Introduction
The retail industry plays a crucial role in the global economy, with total retail sales projected to reach $22.049 trillion in 2016 and expected to continue growing However, the industry faces significant challenges, particularly in enhancing service quality amidst economic growth and managing high turnover rates among frontline employees, who are essential for customer interaction To improve service quality, retailers often implement strict emotion expression rules for these employees, but such mandates can lead to emotional dissonance, negatively impacting job satisfaction and increasing turnover intentions.
Vietnam's retail industry is poised for continued growth, ranking among the world's top 30 most attractive retail markets (Thanh Thom, 2017) In 2017, the industry's revenue was estimated to reach nearly $130 billion (Hùng Lê, 2018), with retail businesses accounting for over 50% of registered enterprises and employing nearly three million workers (Nguyên Vũ, 2016) A significant portion of these employees are frontline staff, directly engaging with customers in face-to-face interactions.
High turnover rates pose a significant challenge for retailers in Vietnam, with a recent survey revealing that 28% of employers in the retail sector believe frontline employees lack long-term commitment Additionally, 49% of these employers report that frontline workers are easily swayed by job offers from other retail companies (Nam Dương, 2017) To enhance retail service quality, Vietnamese retailers implement mandatory emotional expression rules for their frontline staff However, there remains a lack of attention to the potential negative impacts of these practices on both employee well-being and overall business performance.
Concern the negative effects onthe well-being of frontline employees; in
2016,there are many cases of customeraggressionsmadethenewsinVietnam (Quốc
In recent years, incidents of physical aggression in Vietnamese supermarkets have been reported, where customers have violently attacked frontline employees, resulting in trauma or hospitalization (Huy, 2016; Hoàng Đan, 2016; Tuấn Phùng, 2016) While these severe cases involve only a few individuals, many lower-intensity incidents involving larger crowds remain unreported A search for "supermarket culture of Vietnamese" reveals numerous articles discussing the "bad habits" or "bad behavior" of Vietnamese individuals in supermarkets and public places (Bảo Phương, 2016; Thu Hà, 2016; T Anh, 2012).
“uncivilized”behaviorofVietnameseinsupermarketandpublicplacesthrough the viewpoint of othercustomersupon theoccurrenceoftheirdiscomfortingemotionsin such circumstances.
Though, they are customers, theyonlyexperience thesebehaviors occasionally;meanwhile,supermarket employees or more broadly–frontline employeesarepossibly
Workplace incivility, often categorized as interpersonal mistreatment and a form of counterproductive work behavior, is experienced frequently by employees and significantly undermines organizational productivity (Vagharseyyedin, 2015; Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Anderson & Pearson, 1999) Research across various industries has consistently demonstrated a negative correlation between workplace incivility and employee well-being (Cortina, Magley).
Williams,&Langhout, 2001; Han, Bonn,&Cho, 2015), and“comparablewith low intensity stress”whichcanhaveemotionallyandphysically negative effect (Han et al., 2016)
Customerincivility is identified as oneofthe negative factors which relatestotheuseofemotionoffrontline employees and increase turnover intention; which has beengatheredsubstantialattention ofresearchers (Grandey,2003; Hanet al., 2016).
Workplace incivility is a growing concern in Vietnam, as both corporations and employees often overlook its detrimental effects on organizational health (Torkelson et al., 2016) This behavior can stem from a lack of established norms regarding civility (Walsh et al., 2012), particularly in a rapidly evolving market where retail service quality standards are on the rise Researchers categorize workplace incivility into three main dimensions: supervisor incivility, co-worker incivility, and customer incivility, with emerging discussions around the concept of "family incivility."
“employee incivility” byHur,Moon, and Han (2015, p 407); and Walker, Jaarsveld, and Skarlicki(2014).
Previous research has highlighted the significant impact of customer incivility on frontline service employees, revealing its correlation with increased turnover intentions and decreased service performance Studies conducted by Cho et al (2016), Han et al (2016), and others demonstrate that negative customer interactions can adversely affect employee morale and productivity, ultimately influencing their decision to remain in their positions.
The studies of customer incivility have been conducted in Asia countriessuch asKorea (Cho et al., 2016), China(Chen, Ferris, Kwan, Yan, Zhou,&Hong,
2013),Malaysia (Santos, Mustafa,&Gwi, 2014), and Thailand (Akkawanitcha,
Research has identified negative effects associated with workplace incivility, yet few studies have explored its antecedents, particularly in relation to customer incivility (Hershcovis & Barling, 2010; Bartlett, Bartlett, & Reio, 2008; Lanzo, Aziz, & Wuensch, 2015; Hur, Moon, & Jun, 2016) According to Lanzo et al (2015), the investigation of workplace incivility's antecedents is an emerging area of study that has not adequately addressed who may exhibit uncivil behavior due to stress Future research should focus on identifying the instigators of workplace incivility to better understand this phenomenon.
Workplace incivility is closely linked to emotional exhaustion, influenced by surface acting and deep acting, which are key aspects of emotional labor (Hur et al., 2015) Research indicates that customer incivility leads to decreased service performance, heightened turnover intention, and diminished organizational commitment (Cho et al., 2016) The concept of emotional labor was first introduced by Hochschild in 1983, highlighting its significance in managing emotions in professional settings.
Emotional regulation differs from emotional intelligence and has been shown to have detrimental effects on both individuals and organizations (Hwa, 2012) Research identifies two dimensions of emotional labor: surface acting and deep acting Findings indicate that surface acting has a more significant negative impact on emotional exhaustion compared to deep acting.
(Brotheridge&Grandey,2002; Grandey, 2000; Hwa, 2012;Hur et al., 2014) Grandey (2000,p 97)positsemotional labor as the processwhere employee managing their
“feelings andexpressions”toward thegoal set by theorganization.
Emotional labor and emotional exhaustion have been shown to have a strong relationship, significantly impacting employee outcomes and well-being These factors are closely linked to various work-related attitudes and behaviors, including job performance, organizational citizenship, affective commitment, job satisfaction, customer service performance, organizational commitment, and turnover intention.
