplace incivility. Therefore, this study assumes that perceived stress will mediate the proposed relationship.
H4a. 
Perceived stress mediates the relationship between agreeableness and experience incivility.
Perceived stress will play a mediating role in the relationship between agreeableness and innovative deviant behaviour. People may be more likely to participate in innovative behaviour as a coping strategy or exert control over their surroundings when they are stressed due to personal disputes or organisational demands (Luis et al. 2020; Ren and Zhang 2015).
According to Gao and Wu (2020), innovative deviant behaviour is nontraditional or rule-breaking behaviour intended to foster positive change in the company. In the same view, Xu and Zhao (2020) refer to deviant innovative behaviour as the continued implementation of work by the employee, even when the employee denies management. This conduct might be an avenue to deal with stressful conditions. To reduce their perceived stress and reestablish interpersonal harmony, individuals with high agreeableness levels who feel stressed in their relationships with coworkers could, for instance, turn to unusual problem-solving techniques or question accepted norms (Li et al. 2022). Employees may use innovative deviant behaviour as a resource acquisition or preservation strategy to preserve or restore their resources (Hobfoll 1989).
Studies have shown that higher levels of perceived stress can alleviate the association between agreeableness and innovative deviant behaviour (Madrid et al. 2014). Individuals who are high in agreeableness may generate innovative ideas, but when faced with high-stress levels, they are likely to engage in deviant behaviours due to the perceived risks.
These findings suggest that perceived stress mediates the relationship between agreeableness as an employee’s personality trait and innovative deviant behaviour. Higher levels of perceived stress will influence the relationship between agreeableness and innovative deviant behaviour.
H4b. 
Perceived stress mediates the relationship between agreeableness as an employee personality and innovative deviant behaviour.
Figure 1 represents the conceptual model, while Table 1 summarises the hypotheses.

5. Methodology

5.1. Participants and Procedure

This study investigated the effect of employees’ personalities as an antecedent of experienced incivility and innovative deviant work behaviour and the role of perceived stress as a mediation mechanism. Data were collected from frontline employees in the hotel sector in Turkey in 2023. The study adopted a convenience sampling approach to improve access to the employees. Prior to the distribution of the questionnaire, an ethical approval letter was obtained for the study from the ethical committee at the Istanbul Gelisim University, Turkey. Questionnaires were manually given to the supervisors with each questionnaire having a written note including a confidentiality statement and an explanation of the study. The supervisor distributed the surveys to employees to complete after verbal informed consent was obtained from the participant. This was carried out to further clarify the reason for the survey and to obtain the participants’ consent. At this point, any participant that was not in line with the purpose of the study was not given the questionnaire. Previous studies suggest that this approach might be more beneficial in cases where the study population does not have access to a laptop, or their work does not typically involve working online. Therefore, distributing the survey manually would increase the response rate (Echebiri 2021). The questionnaires were distributed to 500 frontline workers in total. A 72% response rate was achieved with N = 360 respondents who completed and returned the survey. The respondents were above the age of 18. The majority, representing 80.28%, were single, while their work experience ranged from less than one year to over seven years. We coded the completed responses into SPSS. All respondents were above 18 years of age, the legal working age in Turkey. The personal characteristics of the study sample are summarised in Table 2.

5.2. Measurement Instruments

Since our study involved latent variables that could not be measured directly (Acock 2013), we relied on measurement instruments to obtain the respondents’ perceptions, as suggested in the literature (Acock 2013; Mehmetoglu and Jakobsen 2017). Scales from well-established measurement instruments were adopted. Since these were originally in English, the items were translated into Turkish to enable respondents to understand and respond to the survey appropriately. Suffice to say there were back-to-back translations. This was carried out to improve the response rate since respondents are more comfortable in their mother tongue. However, we also retained the original ratings of these instruments. We measured agreeableness with two items adopted from Gosling et al.’s (2003) brief measurement scale. A seven-point Likert scale, with a range of responses from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7), was used to evaluate the items. Ten questions that were adapted from Cohen et al. (1983) were used to measure perceived stress. The items were scored using a four-point Likert scale, from never (1) to very often (5). Experienced incivility was assessed with seven items adopted from Cortina et al. (2001). Each item was rated on a five-point Likert Scale. We measured innovative deviant work behaviour on a six-point Likert Scale adapted from Galperin (2012). Table 3 shows the factors’ mean, standard deviation, and correlation.