Sliter,Jex,Wolford,&McInnerney,2010;Huretal.,2014;Walshetal.,2015;Cropanzano,Rupp ,&Byrne,2003).On theother hand;Sirgy et al (2001, p 242) define quality of work life as
Employee satisfaction is influenced by diverse needs met through workplace resources, activities, and outcomes Research indicates that quality of work life significantly affects employee behaviors, including organizational identification, job performance, intention to quit, turnover rates, and feelings of personal alienation (Sirgy et al., 2001, p 242) The concept of quality of work life was initially introduced to highlight the importance of these factors in shaping employee experiences and organizational effectiveness.
Hackman&Oldham (1976)and received large amountofattention where the authors referred as “quality of workinglife”.
A recent survey in Vietnam highlights a significant contradiction between employers and employees in the retail industry regarding organizational culture While 99% of employees express concerns about organizational culture, including the working environment, human factors, and organizational vision, only 51% of employers view adherence to this culture as mandatory, with 40% disagreeing (Nam Dương, 2017) This mandatory compliance often correlates with strict emotional expression rules Additionally, factors affecting the quality of work life contribute to employee turnover, with reports indicating that 22% of respondents left their jobs due to low wages and promotion issues (Nam Dương, 2017; Ngân Anh, 2017).
Other prior studies found supportfortherelationshipbetweenjob performanceand quality of work life (Nguyễn&Nguyễn, 2012; Koonmee&Virakul,2012;Sirgy,
Efraty, Stegel,&Lee, 2001); andaprior study successfully examined quality of work lifeasamediator between emotional labor and work family interference
Cheung and Tang (2009) provide evidence supporting a direct relationship between emotional labor and quality of work life The study highlights the connections among workplace incivility, customer incivility, emotional labor, emotional exhaustion, and quality of work life It proposes that these relationships form a solid foundation for examining the direct impact of customer incivility on emotional labor, as well as the influence of emotional labor on quality of work life Additionally, the study suggests that emotional labor may mediate the relationship between customer incivility and quality of work life, particularly for frontline employees in Hồ.
Theoretical background and hypotheses
Customerincivility and its antecedents
Civility refers to the standards of behavior and communication that promote the well-being of individuals during their interactions with others To foster positive interactions, individuals have a responsibility to act in a civilized manner, ensuring mutual respect and consideration for each other's well-being (Vagharseyyedin, 2015).
Inappropriate actions andbehavior of an individual or customermaylead to theinterpretation of “insulting anddegradingverbal andnonverbalconduct”(Vagharseyyedin, 2015, p 116).
Over the past two decades, scholars worldwide have increasingly focused on the issue of incivility in the workplace, highlighting its growing significance in organizational settings (Schilpzand et al., 2014; Cho et al., 2016; Han et al., 2016; Laschinger et al., 2009; Anderson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina et al.).
Workplace incivility, as defined by Anderson and Pearson (1999), serves as the foundation for understanding this phenomenon (Magley et al., 2012; Cho et al., 2016; Han et al., 2016; Laschinger et al., 2009; Cortina et al., 2001; Walsh et al., 2012) It is characterized by behaviors that are low in intensity and possess ambiguous intent to harm When the intent to harm becomes clear and the behavior escalates in intensity, it transitions from incivility to aggression.
(Vagharseyyedin,2015,p.118).Previousstudies notice incivility as antisocial behaviors and overlap withaggressionandbullying;
“there is certain degree of overlap between workplace incivilityandworkplacebullying”(Torkelsonet al., 2016,p 118).
Schilpzandetal.(2016)summarizethatthestudyofincivility have beenconductedaround the globe as it is recognized asaglobal phenomenonnot justoneortwo specific cultures or countries; and the incivility in workplacehasbeenstudiedandtested “fromawide varietyofjobsandprofessions”(Schilpzand et al., 2016,p.61).
Early research on workplace incivility primarily focused on internal interactions, such as supervisor and co-worker incivility, while customer incivility has only recently been studied, revealing significant impacts on frontline employees (Han et al., 2016; Cho et al., 2016) Previous studies have linked workplace incivility to negative outcomes, including increased turnover intention, reduced job performance, and challenges in recruitment and retention Despite this, the antecedents of workplace incivility have not received adequate attention, although understanding these factors could assist managers in mitigating its detrimental effects on employees and the organization as a whole (Hur et al., 2016) Due to the ambiguous and less intense nature of incivility, as well as its overlap with bullying and aggression, researchers have sought to explore its antecedents by examining those related to bullying (Torkelson et al., 2016).
118) note “research on bullyingis relevant when considering antecedents of workplaceincivility” and “bullying cause mental distress and that mental distress led to bullying”.
Researchers often address the partiesinvolvedinaworkplaceincivility incident asperpetrator, target, instigator and victim; workplace incivilityincludessupervisor
Incivility can manifest in various contexts, including co-worker interactions, customer relations, family dynamics, and employee behavior Research by Schilpzand et al (2016) and others highlights the pervasive nature of incivility across different environments, emphasizing its detrimental effects on workplace culture and interpersonal relationships Studies by Cho et al (2016) and Han et al (2016) further illustrate how incivility can undermine employee morale and productivity Additionally, Laschinger et al (2009) and Anderson & Pearson (1999) provide insights into the long-term consequences of such behavior, while Cortina et al (2001) and Walsh et al (2012) explore strategies for mitigating incivility in professional settings Overall, understanding the various forms of incivility is crucial for fostering respectful and productive interactions in both personal and professional spheres.
Schilpzandet al (2016) summarizes incivility by the initiating party as supervisor, co- worker, customer, familymember, and employee; and by the types whichincludesexperienced, witnessed and instigated incivility.
Previous research has explored the concept of the uncivil spiral, highlighting how incivility can escalate into aggression or even violence, negatively impacting both parties involved (Anderson & Pearson, 1999; Holm, Torkelson, & Backstrom, 2015; Li et al., 2008; Hershcovis & Barling, 2010).
The instigator of incivility can ironically become a victim of their own actions, particularly influenced by the power dynamics between involved parties Employees often find themselves on the receiving end of incivility when there is a power imbalance between customers and service staff As noted by Hur et al (2014), customers frequently exploit their superior position, leading to an escalation of abusive behavior, regardless of whether the incivility originated from the employee or the customer.