5.3. Data Analysis

Prior to performing the analysis, we tested for common method bias using the Harman single factor test. The results shows that no single factor accounts for more than 50% of the variance among our study variables. To test the hypothesised relationships summed up in Table 1, the study employed partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) on Stata software version 17.0 to test the conceptual model and the hypothesised associations. The choice of PLS-SEM was informed by the fact that PLS-SEM is considered a robust approach with few identification issues, and it minimises the residual variances in the endogenous constructs (Hair et al. 2014). A user-developed package, Venturini and Mehmetoglu (2019), was used. Following the guidelines for the performance and interpretations of PLS-SEM analyses, the first stage was to evaluate the reflective measurement model, whereas the second stage focused on evaluating the structural model (Hair et al. 2014; Venturini and Mehmetoglu 2019). In the final step, the mediating effect was estimated. Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approach to testing mediation was followed using bootstrapping to evaluate how a third construct intervenes between two related constructs (Baron and Kenny 1986). This method is used to determine whether the direct and indirect effects are statistically significant, and how the sum of these two tests determines whether there are only direct effects—without mediation, no-effect no mediation, partial mediation, competitive mediation (direct and indirect effects are significant but in opposite directions)—or only indirect mediation. (Baron and Kenny 1986).

6. Results

6.1. Measurement Model

The reflected measurement model was evaluated by assessing the loadings, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE), as described in the PLS-SEM literature. (e.g., Hair et al. 2014). First, these assessment criteria showed a moderate fit with cross loadings, which suggested that several items were redundant. The AVE which was used to assess convergent validity based on Fornell and Larcker was below the required minimum of 0.5 (Cheung et al. 2023). We repeated the analysis with factor loading cut-offs of 0.4, 0.5, and 0.6, which are the minimums suggested in the literature. This was carried out sequentially, and the fit indices were checked at each stage. Accordingly, we dropped four items from employee personality, six from perceived stress, and six from innovative deviant behaviour. A complete list of the retained items are shown in Appendix A.
The factor analysis findings demonstrated adequate qualities for all constructions, as shown in Table 2. The CR for all but one of the construct was more than the recommended threshold of 0.6. (Bagozzi and Yi 2012). Cheung et al. (2023) argue that CR is more suitable for SEM studies. Additionally, the results of the average variance extracted (AVE), which was utilised to evaluate the convergent and condition-discriminant validity, were good. In addition, there were no issues with the cross-loaded indicators in the measurement model, which is a further confirmation that discriminant validity criteria have been met (Cheung et al. 2023). Table 4 displays the standardised factor loadings of the reflective constructs, CR, and AVE. The results in Table 4 suggest that our measurement model is satisfactory enough to proceed with the structural models.

6.2. Structural Model

The first step in evaluating the structural model was to assess the study constructs to identify any multicollinearity issues. All indicators had VIF values below 5, indicating no critical collinearity issues, in line with the literature (Hair et al. 2014). Venturini and Mehmetoglu (2019) argued that the “assessment of the model goodness for a PLS-SEM model is rather complicated and not yet properly defined” (p. 12). We provided the path coefficient (standardised) and coefficient of determination to assess the validity of our proposed model (Figure 1). (Venturini and Mehmetoglu 2019). Table 5 summarises the standardised path coefficients for all the direct relationships (H1–H3b). All the hypothesised relationships were statistically significant and therefore support the data. The structural model prediction power was assessed using the in-sample prediction of the endogenous constructs using R2-adjusted values. The R2-adjusted value for perceived stress was 0.10, for experienced incivility it was 0.08, and for innovative deviant behaviour it was 0.24. indicating that the sample’s explanatory power was weak to moderate (Mehmetoglu and Jakobsen 2017). H4a and H4b tested the mediating effects reported in Table 6, and these were supported by the data and indicated a partial mediation. This means that perceived stress partially mediates the association between agreeableness and experienced incivility and agreeableness and innovative deviant behaviour.