The examining of antecedentsofworkplace incivility attemptedconcerntheincident occurredinsideanorganization between supervisor-
16 subordinate/employee(supervisor incivility) and employee-employee (co-worker incivility), little attention toexamine the antecedents of workplace incivility betweenemployee-outsider
Employee/customer incivility differs from supervisor and co-worker incivility in that the perpetrator is typically a stranger to the victim This lack of familiarity means that the dynamics of incivility involving supervisors or co-workers are influenced by the existing relationship and mutual understanding of the workplace environment In contrast, when incivility occurs between employees and customers, the interaction is often devoid of prior knowledge or connection, highlighting the unique challenges posed by such encounters (Hur et al., 2016).
For over a decade, researchers have explored the antecedents of workplace incivility from various angles, including distributive injustice, job dissatisfaction, and work exhaustion (Blau & Anderson, 2005) Studies have also examined factors such as employee beliefs, personality traits, organizational downsizing, structure, and environment (Bartlett et al., 2008), as well as workaholism (Lanzo et al., 2015) In a study by Abid, Khan, Rafiq, and Amed (2015), twenty-one antecedents of workplace incivility were identified, highlighting customer incivility as a contributing factor However, there remains a lack of literature addressing the antecedents of customer incivility (Hur et al., 2015; Lanzo et al., 2015) Hur et al (2014) noted that a significant limitation of their study was the absence of explicit examination of supervisor or coworker incivility, which could have a profound impact on employees' psychological well-being and customer-related outcomes.
Aconceptual study byBartlett etal (2008,p.3,4)divideantecedents ofworkplaceincivilityintotwo groups; first is the “antecedents forworkers”which“include beliefs and personality”:
Beliefs includeexpectedbenefits,perceived jobinsecurity,dissatisfaction,attitudes about aggression, and lowperceivedcost for inappropriate behaviors (Salin,2003)
Personality is alsoamotivator for incivility TypeApersonality, trait aggression,hostility, power, ego, and internal competitionareallpersonality traits that can motivateuncivil behavior (Cortina et al.,2001;Glendinning,2001;Hornstein, 2003; Salin, 2003).(p.3)
Second is “antecedentsfor organization” which include “downsizing”,
Other structural antecedents for organizations found in the literature werereengineering (Anderson&Pearson, 1999), hierarchical structuring (Muir, 2000), use ofparttimeemployment(Anderson&Person, 1999; Vickers,
2006),organizationalchange(Salin, 2003; Vickers, 2006), and globalization
(Gardner&Johnson, 2001; Muir, 2000).Environmental antecedents for organizations included autocratic workenvironments,difficultworkingconditions,andan anxiety ridden workplace (workatmosphere)(Anderson&Pearson,1999;Gardner&Johnson,
A study by Torkelson et al (2016) supports the findings of Bartlett et al (2008) regarding the relationship between organizational variables and workplace incivility This research highlights that individuals often perceive themselves as both perpetrators and victims of incivility, leading to a sense of retaliation that can create a detrimental cycle of behavior.
Table 1: Recent studies of workplace incivility antecedents
Job stressAsserting power on other colleague
Perceptionofdi stributive,proc eduralandinter actional justice
Lack ofprofession al,disrespect fulenvironm ent
High stressenvir onment Job security
Interest conflict andstatus-based socialenclosure
Sex ualiz edha rass men t
Employe esfrom variousse ctors inLahoreregion
“Almost every individual atworkpla ce isaVictimof workplaceincivility” (p 6310) throughdownsizing, outsourcingandmos t centrally Customer IncivilityWorkload
Workplace adaptation Hostile workplaceAffective experience
Customers erviceemp loyeesin CentralCa nada
“Employees react touncivil event byengaginginincivil ity”;“employeesresp ondto event customer incivilityasafunctionof their accumulated,entity perceptions ofincivility in customerinteractions”.
Dispos itional antece dents ofexpe rienced incivili ty
Affecti veoutco mesofe xperien cedinci vility Conceptanalysi s
“Workp lace incivilit yisaphe nomeno n inwhich specific persona landorg anizatio nal factorsa reinvolvedand canhavenegativeoutc omesfor thevictims, witnesses,organizatio ns,andprobably theperpetratorsthems elves” (p 123)
“Mostresearchoninci vility focuses onexperienced incivility(45outof 55papers) and, more
Situationalant ecedents ofexperienced incivility Witnessed incivilityInstigated incivility
Behavioralo utcomesofe xperiencedi ncivility specifically, on thevarious outcomes fortargets of uncivilconduct” (p.
Antecedents forworkers: variablesthat facilitatingincivilit y; enablers,motivator s,andtriggers
Antecedent fororganizations:st ructuralenvironme ntal,andoutlying
OutcomesforWor kers:individual,in terpersonalrelatio nships, andproductivity
Outcomesfororg anizations:finan cial impact,administr ative,andenviro nmental
“Workplace incivilityhas definite impactson workers in termsof productivity,health, attitudes, andrelationships. Finance, environment,structure, andadministration arecategories of variables at theorganizationalleve lthatareaffectedbyact s of workpl aceinci vility” (p 6; 9-
Employees fromvariou sorganizati ons an dindust riesin EasternUS A
“Participantswhorepo rtedhigherlevelsof stressandlowerlevels of PsyCap weremorelikely toengagein uncivil behaviors,regardless of theirworkaholism score.
Furthermore,workahol icsreportedhigher levels of stress,lower levels of PsyCap, and engaging in workplaceincivility. Overall,workaholism andstress increasedincivility, whilePsyCap decreased it”.(p 176)
The study examines the impact of workplace incivility and customer incivility, highlighting that incidents of incivility between employees and customers can have detrimental effects on both parties Employees often become victims of such incivility, experiencing significant negative consequences due to the power imbalance between them and customers This phenomenon is referred to as "customer incivility." Additionally, in line with prior research by Hur et al (2015), the study explores how incivility among colleagues within an organization may trigger similar behaviors towards outsiders, further perpetuating a cycle of incivility.
H1: ExperiencedSupervisor Incivilityispositively relatedtoCustomer Incivility.H2: ExperiencedCo-worker Incivilityispositively relatedtoCustomer Incivility.
Emotional labor
According to Brotheridge and Grandey (2002) and Brotheridge and Lee (2003), emotional labor encompasses two key dimensions: surface acting and deep acting The use of these emotional labor strategies can lead to negative consequences for employees, particularly increasing emotional exhaustion Empirical research supports this view, indicating that surface acting adversely affects employees, while deep acting may yield positive outcomes (Han et al., 2016; Cho et al., 2016; Hur et al., 2014; Santos et al., 2014; Walsh et al., 2016).
Emotional labor, as defined by Lewig and Dollard (2003), has both positive and negative effects on employees, facilitating task effectiveness while potentially leading to emotional dissonance when there is a conflict between felt and displayed emotions This dissonance can harm frontline service employees who must fake their emotions to manage customer incivility, ultimately impacting their well-being (Cho et al., 2017) Research has shown that workplace incivility often results in emotional exhaustion, with studies indicating a significant correlation between incivility and burnout (Han et al., 2016; Cho et al., 2016; Laschinger et al., 2009) Furthermore, a study in Thailand by Akkawanitcha et al (2014) highlights that frontline employees face negative psychological effects, such as anxiety, depression, and stress, when repeatedly exposed to customer aggression.
Such customer behaviors might include verbal abuse, such as raisedvoices,sarcasm, screaming, intimidation,yellingandswearing;physical threats, such asslamming downfists, shovingorslamming downaphone; and non-verbal signals,includingangryfacialexpressions,staring andotherbodylanguage (p 269)
A recent study from Malaysia explored the roles of surface acting and deep acting as mediators between emotional intelligence traits and burnout, confirming that surface acting significantly mediates this relationship, while deep acting does not (Santos et al., 2014) Additionally, a study from the US investigated the moderating effects of surface acting in secondary jobs on primary job surface acting, revealing a positive direct effect on emotional exhaustion and an indirect negative effect on affective commitment, with emotional exhaustion serving as a mediator (Walsh et al., 2016).
Workplace incivility is linked to emotional exhaustion and has a significant mediating effect through emotional labor Additionally, it contributes to various negative outcomes, including increased turnover intention, decreased job and service performance, challenges in recruitment and retention, reduced employee creativity, and adverse effects on mental health These factors collectively impact the overall quality of work life.
Based on previous research, a proposed model illustrates the connections between workplace incivility, emotional labor, emotional exhaustion, and quality of work life Specifically, supervisor and co-worker incivility are identified as precursors to customer incivility, which directly impacts quality of work life This relationship is mediated by two dimensions of emotional labor: surface acting and deep acting.
Qualityofworklifereferstothefeelingofbeingfulfilledoftheemployeementally,physically,andm ateriallyinhisorherworkplace(Sirgyetal.,2001;Martel&Dupuis,
Quality of work life
Back,&Chan, 2014) Quality of work life isamultidimensional concept, its measurements hasbeen developed by scholars (Sirgy et al., 2001; Martel&Dupuis, 2006; Louis,
Quality of work life is essential for organizations aiming to attract and retain employees, as highlighted by Sirgy et al (2001) and supported by Lee et al (2014) A happy employee is not only productive but also dedicated and loyal, making quality of work life a vital factor in enhancing job performance and organizational commitment High turnover rates pose significant challenges, particularly in the retail industry, where frontline employees are crucial for creating value Therefore, maintaining productivity, commitment, and loyalty among these employees is imperative for organizational success.
Research method
Procedure and sample
The data collection process was carried out in two phases: qualitative and quantitative surveys The qualitative survey aimed to validate the dimensions and items, ensuring accurate interpretation from English to Vietnamese and back to English Additionally, it explored how frontline employees, including sales staff and store service personnel, understood these dimensions Initially, definitions were explained and discussed in a group interview with three participants, leading to revisions of the preliminary semi-structured questionnaire.
A mini-focus group consisting of 26 participants, including experienced trainers and sales team managers, conducted in-depth interviews to clarify and simplify key definitions Following this process, a semi-structured questionnaire was developed and administered to seasoned sales staff and trainers to validate the research issues identified.
The quantitative data collection aimed to gather a minimum of 300 valid questionnaires using a 5-point Likert scale The questionnaires were printed, distributed, and meticulously checked for validity until the target was met Frontline employees from various establishments, including shops, shopping centers, banks, coffee shops, restaurants, and supermarkets in Ho Chi Minh City, were interviewed The research covered districts such as 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 9, 2, Thu Duc, Binh Tan, and Tan Phu A team of seven local students was hired for questionnaire distribution and data collection, with each valid response rewarded with a small fee of 10,000 VND The data collection process took place from August 1 to August 31, 2017.
Measurements
The research model comprises five constructs, including experienced supervisor incivility and experienced co-worker incivility, measured using a seven-item scale developed by Cortina et al (2001) Additionally, customer incivility is assessed through an eight-item scale tested by Hur et al (2015) Emotional labor is evaluated using a six-item scale developed and tested by Brotheridge and Lee (2003).
27 twodimensionsaresurfaceactingand deep acting The measurements of quality of work life areadopted thescalewith3components(survivalneeds,belonging needs, andknowledge needs) and9items which are successful tested in Vietnam(Nguyễn
&Nguyễn, 2012) based on the scaleproposed by Sirgy et al (2001).
Data collection
More than2to less than5years 58 19.33
Demographic statistics reveal that frontline employees, including service and sales staff, are predominantly young, with 90% under the age of 30, and 36.67% being under 23 years old A significant 76.67% of these employees have low commitment, working for less than two years in their current roles, while 73.66% are single and 68% are female Additionally, 47% earn below 5 million VND per month, indicating low income levels This low commitment aligns with a recent report indicating that 60% of frontline employees in Vietnam have an average tenure of only 2 to 3 years in the same job (Ngân Anh, 2017) The combination of youth, female dominance, single status, and low income likely contributes to the low job expectancy among these employees; for example, a male frontline worker seeking higher income may choose to leave for better opportunities (Ngân Anh, 2017).