7. Discussion

This study investigates the mediating role of perceived stress in the relationship between agreeableness and experienced incivility, as well as that between agreeableness and innovative deviant work behaviour. The study’s results supported all five hypothesised direct relationships and two of the mediation mechanisms based on the theoretical discussion.
We found that agreeableness, a personality trait, is negatively associated with perceived stress and experienced incivility but positively correlated with innovative deviant behaviour, as predicted. Perhaps the divergent interaction between agreeableness and deviant behaviour depends on whether the deviant behaviour in question is considered constructive or destructive. Unlike incivility, innovative deviant behaviours are proactive and ultimately enhance work outcomes. These findings provide further empirical support to the existing literature (e.g., Finley et al. 2017; Hampson et al. 2007), which suggests that individuals perceived to possess agreeable traits tend to see things from the positive side and, therefore, perceive stressful situations as being likely and manageable; hence, they prefer to prioritise social integration (Finley et al. 2017) and uphold social standards, respect, and collaboration. These attributes also explain why agreeableness is positively associated with innovative deviant behaviour but negatively correlated with experienced incivility. We believe that it makes sense that someone who, by nature, is pro more social integration would prefer to de-escalate incivility rather than engage in positive behaviours.
Similarly, perceived stress is negatively associated with innovative deviant behaviour but is positively correlated with experienced incivility, as predicted. This suggests that a certain stress level might be ok, but the employee can no longer handle it beyond a certain tolerable point. This largely agrees with previous findings suggesting that experienced incivility is linked to negative emotions (e.g., Thomas et al. 2022). Furthermore, our results suggest that despite the direct relationship between these factors, perceived stress plays an important role in the relationship between agreeableness on the one hand and experienced incivility and innovative deviant behaviour on the other. In a nutshell, the indirect effects of agreeableness on deviant behaviour are influenced by stress perception.
Therefore, these findings show a more nuanced understanding of how these factors interact. For example, there was a negative association between perceived stress and innovative deviant behaviours; a positive relationship with experienced incivility may not be completely surprising. A plausible explanation for this divergent outcome for perceived stress might stem from the understanding that frontline employees in the hotel typically carry out their duties in stressful work environments usually associated with complaints from customers, colleagues, and supervisors (Alola et al. 2019; Schilpzand et al. 2016). This suggests that the sources of perceived stress could arise from colleagues, customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders. Consequently, an employee’s interpretation and reaction to perceived stress could depend on the sources, nature, and intensity of the stressor. It is worth noting that workplace incivility and innovative deviant behaviour are “deviant behaviours” that can either be destructive or constructive but are generally outside the workplace norms (Alola et al. 2021; Kalemci et al. 2019; Yao et al. 2022). Workplace incivility could be considered destructive, while innovative deviant behaviour is constructive. We think that the positive or negative association could inadvertently be a coping mechanism to deal with the unwanted (destructive situation) situation and alleviate their perceived stress. For example, an employee confronted with incivility from a supervisor or senior colleague, such as shouting, may not react immediately. Instead, such as an employee may choose to calm the situation down by not responding which is a form of avoidance. However, when confronted by a customer who is always assumed to be right, the employee would not necessarily want to avoid the customer; instead, other coping behaviours, such as problem-focused coping, which entails problem-solving activities (constructive), would be utilised. Overall, these findings agree with the literature on perceived stress coping behaviours, which shows that coping strategies that are successful in one situation may be ineffective in another (e.g., Aldwin and Yancura 2004; Lambert and Lambert 2008).

Theoretical and Practical Implications and Limitations

Overall, this study has theoretical implications as it contributes to the several existing studies on workplace behaviour by connecting the personality trait of agreeableness with innovative behaviour and introduces perceived stress as a mediator. By conceptualising and empirically testing these relationships, which are anchored in COR theory, our study extends the application of COR theory (Hobfoll 1989). As previously stated, the theory stipulates that employees acquire, maintain, and protect their resources and when these resources are used without replacement, stress occurs. This theory deepens our understanding of how resource gain is essential in high-stress environments such as the hotel industry. It highlights the introduction of perceived stress as a factor as it plays a critical role in mediating the relationship between the variables, presenting a new insight into individual personality differences and how they affects workplace behaviour. Furthermore, the findings link the theory to innovative deviant behaviour, enriching organisational behaviour research.
On the other hand, these findings have practical implications as well. In the context of frontline hotel employees who constantly interface with hotel clients, it is important to understand the role of agreeableness in workplace incivility and innovative deviant behaviour. Although a hotel needs employees with different backgrounds and different personalities, identifying and understanding employees’ personalities can help the organisation improve their skills better. It could be the case that some employees with certain traits are better placed to handle some challenges better than others. For instance, one high in agreeableness could be better at dealing with a dissatisfied customer than one low in agreeableness.
Again, since deviant behaviours are norms that organisations do not approve of, organisations need to balance to what extent employees can engage in some of these behaviours. While some deviant behaviour might be allowed, especially when is positive, it should not replace organisational norms since this might lead to “psychological, social and tangible consequences for employees and organisations” (Kalemci et al. 2019, p. 1). For example, Zhang and Bednall (2016) argued that, sometimes, these behaviours might be unwanted and have damaging consequences for an organisation. Therefore, policymakers and human resource departments should develop policies or guidelines for these behaviours.
An employee’s personality and its effect on innovative deviance and workplace incivility offer useful insights for management. Managers can introduce training programmes that promote employee resilience (Alola and Alola 2018). Stress reduction training can be introduced to help with promoting coping mechanisms that will increase creativity and reduce incivility and its consequences. Additionally, management can introduce personality assessments tools prior to initial employee recruitment, and by doing so, those with a personality that aligns with organisational norms and values will be recruited, thereby reducing the possibility of workplace incivility.
Notwithstanding our findings, this study has some shortcomings that are worth discussing. First, the factors’ AVE values and one indicator loading result were marginally lower than expected. We are unsure if translating these items into Turkish could have played any role. We suggest conducting this study in settings where the scales may not need to be translated into another language. Second, adopting a quantitative approach means that we could not gain a more in-depth understanding of the complex interactions among these concepts. We therefore recommend for this topic to be further investigated using a mixed approach that puts employees’ experiences into their own words. In addition, we recommend that a further study could be carried out to investigate if employee tenure has any relationship with constructive deviant behaviour; that is to say, does a longer employee tenure reduce or increase constructive deviant behaviour.

Author Contributions

U.V.A. was in charge of the conception and design of the study, the introduction and literature review, and was involved in revising the paper critically for its intellectual content. S.E. was in charge of data collection and reading the manuscript. C.E. was in charge of the analysis and interpretation of the data, the drafting of the paper, and revising it critically for its intellectual content and correspondence. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors declare that no part of the funding or a full payment has been giving in cash or in another form by a person or an organisation for this study.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by Istanbul Gelisim University Ethics Committee (024-05-116, 19 April 2024).

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on special request to the second author, Serdar Egeli, email: [email protected].

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no competing interests know to them.

Appendix A. Questionnaire

We are carrying out a research on the effects of agreeableness on work behaviour in hotel industry. Please we would like you to rate your perception on a scale as indicated in the questionnaire, with respect to the following variables below. The answer you provide will be kept confidential and will be used solely for this research. There is no right or wrong answer.
ConstructLabelClaimsReference
Employee personality (EP)EP1I see myself as critical and quarrelsome (R).Gosling et al. (2003)
EP2I see myself as sympathetic and warm
Perceived stress (PS)PS1In the last month, how often have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?Cohen et al. (1983)
PS3In the last month, how often have you felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life?
PS6In the last month, how often have you found that you could not cope with all the things that you had to do?
PS8In the last month, how often have you felt that you were on top of things?
Experienced Incivility (EI)EI1Put you down or was condescending to you?Cortina et al. (2001)
EI2Paid little attention to your statement or showed little interest in your opinion?
EI3Made demeaning or derogatory remarks about you?
Innovative deviant work behaviour (IDWB)IDWB1Sought to bend or break the rules in order to perform your job.Galperin (2012)
IDWB2Violated company procedures in order to solve a problem.
IDWB3Departed from organizational procedures to solve a customer’s problem
IDWB4Disobeyed your supervisor’s instructions to perform more efficiently