Source Distribute d Collected Response rate Eliminate
Measurement refinement
All items were evaluated for reliability, with Cronbach's alpha values ranging from 0.847 to 0.857, confirming their adequacy Following this, exploratory factor analysis was performed twice using Principal Component Analysis and the Varimax Rotation method Two items (CI6 and CI8) were eliminated, and the remaining items were re-assessed for reliability, yielding Cronbach's alpha values between 0.832 and 0.842, which still fall within the acceptable range.
KMO=.809;significantp5year
If (A) is selected:Please stop the survey, thanksalot for your time
If (B orCor D) is selected:please continue withfurther questions.
The other levels, please mark boxes2,3and4.
02 Paid little attention to your statement or showed little interest in youropinion 1 2 3 4 5
03 Made demeaning orderogatory remarks about you 1 2 3 4 5
04 Addressedyouinunprofessional terms, either publicly orprivately 1 2 3 4 5
06 Doubted your judgment onamatter over which you have responsibility 1 2 3 4 5
07 Made unwanted attempts to drawyouintoadiscussionofpersonalmatters
Co-worker incivility: How oftenyourco-worker has done the followingt o yo uduringthepast sixmonths
09 Paid little attention to your statement or showed little interest in youropinion 1 2 3 4 5
10 Made demeaning orderogatory remarks about you 1 2 3 4 5
11 Addressedyouinunprofessional terms, either publicly orprivately 1 2 3 4 5
13 Doubted your judgment onamatter over which you have responsibility 1 2 3 4 5
14 Made unwanted attempts to drawyouintoadiscussionofpersonalmatters
Customer incivility: Howoften youencountera customer whohasd o n e t h e f o l l o w i n g t o youduringthe past sixmonths
15 Customers treat employees as if they were inferior or stupid 1 2 3 4 5
16 Customers show that they are irritated or impatient 1 2 3 4 5
17 Customers do not trust the information thatIgive them and ask tospeakwithsomeoneofhigherauthority 1 2 3 4 5
20 Customers make personal verbal attacks against me 1 2 3 4 5
21 Internal or external customers make unreasonable demands 1 2 3 4 5
Emotionallabor: How often you emotionally react when you feel being disrespected (or attacked indirectly) by customer
23 Resist expressing my true feelings 1 2 3 4 5
25 Hide my true feelings aboutasituation 1 2 3 4 5
26 Make an effort to actually feel theemotionsthatIneedtodisplaytoothers
27 Try to actually experience the emotions thatImust show 1 2 3 4 5
28 Really try to feel the emotionsIhave to show as part of myjob 1 2 3 4 5
Qualityof worklife: In your line of work, youoften experiencing thedisrespecting(attacking indirectly) from customer, how do youjustifyyour quality of work life:
29 My job provide goodhealth benefits 1 2 3 4 5
30 Iam satisfied with what I’m paid for my work 1 2 3 4 5
31 My job does well for my family 1 2 3 4 5
32 Ihave good friends at work 1 2 3 4 5
33 Ienough time away from work toenjoy other things in life 1 2 3 4 5
35 Ifeel my job allows me torealize my full potential 1 2 3 4 5
36 My job allows me to sharpen my professional skills 1 2 3 4 5
37 My job provide goodhealth benefits 1 2 3 4 5
Please fill in few personal information for synthesizing statisticaldata.
4 Averagemonthlyincome: □Under5millionVND □5-9 □over9millionVND
5 Education: □High school □BA □Other:………
6 Marital status: □Married with children □Married without children □Single
Thanksalot for your time finishing the survey
Vietnamese questionnaire
TPHCMđangnghiêncứuvềh à n h vithiếuvănminh(khiếmnhã,ngượcđãi,bấtlịchsự)tronggiaoti ếptạinơilàmviệc:hànhvithiếuvănminhgâykhóchịuvàtổnhạicảmxúclàmảnhhưởngchấtlượn gcuộcs ố n g củanhânviên(nhânviênbánhàng/dịchvụtuyếntrước).RấtmongAnh/
Chịdànhthời gian trả lờiPhiếukhảosát này.
Lưuýlàkhôngcócâutrảlờiđúng hay sai, tất cảđềurấtcógiá trịchonghiêncứunày.
2.Tên Công ty mà Anh/Chị đang công tác:……… GọiXlà Công ty Anh/Chị vừa đề cập để trả lời các câu hỏi tiếptheo.
2 Bình quân mỗi buổi làm việc Anh/Chịtiếpxúc trực tiếpbaonhiêukháchhàng:
□ Dưới5khách □5-10 khách □11-20khách □>20khách
Nếu chọn (A):xindừngcuộc phỏngvấn.Xincảm ơn đã thamgia khảo sát.
Nếu chọn (B, C, D):xin tiếp tục trả lời các câu hỏi tiếp theo sau.
PHẦN 2:NỘI DUNG KHẢO SÁT
XinAnh/ChịchobiếtmứcđộđồngýcủamìnhđốivớicácphátbiểusauđâyvềXbằng cách đánh dấu (√) vào cácôtương ứng, với: Ôsố 1: Hoàn toànkhôngđồngýÔsố 5: Hoàn toàn đồngý
Còn các mức độ khác đánh vào cácôsố2,3và4tương ứng.
Hoàntoànkhôngđồng Khôngđồngý TrungdungĐồngý Hoàntoàn đồngý
Sựkhiếmnhãcủacấptrên:Cấp trêncủabạncóhaythựchiệncáchànhvi nhưdướiđây trong 6 thángvừaqua
01 Hạ thấpbạnhaylêngiọng, trịch thượng đối với bạn 1 2 3 4 5
02 Thờ ơvới lời nói(phátbiểu) củabạn hoặc thể hiện rất ít sự quantâmđếnýkiếncủa bạn 1 2 3 4 5
04 Nhắcđến(gọi)bạnbằngnhữngdanhxưngkhôngchuyênnghiệp,mộtcách không khai hoặc không công khai 1 2 3 4 5
06 Nghi ngờcácquyết địnhcủabạnvề vấn đề mà bạn là người chịutráchnhiệm 1 2 3 4 5
07 Có các hành vi cốýlôi kéo bạn tham gia vào việc nói về cácvấnđềcánhân mà bạn không muốn 1 2 3 4 5
Sựkhiếmnhãcủađồngnghiệp:Đồng nghiệp của bạn có hay thực hiệncác hành vi như dưới đây trong6tháng vừa qua
08 Hạ thấpbạnhaylêngiọng, trịch thượng đối với bạn 1 2 3 4 5
09 Thờ ơvới lời nói(phátbiểu) củabạn hoặc thể hiện rất ít sự quantâmđếnýkiếncủa bạn 1 2 3 4 5
11 Nhắcđến(gọi)bạnbằngnhữngdanhxưngkhôngchuyênnghiệp,mộtcách không khai hoặc không công khai 1 2 3 4 5
13 Nghi ngờcácquyết địnhcủabạnvề vấn đề mà bạn là người chịutráchnhiệm 1 2 3 4 5
14 Có các hành vi cốýlôi kéo bạn tham gia vào việc nói về cácvấnđềcánhân mà bạn không muốn 1 2 3 4 5
Sựkhiếmnhãcủa khách hàng:Bạn có thườnggặpphải kháchhàngcónhữnghànhvinhưdướiđâytrong6thángvừaqua
15 Kháchhàngxembạn(nhânviên)nhưthể họ kémcỏi hoặc ngu ngốc 1 2 3 4 5
17 Khách hàng không tintưởngvào thôngtin mà bạn cung cấp cho họvày ê u c ầ u nóichuyệnvớingườicóthẩmquyềncaohơn 1 2 3 4 5
21 Kháchhàngcómốiquanhệ vớicông tyvàkháchhàngthôngthườngcócác yêu cầu không hợp lý 1 2 3 4 5
22 Kháchhàngnhậnxét về cáchthứclàmviệc của bạn 1 2 3 4 5
Thểhiệncảmxúc:Bạn thườngcóphảnứngcảmxúcnhưthếnàokhib ạ n nhậ nthấymìnhbịkháchhàngxemthường(hoặccôngkíchmộtcáchkhông trựctiếp)
23 Tôi luôn kiềm chế thể hiệncảm xúc thật của mình 1 2 3 4 5
24 Giả vờ thểhiện những cảm xúc mà bạn không thực sự có 1 2 3 4 5
25 Giấu những cảm xúc thật của bạn về một tình huống 1 2 3 4 5
26 Thử cảmnhậnnhữngcảmxúc mà bạncầnđể thể hiện chongườikhác(kháchhàng) 1 2 3 4 5
28 Thực sự cốgắng cảmnhậnnhữngcảmxúcmàbạnphảithểhiệntrongcông việc của bạn 1 2 3 4 5
Chấtlượngcuộcsốnglàmviệc:Trong ngànhnghềcủabạn,bạnthườngxuyêntrả iquasựthiếutôntrọngtừkháchhang(hoặccôngkíchmộtcách khôngtrựctiếp),bạnnhậnđịnhvềchấtlượngcuộcsốnglàmviệccủamình:
29 Công việc của tôi có cấp dưỡng (quyền lợi) về sức khỏe tốt 1 2 3 4 5
30 Tôi hài lòng với những gì tôiđượctrả cho côngviệc củatôi 1 2 3 4 5
31 Công việc của tôi tốt cho gia đình tôi 1 2 3 4 5
32 Tôi có bạn bè tốtởnơilàm việc 1 2 3 4 5
33 Tôi có đủ thời gian để làm việcđể tậnhưởngnhữngthứkháctrongcuộc sống 1 2 3 4 5
35 Tôi cảmthấy côngviệc củamìnhchophéptôi nhận ra tiềmnăngcủamình
36 Công việc của tôi cho phép tôi rènluyện cáckỹnăng nghềnghiệpcủatôi
37 Công việc của tôi giúp tôi pháttriểnsựsángtạocủamình 1 2 3 4 5
XinAnh/Chịvui lòngchobiếtmộtsố thôngtinkhác để tổnghợp dữ liệuthốngkê.
4.Nhóm tuổi: □18-22 tuổi □23-30 tuổi □31-45 tuổi □ Trên 45 tuổi
4 Mứcthunhậpbìnhquân/tháng:□ Dưới5triệu □5-9 triệu □Trên9triệu
5 Trình độ học vấn: □Cấp3 □Đại học, Cao đẳng □Khác:………
6 Tìnhtrạnghônnhân: □Cógiađình,cócon□Cógiađình,khôngcon
Xin chânthànhcảmơn sự hợptác củaAnh/Chị.
Analyses results
Notes:SA,surface acting;DA,deep acting are secondother constructs,dimensionsofemotional labor SV, survival needs; BL, belonging needs; and
KN, knowledge needs arethreecomponentsofqualityofwork life EL, emotional labor; ECI, experienced co-worker incivility; QoWL, qualityofwork life; ESI, experiencedsupervisor incivility; CI,customer incivility.
Emotional labor (EL) encompasses two key constructs: surface acting (SA) and deep acting (DA) Quality of work life (QoWL) is influenced by three essential components: survival needs (SV), belonging needs (BL), and knowledge needs (KN) Additionally, workplace dynamics are affected by experienced coworker incivility (ECI), experienced supervisor incivility (ESI), and customer incivility (CI).
Abid, G., Khan, B., Rafiq, Z.,&Ahmed, A (2015) Workplace Incivility:
UncivilActivities, Antecedents, Consequences, and Level of Incivility.
Frontlineemployees’ cognitive appraisals and well-being in the face of customeraggressionin an Eastern, collectivist culture.Journal of Services
Anderson, L M.,&Pearson, C.M.(1999) Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility inthe workplace.Academy of managementreview,24(3), 452-471.
Ang Chooi Hwa, M (2012) Emotional Labor and Emotional
Ashforth, B E.,&Humphrey, R.H (1993) Emotional labor in service roles: Theinfluence of identity.Academyof management review,18(1), 88-115.
Bảo Phương (2016, September 09) Hành vi xấu xí của người Việtởsiêu thị văn minh.Vietnamnet.Retrieved fromhttp://vietnamnet.vn/vn/kinh-doanh/thi-truong/hanh-dong-xau-xi-cua-nguoi- viet-o-sieu-thi-van-minh-325722.html.
Baron, R M.,&Kenny, D A (1986) The moderator–mediator variabledistinctioninsocial psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.Journalofpersonalityandsocial psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Bartlett, J E., Bartlett, M E.,&Reio Jr, T G (2008) Workplace Incivility: Worker andOrganizationalAntecedentsandOutcomes.Online Submission.
Bitner, M J., Booms, B H.,&Mohr, L A (1994) Critical serviceencounters:Theemployee'sviewpoint.The Journal of Marketing,58(4), 95-106.
Blau, G.,&Anderson, L (2005) Testingameasure of instigated workplace incivility.
Brotheridge, C M.,&Grandey,A.A (2002) Emotional labor and burnout:
Comparingtwoperspectives of “people work”.Journalofvocational behavior,60(1),17-39.
Brotheridge, C M.,&Lee, R.T.(2003) Development and validationof theemotionallabor scale.Journalof OccupationalandOrganizationalPsychology,76(3), 365-3 7 9 Chen, Y., Ferris, D L., Kwan,H K., Yan, M., Zhou, M.,&Hong, Y (2013) Self- love'slost labor:Aself-enhancementmodel of workplace incivility.Academy ofManagementJournal,56(4), 1199-1219.
Cheung, F Y L.,&Tang, C S K (2009) Quality of work life asamediator betweenemotional labor and work family interference.JournalofBusinessandPsychology, 24(3), 245-255.
Cho, M., Bonn, M A., Han, S J.,&Lee, K H (2016) Workplace incivility and its effectupon restaurant frontline service employee emotions and service performance.InternationalJournalofContemporary
Cho, Y N., Rutherford, B N., Friend, S B., Hamwi, G A.,&Park, J (2017) The role ofemotions on frontline employee turnover intentions.Journalof
Cortina, L M., Magley, V J., Williams, J H.,&Langhout, R D (2001) Incivility in theworkplace: incidence and impact.Journalofoccupational healthpsychology,6(1),6 4
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D E.,&Byrne, Z S (2003) The relationshipofemotionalexhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenshipbehaviors.Journalofappliedpsychology,88(1), 160.
Fornell, C.,&Larcker, D F (1981) Structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics.Journalofmarketingresearch,382-388.
Research by Fox, Spector, and Miles (2001) examines the relationship between counterproductive work behavior (CWB), job stressors, and organizational justice, highlighting the mediating and moderating effects of autonomy and emotions Grandey (2000) introduces a new framework for understanding emotional regulation in the workplace, emphasizing its role in emotional labor Furthering this concept, Grandey (2003) explores the impact of surface acting and deep acting on emotional exhaustion and the quality of service delivery, demonstrating how emotional management strategies can influence employee well-being and performance.
Grandey, A A., Kern, J H.,&Frone, M R (2007) Verbal abuse from outsiders versusinsiders: comparing frequency, impact on emotional exhaustion, and the role ofemotional labor.Journal of occupationalhealthpsychology,12(1),63.
Hackman, J R.,&Oldham, G R (1976) Motivation through thedesignofwork:Test ofa theory.Organizational behaviorand human performance, 16(2), 250-279.
Han, S J., Bonn, M A.,&Cho,M.(2016) The relationship between customer incivility,restaurant frontline service employee burnout and turnover intention.InternationalJournalofHospitalityManagement,52,97-106.
Herschcovis, M S.,&Barling,J.(2010) Towardsamulti-fociapproach to workplaceaggression:Ameta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators.
Vào ngày 17 tháng 8 năm 2016, một sự cố xảy ra trên chuyến bay khi khách VIP tát tiếp viên hàng không vì chưa nhận được iPhone Sự việc gây xôn xao và thu hút sự chú ý của nhiều người.
Hochschild, A R (1983).Themanaged heart: Commercialization of human feeling.
University of California Press Berkeley, CA.
Holm, K., Torkelson, E.,&Bọckstrửm, M (2015) Models of workplace incivility: therelationships to instigated incivility and negative outcomes.BioMed researchinternational, 2015.
Hùng Lê (2018, January 3) Doanhthu bán lẻ đạt gần 130 tỉ đô la Mỹ.The Saigon
Times.Retrieved fromhttp://www.thesaigontimes.vn/267293/Doanh-thu-ban-le- dat-gan-130-ti-do-la-My.html.
Hur, W M., Han, S J., Yoo, J J.,&Moon, T W (2015) The moderating role ofperceivedorganizationalsupportontherelationshipbetweenemotionallabor andjob-related outcomes.ManagementDecision,53(3), 605-624.
Research by Hur et al (2015) highlights that customer incivility negatively impacts service employees' customer orientation, mediated by surface acting and emotional exhaustion Furthermore, Hur et al (2016) demonstrate that workplace incivility adversely affects service employee creativity, with emotional exhaustion and intrinsic motivation serving as mediators These studies underscore the significant influence of incivility in service environments, affecting both employee performance and well-being.
Hwa, M A C (2012) Emotional labor and emotional exhaustion:Does co- workersupport matter?Journal of Management Research,12(3), 115.
Kern, J H.,&Grandey, A A (2009) Customer incivility asasocial stressor: the role ofrace and racial identity for service employees.Journal of
Kim, T T., Paek, S., Choi, C H.,&Lee, G (2012) Frontlineservice employees’customer-related social stressors, emotional exhaustion, and service recoveryperformance: customer orientation asamoderator.Service Business,6(4), 503-5 26.
Kim,T.,Jung-EunYoo,J.,Lee,G.,&Kim, J (2012) Emotional intelligenceandemotionallaboractingstrategiesamongfrontlinehotelemployees.Inte rnationalJournalofContemporaryHospitality Management, 24(7), 1029-1046.
Koonmee, K.,&Virakul, B (2012) Ethics, quality of work life,andemployeejob- relatedoutcomes:AsurveyofHRandmarketingmanagersin
Lanzo, L., Aziz, S.,&Wuensch,K (2016) Workaholism and incivility:stressandpsychologicalcapital’s role.InternationalJournalof
Laschinger, H K S., Leiter, M., Day, A.,&Gilin, D (2009) Workplace empowerment,incivility, and burnout: Impact onstaffnurserecruitmentandretention outcomes.Journalofnursingmanagement,17(3), 302-311.
Lee, J S., Back, K J.,&Chan, E S (2015) Quality of worklife and job satisfactionamong frontline hotel employees:Aself-determination and needsatisfactiontheory approach.International Journal of Contemporary
Leiter, M P., Price, S L.,&Laschinger, H K S (2010) Generational differences indistress, attitudes and incivility amongnurses.Journalof
Lim, S., Cortina, L M.,&Magley, V J (2008) Personal and workgroup incivility:impact on workand health outcomes.Journal of Applied Psychology,
MacKinnon, D P., Fairchild,A.J.,&Fritz, M S (2007) Mediation analysis.Annu Rev.
Manhas, C (2013) RelatingEmotionalIntelligence, Quality of WorkLife andJobSatisfaction:AStudy amongCorporateEmployees.Review of HRM,2,107. Martel, J.P.,&Dupuis, G (2006) Quality of work life:
Maslach, C.,&Jackson, S E (1981) The measurement of experiencedburnout.Journalof organizational behavior,2(2),99-113.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W B.,&Leiter, M P (2001) Job burnout.Annual reviewofpsychology,52(1), 397-422.
Morris, J A.,&Feldman, D C (1996) The dimensions, antecedents, and consequencesof emotional labor.Academy of managementreview,21(4), 986-1010.
Ngành bán lẻ đang đối mặt với thách thức lớn khi 60% nhân sự chỉ làm việc trung bình từ 2-3 năm tại một công ty Sự biến động này ảnh hưởng đến hiệu suất và sự phát triển bền vững của doanh nghiệp Việc giữ chân nhân viên có kinh nghiệm là một yếu tố quan trọng để nâng cao chất lượng dịch vụ và tăng cường sự cạnh tranh trên thị trường.
Vietnam's retail sector is experiencing rapid growth, leading to significant challenges for employers who are struggling to find sufficient staff to meet increasing demands This surge in retail activity highlights the urgent need for skilled workers in the industry, as companies compete to attract and retain talent The situation underscores the evolving landscape of Vietnam's job market, where the demand for employees is outpacing supply, prompting businesses to seek innovative solutions for recruitment and workforce management.
Nguyễn Đình Thọ&Nguyễn Thị Mai Trang (2012) Psychological capital, quality ofwork life, and quality of life of marketers: Evidence fromVietnam.JournalofMacromarketing, 32(1),87-95.
Nguyên Vũ (2016, July 6).Cầncáinhìn bình tĩnh chongànhbánlẻViệt Nam.
VnEconomy Retrieved fromhttp://vneconomy.vn/thi-truong/can-cai-nhin-binh- tinh-cho-nganh-ban-le-viet-nam-20160706101938856.htm.
Preacher, K J.,&Hayes, A F (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirecteffectsinsimplemediationmodels.Behavior researchmethods,instruments,&computers, 36(4), 717-731.
Quốc Huy (2016, October 29).Sếpngânhànglêntiếng vụcấpdướiđánh nhânviêncâyxăng.Vietnamnet Retrieved fromhttp://vietnamnet.vn/vn/thoi-su/sep- ngan-hang-len-tieng-vu-cap-duoi-danh-nu-nhan-vien-cay-xang-336756.html.
Santos, A., Mustafa, M J.,&Gwi, T C (2015) Trait emotional intelligence, emotionallabor, and burnout among Malaysian HR professionals.ManagementResearchReview,38(1), 67-88.
Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I E.,&Erez, A (2016) Workplace incivility:Areviewoftheliterature and agendafor future research.Journalof
Sharma, R., Yadav, R., Aggarwal, P.,&Singh, N (2012) Burnout and quality of lifeamong call center executives.JournalofOrganizationandHuman
Sirgy, M J., Efraty, D., Siegel, P.,&Lee, D J (2001).Anew measure of quality of worklife
(QWL) based on need satisfactionandspillovertheories.Socialindicatorsresearch,55(3), 241-302.
Sliter, M., Jex, S., Wolford, K.,&McInnerney, J (2010) How rude!Emotionallabor asa mediator between customer incivility and employee outcomes.Journalofoccupational healthpsychology,15(4), 468.
T.Anh (2012, September 07) Văn hóasiêuthị-lắmchuyệnphảibàn.Baotintuc.
Retrieved fromhttp://www.giaoduc.edu.vn/van-hoa-sieu-thi-lam-chuyen-phai- ban.htm.
Thanh Thom, (2017, October 7) WB forecasts Vietnam’s 2017 GDP at 6.3%.The
SaigonTimes Retrieved fromwww.http://english.thesaigontimes.vn/56461/WB- forecasts-Vietnam%E2%80%99s-2017-GDP-at-63.html.
Thu Hà (2016, September 08) Văn hóa siêu thịởViệt Nam qua con mắt của bà mẹ
Đi siêu thị là một trải nghiệm không mấy dễ chịu đối với nhiều bà mẹ Việt Nam Họ thường cảm thấy mệt mỏi và khó khăn khi phải quản lý trẻ nhỏ trong không gian đông đúc, ồn ào Những yếu tố như hàng hóa bày trí phức tạp, thời gian chờ đợi lâu và sự chú ý của trẻ em dễ bị phân tán cũng góp phần làm cho việc mua sắm trở nên căng thẳng Do đó, nhiều bà mẹ mong muốn có những giải pháp thuận tiện hơn để việc đi siêu thị trở nên nhẹ nhàng và hiệu quả hơn.
Torkelson, E., Holm, K., Bọckstrửm, M.,&Schad, E (2016) Factors contributing to theperpetration of workplace incivility: the importance of organizational aspectsandexperiencing incivility from others.Work&Stress, 30(2), 115-131. Total Retail Sales Worldwide, 2015-2020 (trillions and%change) (2017, March
15),eMarketer Retrieved fromhttp://www.emarketer.com/Chart/Total-Retail- Sales-Worldwide-2015-2020-trillions-change/194243.
Tuấn Phùng (2016, October 20).Thủtướngyêu cầuđiềutravụnữnhânviênhàngkhôngbịđánh.Tuổi TrẻOnline Retrieved fromhttp://tuoitre.vn/tin/chinh-tri-xa-