References

  1. Acaray, Ali, and Seda Yildirim. 2017. The impact of personality traits on organizational cynicism in the education sector. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development 13: 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Acharya, Parul, and Regina Taylor. 2012. Innovative deviance: An investigation of the relationships between social control, creativity and innovation in organisations. Academy of Business Research Journal 1: 49–58. [Google Scholar]
  3. Achterberg, Michelle, Simone Dobbelaar, Olga D. Boer, and Eveline A. Crone. 2021. Perceived stress as mediator for longitudinal effects of the COVID-19 lockdown on well-being of parents and children. Scientific Reports 11: 2971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Acock, A. C. 2013. Discovering Structural Equation Modeling Using State. College Station: Stata Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. Agbaria, Qutaiba, and Amnah Abu Mokh. 2022. Coping with stress during the coronavirus outbreak: The contribution of big five personality traits and social support. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction 20: 1854–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Aldwin, C. M., and L. A. Yancura. 2004. Coping. In Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology. Edited by C. D. Spielberger. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 507–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Alola, Uju Violet, and Andrew Adewale Alola. 2018. Can resilience help?: Coping with job stressor. Academic Journal of Economic Studies 4: 141–52. [Google Scholar]
  8. Alola, Uju Violet, Olusegun A. Olugbade, Turgay Avci, and Ali Öztüren. 2019. Customer incivility and employees’ outcomes in the hotel: Testing the mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Tourism Management Perspectives 29: 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Alola, Uju Violet, Turgay Avcı, and Ali Öztüren. 2021. The nexus of workplace incivility and emotional exhaustion in hotel industry. Journal of Public Affairs 21: e2236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Andersson, Lynne M., and Christine M. Pearson. 1999. Tit for Tat? The Spiraling Effect of Incivility in the Workplace. The Academy of Management Review 24: 452–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Appelbaum, Steven H., Giulio David Iaconi, and Albert Matousek. 2007. Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: Causes, impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society 7: 586–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bagozzi, Richard P., and Youjae Yi. 2012. Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40: 8–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bani-Melhem, Shaker, Rawan Mazen Abukhait, and Faridahwati Mohd. 2020. Does job stress affect innovative behaviors? Evidence from Dubai five-star hotels. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism 19: 344–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Baron, Reuben M., and David A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Barrick, Murray R., Michael K. Mount, and Timothy A. Judge. 2001. Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment 9: 9–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Biding, Cindy, and Rusli Bin Nordin. 2014. Effects of a stress management intervention program on self-perceived depression, anxiety, and stress among hotel employees: A quasi-experimental study. In Psychosocial Factors at Work in the Asia Pacific. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 339–53. [Google Scholar]
  17. Blau, Gary, and Lynne Andersson. 2005. Testing a measure of instigated workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 78: 595–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Boyle, Gregory J., Gerald Matthews, and Donald H. Saklofske. 2008. The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd., pp. 1–808. [Google Scholar]
  19. Bresin, Konrad, and Michael D. Robinson. 2015. You Are What You See and Choose: Agreeableness and Situation Selection. Journal of Personality 83: 452–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chen, Shun-Hua, Po-Jen Chen, Chiu-Hsiang Lee, Yu-Ping Wu, Daniel Kwasi Ahorsu, Mark D. Griffiths, and Chung-Ying Lin. 2023. Perceived stress mediating the association between mindfulness and resilience among registered nurses. Psychology Research and Behavior Management 16: 3035–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cheung, Gordon W., Helena D. Cooper-Thomas, Rebecca S. Lau, and Linda C. Wang. 2023. Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 41: 745–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chris, Alexandra C., Yannick Provencher, Cody Fogg, Serena C. Thompson, Ashley L. Cole, Obehi Okaka, Frank A. Bosco, and M. Gloria González-Morales. 2022. A meta-analysis of experienced incivility and its correlates: Exploring the dual path model of experienced workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 27: 317–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cohen, Sheldon, Tom Kamarck, and Robin Mermelstein. 1983. A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 24: 385–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Cortina, Lilia M., Dana Kabat-Farr, Emily A. Leskinen, Marisela Huerta, and Vicki J. Magley. 2013. Selective incivility as modern discrimination in organisations: Evidence and impact. Journal of Management 39: 1579–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cortina, Lilia M., Vicki J. Magley, Jill Hunter Williams, and Regina Day Langhout. 2001. Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 6: 64–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Çöp, Serdar, Uju Violet Alola, and Taiwo Temitope Lasisi. 2022. Does my personality affect my competency? The role of gender identification and career adaptability among hotel employees. Journal of Public Affairs 22: e2407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Doan, Tin, Pattamol Kanjanakan, Dan Zhu, and Peter B. Kim. 2021. Consequences of employee personality in the hospitality context: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 33: 3814–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dudley, Nicole M., K. A. Orvis, J. E. Lebiecki, and J. M. Cortina. 2006. A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology 91: 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Duke, Allison B., Joseph M. Goodman, Darren C. Treadway, and Jacob W. Breland. 2009. Perceived Organisational Support as a Moderator of Emotional Labor/Outcomes Relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 39: 1013–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Echebiri, Chukwuemeka Kevin. 2021. Employee-Driven Innovation: An Empowerment-Based View. Ph.D. dissertation, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Lillehammer, Norway. [Google Scholar]
  31. Eid, Riyad, and Gomaa Agag. 2020. Determinants of innovative behaviour in the hotel industry: A cross-cultural study. International Journal of Hospitality Management 91: 102642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fan, Jianpeng, Yukun Fan, Lingli Yu, and Shuyu Man. 2022. How hindrance stress, proactive personality, and the employment relationship atmosphere affect employees’ innovative behavior [Original Research]. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 969013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Finley, Anna J., Adrienne L. Crowell, Eddie Harmon-Jones, and Brandon J. Schmeichel. 2017. The Influence of Agreeableness and Ego Depletion on Emotional Responding. Journal of Personality 85: 643–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Galperin, Bella L. 2012. Exploring the Nomological Network of Workplace Deviance: Developing and Validating a Measure of Constructive Deviance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 42: 2988–3025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gao, Qing, and Cisheng Wu. 2020. Exploration and analysis on the psychological capital of entrepreneurship and the deviant innovation behavior of employees. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 549447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Gatzweiler, Alexandra, Vera Blazevic, and Frank Thomas Piller. 2017. Dark side or bright light: Destructive and constructive deviant content in consumer ideation contests. Journal of Product Innovation Management 34: 772–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gosling, Samuel D., Peter J. Rentfrow, and William B. Swann, Jr. 2003. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality 37: 504–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Graziano, William G., Meara M. Habashi, Brad E. Sheese, and Renée M. Tobin. 2007. Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: A person× situation perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93: 583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Hair, J., Jr., M. Sarstedt, L. Hopkins, and V. G. Kuppelwieser. 2014. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). European Business Review 26: 106–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hampson, Sarah E., Lewis R. Goldberg, Thomas M. Vogt, and Joan P. Dubanoski. 2007. Mechanisms by which childhood personality traits influence adult health status: Educational attainment and healthy behaviors. Health Psychology 26: 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Hobfoll, Stevan E. 1989. Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualising stress. American Psychologist 44: 513–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hughes, David J., Allan Lee, Amy Wei Tian, Alex Newman, and Alison Legood. 2018. Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly 29: 549–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hurtz, Gregory M., and John J. Donovan. 2000. Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology 85: 869–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Huynh, Tan, Minh Hon Duong, Thuy Thanh Phan, Tu Van Do, Truc Thi Thanh Do, and Khai The Nguyen. 2019. Team Dynamics, Leadership, and Employee Proactivity of Vietnamese Firms. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 5: 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Iqbal, Mujahid, Yu Yan, Silu Shrestha, Sumaira Mubarik, Muhammad Naveed Riaz, Lijiao Jiang, Muhammad Nadeem, and Muzzamel Hussain Imran. 2023. A moderated mediation model between perceived incivility and instigated incivility on workplace: A cross-cultural daily diary study. International Journal of Stress Management 30: 388–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Janssen, Onne. 2004. How fairness perceptions make innovative behavior more or less stressful. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25: 201–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Judge, Timothy A., and Joyce E. Bono. 2001. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—Self-esteem, generalised self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—With job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 80–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jung, Hyo Sun, and Hye Hyun Yoon. 2018. Improving frontline service employees’ innovative behavior using conflict management in the hospitality industry: The mediating role of engagement. Tourism Management 69: 498–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kalemci, R. Arzu, Ipek Kalemci-Tuzun, and Ela Ozkan-Canbolat. 2019. Employee deviant behavior: Role of culture and organisational relevant support. European Journal of Management and Business Economics 28: 126–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kim, Jina, and Hye-Sun Jung. 2022. The Effect of Employee Competency and Organizational Culture on Employees’ Perceived Stress for Better Workplace. International Jorunal Environment Research Public Health 19: 4428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kim, Soon-Ho, Min-Seong Kim, Stephen Holland, and Hye-Sook Han. 2018. Hospitality employees’ citizenship behavior: The moderating role of cultural values. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 30: 662–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kim, Tae-Yeol, Alice HY Hon, and J. Michael Crant. 2009. Proactive Personality, Employee Creativity, and Newcomer Outcomes: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Business and Psychology 24: 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lambert, Vickie, and Clinton Lambert. 2008. Nurses’ workplace stressors and coping strategies. Indian Journal of Palliative Care 14: 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lan, Junbang, IpKin Anthony Wong, Veronica Hoi In Fong, and Jia Wen Guo. 2023. Duality of conscientiousness and service knowledge growth: The role of self-efficacy and self-deception. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 54: 426–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lee, Eun-Hyun. 2012. Review of the Psychometric Evidence of the Perceived Stress Scale. Asian Nursing Research 6: 121–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lee, Juseob, Nina Steigerwald, Steve Jex, Alison Rada-Bayne, and Charlotte Holden. 2024. Perpetrator-Targeted Reciprocated Incivility: The Investigation of the Incivility Spiral and the Effects of Agreeableness as a Moderator. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 46: 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Leiter, Michael P., Heather K. Spence Laschinger, Arla Day, and Debra Gilin Oore. 2011. The impact of civility interventions on employee social behavior, distress, and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology 96: 1258–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Li, Lingling, Gui Huang, and Yanling Yan. 2022. Coaching Leadership and Employees’ Deviant Innovation Behavior: Mediation and Chain Mediation of Interactional Justice and Organizational Identification. Psychology Research and Behavior Management 15: 3861–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Liu, Zhen, and Qunying Liu. 2024. Does Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Ambivalence Influence Employees’ Constructive Deviance? Behavioral Sciences 14: 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Luis, Daniel Jose, Chatelain-Jardon Ruth, and Zhang Zhuofan. 2020. Does Stress Lead to Creativity?: The Relationship Between Occupational Stress and Individual Innovative Behavior. Studies in Business and Economics 15: 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Madrid, Hector P., Malcolm G. Patterson, Kamal S. Birdi, Pedro I. Leiva, and Edgar E. Kausel. 2014. The role of weekly high-activated positive mood, context, and personality in innovative work behavior: A multilevel and interactional model. Journal of Organizational Behavior 35: 234–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mathisen, Gro Ellen, Ståle Einarsen, and Reidar Mykletun. 2011. The Relationship Between Supervisor Personality, Supervisors’ Perceived Stress and Workplace Bullying. Journal of Business Ethics 99: 637–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Matzler, Kurt, Sonja Bidmon, and Sonja Grabner-Kräuter. 2006. Individual determinants of brand affect: The role of the personality traits of extraversion and openness to experience. Journal of Product & Brand Management 15: 427–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. McCrae, Robert R., and Oliver P. John. 1992. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality 60: 175–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mehmetoglu, Mehmet, and Tor Georg Jakobsen. 2017. Applied Statistics Using Stata: A Guide for the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  66. Mérida-López, Sergio, Vânia Sofia Carvalho, Maria José Chambel, and Natalio Extremera. 2023. Emotional intelligence and teachers’ work engagement: The mediating and moderating role of perceived stress. The Journal of Psychology 157: 212–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Muhammad, Lakhi, and Aisha Sarwar. 2021. When and why organisational dehumanisation leads to deviant work behaviors in hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 99: 103044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Naimon, Erik C., Morell E. Mullins, and Katerine Osatuke. 2013. The effects of personality and spirituality on workplace incivility perceptions. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 10: 91–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Neubert, Mitchell J., Emily M. Hunter, and Remy C. Tolentino. 2016. A servant leader and their stakeholders: When does organisational structure enhance a leader’s influence? The Leadership Quarterly 27: 896–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ozbay, Fatih, Douglas C. Johnson, Eleni Dimoulas, C. A. Morgan, III, Dennis Charney, and Steven Southwick. 2007. Social support and resilience to stress: From neurobiology to clinical practice. Psychiatry 4: 35. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  71. Pereira-Morales, A. J., A. Adan, and D. A. Forero. 2019. Perceived stress as a mediator of the relationship between neuroticism and depression and anxiety symptoms. Current Psychology 38: 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pereira-Morales, Angela J., Ana Adan, and Diego A. Forero. 2024. A business ethics perspective on constructive deviant behavior in organizations: A literature review and an integrated framework proposal. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Raza, Ali, Muhammad Ishtiaq Ishaq, Dima R. Jamali, Haleema Zia, and Narjes Haj-Salem. 2024. Testing workplace hazing, moral disengagement and deviant behaviors in hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 36: 743–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ren, Feifei, and Jinghuan Zhang. 2015. Job Stressors, Organisational Innovation Climate, and Employees’ Innovative Behavior. Creativity Research Journal 27: 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Robbins, Dana L., and Bella L. Galperin. 2010. Constructive deviance: Striving toward organizational change in healthcare. Journal of Management and Marketing Research 5: 1. [Google Scholar]
  76. Schilpzand, Pauline, Irene E. De Pater, and Amir Erez. 2016. Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior 37: S57–S58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Shahreki, Javad, Jaya Ganesan, and Thanh-Thuy Nguyen. 2021. The relationship between personality traits and individual performance: A case study in Malaysian hotel industry. International Journal of Business Excellence 24: 101–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sliter, Michael, Scott Withrow, and Steve M. Jex. 2015. It happened, or you thought it happened? Examining the perception of workplace incivility based on personality characteristics. International Journal of Stress Management 22: 24–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sonnentag, Sabine, and Charlotte Fritz. 2015. Recovery from job stress: The stressor-detachment model as an integrative framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior 36: S72–S103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Thomas, Candice L., Lars U. Johnson, Andrea M. Cornelius, Haley R. Cobb, Lauren D. Murphy, and Dulce Vega. 2022. Incivility Begets Incivility: Understanding the Relationship Between Experienced and Enacted Incivility with Customers Over Time. Journal of Business and Psychology 37: 1255–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Valikhani, Ahmad, Fatemeh Ahmadnia, Alma Karimi, and Paul J. Mills. 2019. The relationship between dispositional gratitude and quality of life: The mediating role of perceived stress and mental health. Personality and Individual Differences 141: 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Venturini, Sergio, and Mehmet Mehmetoglu. 2019. plssem: A Stata Package for Structural Equation Modeling with Partial Least Squares. Journal of Statistical Software 88: 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Welbourne, Jennifer L., Gerardo Miranda, and Ashwini Gangadharan. 2020. Effects of employee personality on the relationships between experienced incivility, emotional exhaustion, and perpetrated incivility. International Journal of Stress Management 27: 335–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Xu, Wenhai, and Shouzheng Zhao. 2020. The influence of entrepreneurs’ psychological capital on their deviant innovation behavior. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Yang, Jin, Hefu Liu, and Jibao Gu. 2017. A multi-level study of servant leadership on creativity: The roles of self-efficacy and power distance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 38: 610–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Yang, Mingjun, Tuan Trong Luu, and David Qian. 2022. Group diversity and employee service innovative behavior in the hospitality industry: A multilevel model. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 34: 808–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Yao, Jingxian, Sandy Lim, Cathy Guo, Amy Y. Yang Ou, and Jomel Wei Xuan Ng. 2022. Experienced incivility in the workplace: A meta-analytical review of its construct validity and nomological network. Journal of Applied Psychology 107: 193–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Yesil, Salih, and Fikret Sozbilir. 2013. An Empirical Investigation into the Impact of Personality on Individual Innovation Behaviour in the Workplace. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences 81: 540–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Yeung, Nelson C. Y., and Qian Lu. 2018. Perceived stress as a mediator between social support and posttraumatic growth among Chinese American breast cancer survivors. Cancer Nursing 41: 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Yu, Shengxian, Shanshi Liu, Xiaoxiao Gong, Wenzhu Lu, and Chang-e Liu. 2024. How does deviance tolerance enhance innovative behavior? The mediating role of cognitive crafting and the moderating role of regulatory focus. Chinese Management Studies 18: 243–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zhang, Yucheng, and Timothy C. Bednall. 2016. Antecedents of Abusive Supervision: A Meta-analytic Review. Journal of Business Ethics 139: 455–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Admsci 14 00334 g001
Figure 1. The Conceptual model. Note: The dashed arrows represent the mediation mechanism, while the unbroken arrows represent the direct paths.
Figure 1. The Conceptual model. Note: The dashed arrows represent the mediation mechanism, while the unbroken arrows represent the direct paths.
Admsci 14 00334 g001
Table 1. Summary of hypothesised relationships based on the conceptual model.
Table 1. Summary of hypothesised relationships based on the conceptual model.
HypothesisHypothesised Relationship
H1:Agreeableness as a personality trait is negatively related to perceived stress.
H2a:There is a positive association between agreeableness and innovative deviant behaviour.
H2b:There is a negative relationship between agreeableness and experienced incivility.
H3a:There is a negative relationship between perceived stress and innovative deviant behaviour.
H3b:There is a positive relationship between perceived stress and experienced incivility.
H4a.Perceived stress mediates the relationship between agreeableness and experience incivility.
H4b:Perceived stress mediates the relationship between agreeableness as an employee personality and innovative deviant behaviour.
Table 2. Personal characteristics of the study respondents (N = 360).
Table 2. Personal characteristics of the study respondents (N = 360).
%
GenderMale57.22
Female42.78
Marital StatusSingle80.28
Married19.72
EducationPrimary10.28
Secondary27.50
Associate degree37.22
Undergraduate21.11
Graduate3.89
Age18–255.00
26–3321.67
34–4142.22
42–4927.22
>503.89
Years of experience<118.19
1–348.06
4–628.61
>74.44
Table 3. Mean, standard deviation, and correlation of all variables.
Table 3. Mean, standard deviation, and correlation of all variables.
VariablesMeanSD1234
Agreeableness 5.4121.033-
Perceived stress2.0840.481−0.284 ***-
Employee incivility1.9840.760−0.183 ***0.236 ***-
Innovative deviant behaviour2.9221.2100.254 ***−0.491 ***−0.040-
Note: SD (standard deviation). *** p < 0.001.
Table 4. Measurement model.
Table 4. Measurement model.
ConstructLabelIndicatorComposite
LoadingsReliabilityAVE
Agreeableness (AG) 0.700.55
AG10.89
AG30.55
Perceived stress (PS) 0.790.49
PS10.60
PS30.73
PS60.69
PS80.77
Experienced incivility (EI) 0.860.68
EI10.90
EI20.77
EI30.78
Innovative deviant work behaviour (IDWB) 0.960.86
IDWB60.90
IDWB70.91
IDWB90.95
IDWB100.95
Table 5. Standardised path coefficients.
Table 5. Standardised path coefficients.
HypothesisPathCoefficientsComment
H1Agreeableness−0.35 ***Accepted
→Perceived stress
H2aAgreeableness0.10 **Accepted
→Innovative Deviant Behaviour
H2bAgreeableness−0.15 ***Accepted
→Experienced Incivility
H3aPerceived stress−0.46 ***Accepted
→Innovative Deviant Behaviour
H3bPerceived stress0.20 ***Accepted
→Experienced incivility
Note: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.05.
Table 6. Mediating effects of perceived stress.
Table 6. Mediating effects of perceived stress.
Hypothesised MediationIndirect EstimatesLLCIULCIComment
Agreeableness−0.07−0.11−0.03Accepted
   Perceived Stress → Experiences Incivility
Agreeableness0.140.090.20Accepted
   Perceived Stress → Inn. Dev
Note: LLCI = lower-level confidence interval; ULCI = upper-level confidence interval, p < 0.001 Inn. Dev = innovative deviant behaviours.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alola, U.V.; Egeli, S.; Echebiri, C. Exploring the Influence of Employee Personality on Incivility and Innovative Deviance Among Frontline Hotel Employees: The Mediating Role of Perceived Stress. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 334. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14120334

AMA Style

Alola UV, Egeli S, Echebiri C. Exploring the Influence of Employee Personality on Incivility and Innovative Deviance Among Frontline Hotel Employees: The Mediating Role of Perceived Stress. Administrative Sciences. 2024; 14(12):334. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14120334

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alola, Uju Violet, Serdar Egeli, and Chukwuemeka Echebiri. 2024. "Exploring the Influence of Employee Personality on Incivility and Innovative Deviance Among Frontline Hotel Employees: The Mediating Role of Perceived Stress" Administrative Sciences 14, no. 12: 334. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14120334

APA Style

Alola, U. V., Egeli, S., & Echebiri, C. (2024). Exploring the Influence of Employee Personality on Incivility and Innovative Deviance Among Frontline Hotel Employees: The Mediating Role of Perceived Stress. Administrative Sciences, 14(12), 334. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14120334

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop