CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.

1 Background of Study Employee turnover intention is reported to be a

conscious, purposeful. deliberate and willingness to discontinue one's present employment (Tett &
Meyer, 1993). It is thinking about quitting one's present occupation and it is the best indicator of real
turnover behaviour. Job satisfaction is one of the factors that contribute to people's intention to quit
their jobs (Moore, 2002). Job satisfaction has been repeatedly identified as the main reason why
employees leave their jobs (Barak, Nissly & Levin, 2001). However, when employees perceive there is
incivility in the workplace, it reduces their satisfaction and performance thereby increasing the
likelihood of their leaving the organization (Abbas, Raja, Darr & Bouckenooghe, 2012). The business
world was thought by many to be one of the last bastions of civility. The relationship between coworkers
was, for decades, characterized by formality yet friendliness, distance yet politeness. However, business
has started to reflect the informality of society at large. Scholars have cited employee diversity,
reengineering, downsizing, budget cuts, and increased pressures for productivity. autocratic work
environments, and the use of part-time employees as causes for the increase in uncivil and aggressive
workplace behaviours (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Chen & Eastman, 1997; Neuman & Baron, 1997). As
organizations have flattened and gone casual, there are fewer obvious cues as to what constitutes
"proper" business

hehavion. As the complexity of workplace interaction increases, discourteous behaviour has more
nuances there are a greater number of ways to show disregard for fellow workers (Carter, 1998, Marks,
1996; Neuman & Baron, 1997). Uncivil behaviours are becoming more frequent in our post-modern
society. In 2002 survey of 2,000 American rwespondents, roughly four out of five considered divespect,
a lack of consideration, and rudeness serious issues, and three out of five believed that the situation was
getting worse (Farkas & Johnson, 2002). The workplace is no exception. Due to globalization, rapid
economic changes, and technological advancements, workers' experience of the 21st century labour
market could be stressful (Blustein, Kenty, Fabio & Guichard, 2018), since coping with continuous
change is ohen very demanding (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). This new work environment, characterized by
the great number, complexity, and fragmentation of workplace relationships, may increase incivility
(Pearson, Andersson & Porath, 2000). Discouneous behaviours in the workplace such as rude comments,
thoughtless acts, and negative gestures are becoming more prevalent (Blau & Anderson, 2005;
Andersson & Pearson, 1999, Cortina, Magley, Williams & Langhout, 2001; Johnson & Indivik, Andersson
and Pearson (1999) defined mild workplace deviance behaviours as workplace incivility. More
specifically, workplace incivility is "low intensity behaviour with ambiguous intent to harm in violation of
the workplace norms for respect (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p.456). Oftentimes people who are highly
emotionally

reactive (smslivet insults, easily offended, perceiving threats in seemingly innocent exchanges) are more
likely to be both victims and perpetrates of incivility (Blau & Andersson, 2005) Examples of workplace
incivility include ignoring a colleague, spreading numours, wetting deptul Emails to coworkers, or
addressing someone aumprofessionally, Incivility has been shown to lead to a wide variety of negative
consequences including lower levels of affective well-being and higher levels of depression (Bowling &
Boehr, 2006, Pearson, Andersson & Wegner, 2001). Weekplace incivility is a tom used more recently in
the extensive research that is available ce unethical behaviours (Hanahan & Leiter, 2014). This umbrella
term refers to low intensity deviant behaviours which have an ambiguous intent to harm their urgets
and violate the workplace norms that require mutual respect (Andersson & Pearson, 1998), These
uncivil behaviours are typically rude and discourteous, they display a lack of regard toward others, and
often include demeaning remarks and activities like "not listening to others" (Andersson & Pearson,
1999, Pearson & Porath 2009). Incivility is characterized by its low intensity compared to more
aggressive unethical behaviours such as bullying or harassment Interestingly, incivility unlike other
negative workplace behaviours like bullying, aggression, deviance and counterproductive workplace
behaviour has different type(s) and sources). The three (3) basic types of incivility are experienced
incivility, witnessed incivility and instigated incivility whereas the sources of incivility include the
supervisor, co-worker and customer incivility in which they all exert their

impacts differently (Schilpzand & De Pater, 2014). Studies have shown that supervisor incivility is more
harmful when compared with co-worker incivility due to the fact that targets employees of uncivil
behaviours are dependent on their supervisors for rewards and evaluations. These targets may assume
that uncivil behaviours by their supervisor may become generalized and then result in unfavorable
events. In the work of Laschinger, he discovered that supervisor's incivility is a stronger predictor of
commitment, job dissatisfaction and turnover intention than coworker incivility. They said that the
experiences of employees with supervisor's incivility are ill or less controlled which results in a greater
power imbalance affecting job satisfaction and intention of turnover. Their finding was similar to that of
Lim (2008), who found that dissatisfactory supervision has a significant relationship with turnover
intention and mental health, while co-worker's dissatisfaction didn't influence work outcomes. Talking
about coworker incivility, studies have revealed that it may be more harmful than customer incivility,
the reason being that employees may encounter uncivil behaviour(s) from customers only once
compared to their co-workers that they meet on a daily basis. Chang and Lyons (2012) found that
coworker incivility directly impacted turnover intentions, whereas uncivil behaviour from others like
supervisors or customers had an indirect effect on intentions of emotions. As for Laschinger (2011). both
supervisor and co-worker incivility are correlated positively but present slight differences in effects.

Even though incivility is low-intensity, it diminishes the effectiveness of the target and co-workers
around them. For example, one-half of victims in the poll indicated that they wasted time thinking about
the perpetrator and one-fourth of them reported wasting time avoiding the perpetrator. In addition to
decreasing effectiveness, incivility also leads to poorer health among employees. There are generally
three attributions victims make about the causes of incivility that can result in different health
outcomes; that the incivility is caused by their own actions because they are the only victim, the incivility
is caused by the perpetrator because he/she is engaging in incivility behaviours towards multiple people,
and the incivility is caused by the organization because there are multiple perpetrators and victims
(Bowling & Beehr, 2006). If victims blame themselves for the incivility, they usually have increased levels
of depression and decreased self-esteem (Bowling & Beehr, 2006). When victims attribute the cause of
the incivility to the perpetrator, they experience perceptions of unfairness or interactional injustice. As a
result of these perceptions, victims feel ignored, withdraw from, distanced, depressed, and moody
(Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Pearson, Andersson & Wegner, 2001). When the victims are blaming the
organization for incivility occurring in the workplace, it is not uncommon to see mass participation in
incivility throughout the organization, which decreases productivity, satisfaction, cooperation, and
collabouration on a larger scale (Bies, 2000; Bies & Moag, 1986; Pearson, Andersson & Wagner, 2001).
There are also costs of incivility associated with being a perpetrator.

For example, if the perpetrator is working on a team project with the victim and the performance of
each person is dependent on each other, the decreased performance of the victim also hurts the
performance of the perpetrator. Any time the perpetrator spends hurting the victim is time away from
the tasks they are supposed to be performing, but usually the amount of time is trivial. Also, the victims
have a tendency to avoid the perpetrator, which decreases necessary contact in a context where they
need to work as a team Victims of workplace incivility are also more likely to be individuals in positions
of lower power (Cortina, Magley, Williams & Langout, 2001; Lim & Cortina, 2005). People with higher
status and more resources are more resistant to workplace incivility. People of lower status are more
defensive of their status, and do not necessarily have the resources to resist the incivility (Pearson et al.,
2001). When they perceive a threat to their status, they feel shame and are more likely to retaliate
against the person who caused them problems (Aquino, Galperin & Bennett, 2004). People frequently
targeted are reported being younger, single, female, and or ethnic minorities. Pearson, Andersson and
Porath (2000) conducted an extensive survey and found that most employees have witnessed more
than one act of incivility (verbal or non- verbal abuse) at their workplace. Porath and Pearson (2013)
reported that a shocking 98 percent of their respondents experienced uncivil behaviour at their
workplace. Further, 78 percent of those employees admitted that the experiences diminished their
commitment toward their organizations (Porath & Pearson, 2013). In the past few

decades, both managers as well researchers around the world have voiced concerns about rising
workplace incivility and the severe damage it causes to the social fabric of organizations (Duffy, Ganster
& Pagon, 2002, Schilpzand, De Pater & Erez, 2014; Sutton, 2007a, b) Researchers in the field of
organizational behaviour and management direct the impact of workplace incivility on various negative
employee behaviours such as withdrawal, abuse, production deviation, sabotage, theft, absenteeism,
higher levels of sadness, anger, and fear at work, work dissatisfaction, and fatigue, higher stress level,
and reduced creativity, retention. Being the target or victim of uncivil behaviour in the workplace is
directly related to turnover intentions (Cortina et al. 2001; Pearson et al., 2000). There is considerable
evidence that in any individual who has faced workplace incivility, the incivility may be negatively
related to job satisfaction, regardless of his/her perspective as a witness, instigator, or victim, which may
result in a high turnover intention (Miner-Rubino & Reed, 2010; Griffin, 2010). Workplace incivility may
also lead to heavy work pressure for employees and generate instability and a high turnover intention in
different industries (Cortina & Magley, 2009, Laschinger, Finegan & Wilk, 2011) Job satisfaction may be
defined as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job
experiences. This positive feeling results from the perception of one's job as fulfilling or allowing the
fulfillment of one's important job values, provided these values are compatible with one's needs. Given
that

values refer to what one desires or seeks to attain (Locke, 1969), job satisfaction can be considered as
reflecting a person's value judgment regarding work related rewards Locke and Henne (1986) define job
satisfaction as the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the achievement of one's job values in the
work situation. Similarly, Mottaz (1988) regards job satisfaction as an effective response resulting from
an evaluation of the work situation. Job satisfaction is an effective response by individuals resulting from
an appraisal of their work roles in the job that they presently hold. According to Robbins and Judge
(2003), job satisfaction refers to an individual's general attitude toward his or her job. In sum, the job
satisfaction construct can be considered as an effective response by an employee concerning his or her
particular job and results from the employee's comparison of actual rewards or outcomes with those
that are expected, needed, valued, wanted, or perceived to be fair (Spector, 1997). According to
Loscocco (1989), every working person has a certain order of priorities with regard to what he or she
seeks from work. It is generally assumed that an individual's value is economic (extrinsic) as well as
intrinsic job reward. Some workers may strongly emphasize both types of rewards, some may place little
value on either and others may emphasize one type and deemphasize the other. Nevertheless, both
forms of rewards contribute to job satisfaction (O'Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell, 1991). A job that entails
high pay, high security, greater promotional opportunities,interesting work and fair and friendly
supervision, all of which is judged as a way to achieve work and non-work goals, should lead to positive
feelings of well-being. Meanwhile, a relevant research by Spector (1997) indicates that the different
aspects of job satisfaction could be split according to Herzberg's two dimensions. The intrinsic
satisfaction refers to job tasks and job content such as variety, autonomy, skill utilization, self-fulfillment
and selfgrowth. This study was conducted because the rate at which employees intend to leave the
organizations they work is very high. The researcher observed that it is as a result of the various forms of
incivility that the employees have experienced, either from their co-workers or their superiors in their
workplace. Job satisfaction is another factor that causes employees to have intentions to leave their
workplace. Different studies have been done on workplace incivility, job satisfaction and turnover
intentions. But, there hasn't been any in-depth research on how workplace incivility and job satisfaction
impacts turnover intentions among private school teachers. This became a topic of interest because
turnover intentions among school teachers is very high. 1.2 Statement of the Problem As Pearson et al
(2000) noted that incivility does not receive the same attention as violence and other aggressive
workplace behaviours due to its less transparent intent to harm. Incivility can create an unpleasant
atmosphere at work which can be bad for the business or organization. As Kamp and Brooks (1991);
Neuman and Baron (1997)posited that a disrespectful, rude and uncivil work climate can make workers
feel miserable, resulting in low productivity, higher turnover, and loss of customers. Display of incivility
in the workplace such as answering the phone with a "yeah," neglecting to say thank you or please,
standing uninvited but impatiently over the desk of someone engaged in a telephone conversation,
dropping trash on the floor and leaving it for the maintenance crew to clean up, rolling of eyes,
spreading rumours etc may be viewed as insignificant, but such behaviour have implications such as
employees leaving the organization or intending to leave. Employees who feel like their professional
growth and careers have stagnated are 12 times more likely to quit their jobs. Micromanagement,
workplace stress, bad management and other factors responsible for job dissatisfaction are all linked to
higher turnover rates. Employee happiness is not about pizza and free snacks for lunch, but about how
you treat your staff. Small things, such as thanking people for their hard work and offering a flexible
schedule, can make all the difference. The employee's decision to leave the organization is costly to both
the individual and the organization. The expenses of staff turnover can be shocking ranging from
advertising expenses, resource management expenses, loss of time and efficiency, work imbalance, and
training and development expenses for freshly employees. Researches have made it obvious that
turnover rate in most organizations is on the high increase, and researchers have opined that it is likely
to have an even greater impact on individuals and organizations. This was what gave the researcher the
motivation tocarry out this study in order to ascertain if workplace incivility and job satisfaction will
impact turnover intentions among private school teachers. 1.3 Research Questions The following are the
research questions that guide the steps of the researcher in the course of carrying out a research work
on the topic of this work. This includes: 1. To what extent will workplace incivility impact on turnover
intentions among private school teachers? 2. To what extent will job satisfaction impact on turnover
intentions among private school teachers? 1.4 Purpose of Study The purpose of this research is to
investigate if workplace incivility and job satisfaction will impact turnover intentions among employees
in private schools. Specifically, this study sought to investigate the following: 1. To examine if workplace
incivility will impact turnover intentions among private school teachers. 2. To examine if job satisfaction
will impact turnover intentions among 1.5 Significance of Study The research will help students with the
literature on employee turnover which will be part of articles significant by researchers who want to
further this project and to other stakeholders in the academic environments. This study will help bring
to the notice of managers, planners, supervisors as well as employers the adverse and detrimental effect
of incivility to both the individuals, co-workers and the organization at large. It would also help
employers, supervisors and managers differentiate incivility from other negative workplace behavioural
constructs like aggression, violence and bullying. The research study will be of great importance to
organization as it will spot some of the serious challenges obstructing increased performance and
growth in the organization Finally, Findings from this research will also serve as a guide for workers in
organizational management and relations.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW This chipper provides national clarifications of compts, wiss of weathers, and
empirically related studies from such as redbooks and journal articles. The chapter oplom these sources
in be able to identity gaps in the estan lewhich guide this salamlard 21 Theoretical Revie 2.1.1 Thevries
Related to Turnover Intentines 2.1.1.3 Haman Capital Theory (Becker, 1993) Developed by Becker
(1995), the Human Capital Theory (HCT) posis the education, raining and development, and other
knowledge have a negative impact on productivity and wages" (Zule & Chermack, 2007). Azvording to
Rahman and Nas (2013) the human capital theory assumes that education is crucial in increasing the
production capacity of employees. Human Capital Theory recommends that more skilled employees de
well since they are more esperienced and necessary t work. Other forms of Return on Investment (RO)
outputs that are mitaally beneficial to the organization and to the employee include increased
productivity and profi increased wages and income (Zala & Chermack, 2007) However, Human Capital
Theory admits that education and traming may enhance employees' employability in the job market and
induce turnover for better jobs

From this point, when qualified employees quit, an organization is stressed since it loses more skilled
employees in which it has invested in human capital. Furthermore, turnover causes extra human
resource management expenses such as recruitment selection and training costs. In the perspective of
the Human Capital Theory. management efforts to invest in education, training and development of
their employees can be considered as an important turnover intention factor. 2.1.1.2 Theory of
Organizational Equilibrium The theory of organizational equilibrium is presented by March and Simon,
1958, and it insists on the need to balance employee's contributions and inducements with those of the
organization (Holtom et al, 2008). The theory of organization equilibrium is commonly considered as the
first formal theory of turnover intentions. This theory owes its name to fact that it hypothesizes that
turnover is a decision taken after weighing one's perception of one's contribution to the organization
against one's perception of the contribution of the organizationto one's life (Brasher. 2016; Thomson,
2003). This theory assumes that perceived desirability of movement are the two main factors that
determine an employee's equilibrium. It is worth pointing out that this model contains a loop between
turnover, organization size, possibility of transfer and perceived desirability of movement. In other
words, according to theory of organization equilibrium, turmover affects the size of organization, the
size of the organization affects the possibility of transfer, the possibilty of transfer affects the perceived
desirablity of movement, the perceived

desirability of movement affects tumover and the loop starts again with the effect of mover on the size
of organization (Long et al., 2012) 2.1.2 Theories Related to Job Satisfaction 2.1.2.1 Herzberg's Two-
Factor Motivation-Hygiene Theory (Herzberg, Mausner, & Sayderman, 1997) The we-factor motivation
theory, otherwise known as Herzberg's motivation- hygiene therry or dual-factor theory, argues that
there are separate sets of mutually exclusive fetes in the workplace that either cause job satisfaction or
dissatisfaction (Heuberg, 1966, 1982, 1991, Hersberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959), Frederick
Herzberg and his we collaborators, Mausner and Snyderman developed the motivation-bygiene theory
in their book, Motivation to Work Influenced by Maslow's hierarchy of needs Jones, 2011), Herzberg
concluded that satisfaction and dissatisfaction could not be measured reliably on the same continuum
and conducted a series of studies where he tempted to determine what factors in work environments
cause satisfaction or dissatisfaction According to the review of this theory conducted by Chu and Kuo
(2015), the Two-Factor Mistivation-Hygiene Theory was proposed by Heraberg (1966). This theory
reveals that there are two sets of factors in organizations, those that contribute a job satisfaction was
motivation factors or motivators and those that contribute to job satisfaction, the "hygiene factors.
According to Herzberg (1966), cited by Chu and Kuo (2015), motivation factors include experience
achievement, recognition, interesting work, increased responsibility, advancement and learning. The
hygiene factors include unfair company policies, incompetent or unfair supervisors, unpleasant working
conditions, unfair salary, threats to status and job security (Herzberg, 1996, cited by Chu & Kuo, 2015).
The two factor theory claims that motivation factors and hygiene factors are not simply opposites of
each other. This means that a dissatisfied employee will not become satisfied because unpleasant
working conditions become pleasant. According to this theory, an employee starts to respond to his or
her turnover intention appeals when the factor contributing to overall satisfaction starts to become
negatively affected. The employee starts to believe their job is no more stimulating in terms of career
growth and advancement, if their job is no more interesting or if they don't receive enough recognition.
Therefore, retention strategies should seek to optimize motivation factors in order to inhibit employees
turnover intentions. 2.1.2.2 Edwin A. Locke's Range of Affect Theory (1976) Edwin A. Locke's Range of
Affect Theory (1976) is arguably the most famous job satisfaction model. The main premise of this
theory is that satisfaction is determined by a discrepancy between what one wants in a job and what
one has in a job. Further, the theory states that how much one values a given facet of work (e.g. the
degree of autonomy in a position) moderates how satisfied/dissatisfied one becomes when expectations
are/aren't met. When a person values a particular facet of a job, his satisfaction is more greatly
impacted both positively (when expectations are met) and andirstanding of the emotional and thereof
costs and benefits. These see the thing if y Theory, making a poolest explete of latest people de
meshaniuns underpinning the engine people's reaction to nacht cutcomes of relatio toitheies of stand
2.1.3.2 Social Farhange Theory (Blau, 1964) According to Blas (1964), social exchange theory is a social
payshogical perspective that explaine serial change procese of changes between parties When two
parties yield resipreal activities from each party drought of wowhanges, social exchange relationships
are developed. The theories of exchangs and reciprocal aggression support the importance of studying
incivility Anderson and Peason 1999 and Gosh and Liao (2001) adopt the theories of social exchange and
reopercity to explain interpersonal aggression and incivility in the workplace. When ons party expresses
aggression or incivility toward another party, the social exchange prosess allows two parties in the
process exchang aggression of incivility. Exchanged aggression or incivility is a very institut because the
response to agension is naturally assaulting (Bandura, 1973) Thun, reciprocal aggression causes the
target of agresion to t similar or a more serious response. Based on social exchange theory and
resipercal aggression, Andersson and Pearson (1999) suggest theoretical evidence of an escalating and
reciprocal nature of uncivil behaviour, using a "tit-for-tat" pattern. 2.2 Empirical Review Studies on
Turnover Intentions Turnover intention of employees refers to the likelihood of an employee to leave
the current job he/she is doing (Ngamkroeckjoti, Ounprechavanit & Kijboonchoo. 2012). Every
organization regardless of its location, size or nature of business has always given a key concern about
employees turnover intention (Long. Thean, Ismail & Jasoh, 2012). According to Kumar (2011), turnover
is a critical human resource issues in all sectors of the economy which affects productivity, product and
service quality, and profitability. People will change or leave their work and organization as much as it
will be comfortable for them. The prerequisite to leave one's job or organization is the intention to leave
that can be referred to as turnover intentions. Schwepker (2001) noted that positive and statistically
significant relationships have been reported in dozens of studies exploring leaving intentions and actual
leaving behaviour. In other words, intention to leave a job is an immediate precursor to actually leaving.
For this reason, turnover intention has been incorporated into most employee turnover models in the
published literature. Turnover intention is defined as an employee's intent to find a new job with
another employer within the next year. Many researchers try to understand the major determinants of
turnover intention and develop

sine managerial implications to deal with the problem of high turnover rate (Tuzun, 2007 The intention
to quit the job is a behavior aspect of whether the employee wants to comimise or leave the job
(Rigliardi, Petroni & Dormio, 2005), Vandenberg & Nelson (1000) gives an accurate definition of
"Tumover intention is an individual's own estimated probability that they are permanently leaving the
organization at some point in the near future". Turnover intentions, or intentions to quit a job, have
been found to be one of the best predictors of actual quitting (Griffeth, Horm & Gaertner. 2000)
Tumover intention is a mental decision employees make either to stay or leave the organization Jacobs
& Roodh, 2007) So the study of turnover intentions is the accurate predictor for employee turnover and
hence both these terms have an important connotation (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Tumover intention as
mentioned by Tett and Meyer (1993) is a conscious willfulness to seek for other alternatives in other
organizations. Schyns and Gossling (2007) indicated that turnover intention is an employee's intention
to voluntarily change jobs or organizations. Intent to turnover constitutes the final cognitive step in the
decision making process which considers quitting and searching for alternative employment (Tett and
Meyer, 1993) Studies on Workplace Incivility and Turnover Intentions According to Olson-Buchanan and
Boswell (2008), the characteristics of the trigger event (eg, experiencing incivility) are not the only
determinants of an individual's reaction to mistreatment, Rather, an individual's interpretation of the
trigger event is the "critical factor" that influences how she copes with the event and eventually reacts
to it (eg.. turnover intentions). Thus, whereas cognitive appraisal involves a preliminary assessment of
the mistreatment, coping deals with the process by which individuals change their cognitive and
behavioural efforts to respond to this mistreatment. In Pearson, Anderson, and Porath's (2000) study,
nearly half of the employees who experienced uncivil behaviours contemplated leaving their jobs.
Similarly, Cortina et al. (2001) found that uncivil experiences in work were associated with turnover
intentions both directly and through job dissatisfaction. The decision to leave implies a considerable
amount of time for reasoning and usually means that the victim believes the situation is unlikely to
improve (Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2008). Various studies provide important notes about the effects
of incivility in the workplace on turnover intentions (Cortina et al., 2013; Rahim & Cosby, 2016; Sharma
& Singh, 2016). From their study on business administration students in the United States, Rahim and
Cosby (2016) found that workplace incivility is positively related to the intention to resign. In various
sectors, Sharma and Singh (2016) and Cortina et al. (2013) found that workplace incivility can increase
the level of intention to resign. The studies of Hendryadi and Zannati (2018) provide preliminary
empirical evidence regarding the link between workplace incivility and employee turnover intention in
Indonesia. The study found a positive effect of workplace incivility on employee turnover intention.
Disrespectful behaviour occurs in general and in many organizations, and organizations often do not
understand their harmful effects, and most managers are not prepared to deal with it. Due to their
experience as victims of workplace incivility, employees tend to reduce work effort, time on the job, and
job performance (Rahim & Cosby, 2016). That is, the higher the employee's perception of incivility in
their workplace, the intention to leave or find a new job is higher. Studies on Job Satisfaction and
Turnover Intentions Job satisfaction is the status in which a person is satisfied and glad with the job
(Bashir & Durrani, 2014). Ali (2008) and Wu & Polsaram (2011) stated that job satisfaction was found to
have a significant negative association with turnover intention (Armstrong,2006; Aguenza & Som, 2012;
Ahmad et al, 2012; Alamadar & Muhammad, 2014; Lee, 2012; Daly & Dee, 2006). Also Alkahtani (2015)
proved that job satisfaction had a relationship with an employee's intention to leave their job. Perez
(2008) found that job satisfaction was the strongest significant predictors of turnover intentions
(Leonard, 2018). As noted by Lambert et al. (2001), scholars speculate that employee turnover can be
predicted using comprehensive measures of job satisfaction; otherwise stated, high job satisfaction is
associated with low employee turnover. Moreover, research shows that the relationship between job
satisfaction and actual employee turnover is moderated by intentions. Generally, it is accepted that job
satisfaction and employee turnover intention are inversely related. The established, inverse relationship
between job satisfaction and employee turnover intention is very important to research in
organizational behaviour. Many organizations are focusing on the monetary aspects that could drive
turnover intention. However, past research has indicated that turnover intention is due to a
combination of several factors. These numerous factors are termed or known as push and pull factors or
internal and external factors. Turnover intentions occur when employees are feeling dissatisfaction with
the organization. Regardless of internal or external factors that drive turnover intention, organizations
should have the best remedy to reduce the number of people leaving. Foster et al., (2011) argued that
dissatisfied and frustrated employees in an organization are likely to exhibit higher career plateau
tendencies and intention to leave than satisfied employees. Thus, Foster et al., added that the
employees are not likely to be committed and loyal to their organization. Hellman (1997) shared the
same view that the increasing dissatisfaction in employees results in a higher chance of considering
other employment opportunities. Hom et al., (2008) suggested that dissatisfaction leads to thoughts of
quitting. These thoughts cause employees to weigh the costs and benefits of job seeking and quitting. If
they find the possible alternatives, job-seeking employees compare them with their present
employment and either decide to stay or leave. According to the turnover theory, turnover intention
starts with dissatisfaction among workforces, which forces them to search for substitute work.

2.3 Hypotheses 1. Teachers in high workplace incivility group will have high turnover intentions than
their counterparts in low workplace incivility group. 2. Teachers in high job satisfaction group will have
low turnover intentions than their counterparts in low job satisfaction group. 2.4 Operational Definition
of Terms Workplace incivility: Workplace incivility refers to deviant workplace behaviour of low intensity
that can include such behaviours as being rude, discourteous, impolite, or violating workplace norms of
behaviour. People engaging in uncivil behaviour may not necessarily have bad or harmful intent.
However, you can think of workplace incivility as a type of antisocial behaviour, which was measured by
Workplace Incivility Scale Job Satisfaction: Job satisfaction is based on how we feel about our job - the
good career components that make us feel valued or let us feel like we have a purpose, vs. the bad
components, such as long hours or unpleasant tasks, or feeling undervalued as an employee, Job
Satisfaction Scale was used to measure job satisfaction. Turnover Intentions: Turnover intention is an
employee's conscious and deliberate willfulness to leave his or her current organization, as measured by
Turnover Intention Scale.

CHAPTER THREE METHOD 3.1 Design A cross-sectional survey design was adopted in this study. This was
suitable for the study as the variables of study were measured simultaneously, allowing the assessment
of inter-relationships between variables. 3.2 Setting This study was carried out in Uyo, which is the
capital city of Akwa-Ibom State in South-South Nigeria. It became the capital on September 23, 1987
when Akwa Ibom was created from the former Cross River State. Uyo serves a dual purpose of being the
state capital and Local Government headquarters and shares common boundaries with Itu. Uruan,
Ibesikpo Asutan, Abak and Etinan Local Government Areas. The core language of Uyo people is Ibibio.
According to the 2006 Nigerian Census, the population of Uyo (including Itu) is 427,873 and it is sitting
atop 362 km². Akwa-Ibom state lies between latitude 40321 and 50331 North and longitude 70251 and
80 East. Akwa-lbom state is bordered on the east by Cross River State, on the west by Rivers State and
Abia State, and on the south by the Atlantic Ocean. Akwa-Ibom State is the 30th largest in area and 15th
most populous state in the country. However, the private schools in Uyo Local Government Area (L.G.A)
served as the settings of this study.

3.3 Participants A total of one hundred and fifty (150) private school teachers, out of which one hundred
and thirty-nine (139) responded and returned the instruments, while the remaining eleven (11) were
not returned. Gender statistics from the 139 participants shows that 54 (38.8%) were male and 85
(61.2%) were females. Further, educational qualification of participants shows that those with SSCE
were 25 (19.7%), OND were 35 (20.8%), HND were 38 (28.7%), BSC were 41 (30.8%). In addition, the age
of participants shows that those who were 25 years and below are 67 (48.2%), those between 26-34
years were 47 (33.8%), participants between 35-43 years were 10 (7.2%), those between 44-52 years
were 11 (7.9%); participants who were 53 years and above are 4 (2.9%). Their age ranged from below 20
to above 53 and mean age of 47.5. 3.4 Instrument A self-report questionnaire was used in this study.
The questionnaires consist of four sections, A, B, C and D. Section A was the demographic factors while
section B was the Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS), Cortina and Magley (2009). Section C was three items
from Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS), Hackman and Oldham's (1975) and section D was the Turnover
Intention Scale (TIS-6), Bothma and Roodt (2013). Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS), Cortina and Magley
(2009) Workplace incivility measured by Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS) was first developed by Cortina
et al., (2001). However, the scale used in this study was the more developed Workplace Incivility Scale
by Cortina and Magley (2009). Cortina and Magley (2009) have since supplemented the WIS with three
additional items which were also administered in this study. The WIS consists of 10 items that measure
the frequency with which individuals have experienced each statement. Participants responded using a
5-point scale ranging from (1) once or twice a year to (5) every day. Pilot study was done to revalidate
the scale. A cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.87 was indicated for the scale. The scale has a high reliability
coefficient value of 0.91 Job Satisfaction Scale, Hackman & Oldham (1975) Three items from Hackman
and Oldham's (1975) measure were used to assess participants' job satisfaction. The items were scored
on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. A sample item is
"Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job." Pilot study was done to revalidate the scale. A
cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.72 was indicated for the scale. The scale has a high reliability coefficient
value of 0.67 Turnover Intention Scale, Bothma & Roodt (2013) Turnover intention (the intention to
leave or stay) was measured with a six-item scale adapted from the 15-item scale initially developed by
Roodt (2004). To enhance the reliability of responses, behaviour intention should be measured within a
reasonable time frame after accepting a position within a company. The response scale was scored on a
five-item Likert scale, varying between poles of intensity with 1 (never) to 5 (always) (Du Plooy & Roodt
2010). Pilot study was done to revalidate the scale. A cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.81 was indicated
for the scale. The scale has a high reliability coefficient value of 0.80 3.5 Procedure During the research,
a letter of consent was attached to the instruments given to each respondent. The schools used in this
research were selected through simple random sampling. The names of all the private schools were
written on a piece of paper and folded. Then the researcher picked at random ten (10) schools which
were used for the research. Before the copies of questionnaires were distributed, the researcher had to
take permission from the principal or supervisors in the school. Thereafter, the questionnaires were
distributed to the participants using purposive sampling. The participants were asked to carefully read
the instrument before filling them so that they can have a concrete understanding of the items. Because
of the nature of their work, they were given till closing hour or the next day to return the instrument.
Afterwards, a total of 139 correctly filled copies of questionnaires were retrieved for collation and data
analysis. The schools used for the study were private secondary schools in Uyo, they include; Reward
Secondary School, Nuco Secondary School, Mitoru International School, Shammah Christian Academy,
Nobles International Secondary School, Royal Christian Secondary School, Victory High School, Jesus
Saves Secondary School, The Apostolic Secondary School and Saint College.

3.6 Statistics Descriptive statistics was employed for demographic variables and Two-way Analysis of
Variance was used to test the significant level.

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

Data Presentation and Analysis (Pilot Study) This section presents information about results of data
analyzed during this research's pilot study. This section was also used to ascertain the reliability of the
three instruments in the study. TABLE I presents the summary of mean (x), standard deviation, cronbach
alpha (a) and reliability coefficient of work incivility. Summary of mean (X) standard deviation, cronbach
alpha (a) and reliability coefficient of work incivility (n=10) SCALE NAME NO. OF ITEM S MEA N (X)
STANDARD DEVIATIO N CRONBAC ALPHA H (α) GUTTMAN SPLIT-HALF COEFFICIEN T Workplac e incivility
10 8.74 0.87 0.91 22.14 The workplace incivility inventory has 10 items. It had a mean (X) score of 22.14
and standard deviation (sd) of 8.74. The scale had a cronbach alpha (a) reliability of r = 0.87 and
Guttman split-half reliability of n = 0.91 TABLE 2 presents the summary of mean (x), standard deviation,
cronbach alpha (a) and reliability coefficient of job satisfaction. Summary of mean (8) standard
deviation, cronbach alpha (a) and reliability coefficient of job satisfaction (n=3)

SCALE NO. OF NAME ITEM N(X) N (α) STANDARD CRONBAC DEVIATIO H ALPHA GUTTMAN SPLIT-HALF
COEFFICIEN T S MEA Job satisfactio 3 5.33 2.98 0.72 0.67 The Job satisfaction inventory has 3 items. It
had a mean (x) score of 5.33 and standard deviation (sd) of 2.98 The scale had a cronbach alpha (a)
reliability of r = 0.72 and Guttman split-half reliability of n = 0.67 TABLE 3 presents the summary of mean
(x), standard deviation, cronbach alpha (a) and reliability coefficient of turnover intention Summary of
mean (8) standard deviation, cronbach alpha (a) and reliability coefficient of turnover intention (n=6)
SCALE NO. OF MEAN STANDARD CRONBACH GUTTMAN ALPHA (a) SPLIT-HALF COEFFICIENT NAME
ITEMS (X) DEVIATION turnover intention 6 16.47 5.48 0.81 0.80

The turnover intention inventory has 6 items. It had a mean (x) score of 16.47 and standard deviation
(sd) of 5.48 The scale had a cronbach alpha (a) reliability of r = 0.81 and Guttman split-half reliability of n
= 0.80 Data Presentation and Analysis (Main Study) This chapter presents the analysis and result of data
that were obtained in the main study. It also covers hypotheses testing and interpretation of findings.
Each hypothesis was tested with the aid of Software Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), Descriptive
statistics and Two-Way Analysis of Variance were employed in the analyses.

TABLE 4. Mean and frequencies showing differences in demographic factors on turnover intentions
among participants (N = 139) Variables N Cumulative Percentage Percentage Gender Male 54 38.8 38.8
Female 85 61.2 100.0 Total 139 100.0 Educational Qualification 25 19.7 19.7 SSCE 35 20.8 40.5 OND HND
38 28.7 69.2 41 30.8 100.0 B.SC 139 100.0 Total Age Below 25 years 67 48.2 48.2 26-34years 47 33.8
82.0 35-43 years 10 7.2 89.2 44-52 years 11 7.9 97.1 53 years and above 4 2.9 100.0 Total 139 100.0
TABLE 4: Descriptive statistics Results in table 4 display the demographic features of 139 participants,
including gender, educational qualification and age The frequency distribution in Table 4 revealed that
54 (38.8%) of the participants were males and 85 (61.2%) were females. In terms of educational
qualification, 25 (19.7%) participants were SSCE holders, 35 (20.8%) participants were OND holders, 38
(28.7%) participants were HND holders, and the remaining 41 (30.8%) were B.SC holders. The table also
shows age of the participants as follows; 67 (48.2%) participants were below 25 years, 47 (33.8%)
participants were between 26-34 years, 10 (7.2%)

participants were between 35-43 years, 11 (7.9%) were between 44-52 years and the remaining 4 (2.9%)
participants were 50 years and above. TABLE 5: Summary of mean (x) and standard deviation score of
age of participants on turnover intention Age Group Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error of Mean
Below 25 19.72 19.87 3.19 0.39 26-34 3.43 0.50 35-43 21.80. 3.58 1.13 44-52 20.18 4.2 1.27 53 and
above 18.50 1.00 0.50

Table 5 showed that the highest mean scores (x=21.80) was obtained by the age group between 35-43
years followed by 44-52 years (20.18), 26-34 years (X 19.87), below 25 years (19.72), while the least
mean score was obtained by participants from 53 years and above on turnover intention TABLE 6: Table
of mean (1) and standard deviation showing the impact of workplace incivility and job satisfaction on
turnover intentions among teachers WORK PLACE INCIVILITY JOB SATISFACTION TOTAL HIGH LOW HIGH
LOW N 82 58 139 57 81 TURNOVER INTENTION 20,48 18.93 20.64 19.93 MEAN 19.14 SD 3,32 2.51 3.70
3.37

Result in table 6 shows that participants who reported high work place incivility had a mean score (8) of
20.48 (SD-3.52) while their counterparts who reported low work place incivility had a mean score (x) of
19.14 (SD-2.99) on turnover intentions. Furthermore, participants who were high on job satisfaction had
a mean score (x) of 18.93 (SD= 2.51) while their counterparts who were low job satisfaction had a mean
score (X) of 20.64 (SD= 3.70) on turnover intentions. The overall mean score of participants on turnover
intentions was 19.93 (SD = 3.37). TABLE 7: A 2x2 ANOVA Summary Table showing the impact of
workplace incivility and job satisfaction on turnover intentions among teachers Dependent Variable:
Turnover intentions Source Type III Sum of squares Df Mean Square F P Corrected Model 203.4050 3
67.802 6.781 0.00 Intercept 1 5025.516 0.00 50250.538 50250.538 Workplace incivility 1 8.058 <.05 (A)
80.577 80.577 Job satisfaction (B) I 4.936 <.05 49.359 49.359 Workplace incivility"job 1 3.590 >.05
35.892 35.892 satisfaction (AB) 135 1349.876 9.999 Error 139 Total 56754.000 138 Corrected Total
1553.281 R Squared = 131 (Adjusted R Squared 112) Computed using alpha = .05

Table 7 shows the result of a 2 x 2 ANOVA which tested for independent and joint interaction effect of
the variables in this study. The result indicates that workplace incivility exerted a significant influence on
turnover intentions, F (1,135)-8.058, P < (0.05), This result accepts the first hypothesis, which stated that
teachers in high incivility group will have high turnover intentions than their counterparts in low
workplace incivility group. The second result indicated that corporate ethics exerted a significant
influence on turnover intentions, F (1,135) = 4.936, P < (0.05). This result accepts the second hypothesis,
which stated that teachers in high job satisfaction group will have low turnover intentions than their
counterparts in low job satisfaction group Table 4 indicated a non-significant interaction effect of
workplace incivility and job satisfaction on turnover intentions, F (1,135) 3.590, P> (0.05). This indicated
that workplace incivility and job satisfaction do not jointly exert a significance influence on turnover
intentions.

CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION 5.1 Discussion This present study investigated the impact of workplace
incivility and job satisfaction on turnover intentions among private school teachers. Two hypotheses
were posited and tested in the study. As presented in Table 7, results show that workplace incivility
exerted a significant influence on turnover intentions independently and thus, leading to the acceptance
of the first hypothesis which stated that "Teachers in high workplace incivility group will have high
turnover intentions than their counterparts in low workplace incivility group". This means that
workplace incivility is one of the factors to be considered as influencers of turnover intentions. This
finding is in consonance with that of Sharma & Singh (2016) and Cortina et al. (2013) who found that
workplace incivility can increase the level of intention to resign. Furthermore, the second result of the
study also revealed that job satisfaction had an independent influence on turnover intention. Thus,
resulting in the acceptance of the second hypothesis which stated that "Teachers in high job satisfaction
group will have low turnover intentions than their counterparts in low job satisfaction group". This
means that job satisfaction is another factor to be considered as an influencer of turnover intentions.
This finding is in consonance with that of Perez (2008), who found that job satisfaction was the strongest
significant predictors of turnover intentions. And Ali (2008) and Wu & Polsaram (2011) stated that job
satisfaction was found to have a significant negative association with turnover intention. 5.2 Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of workplace incivility and job satisfaction on
turnover intentions among teachers in private schools. A total of one hundred and fifty teachers were
selected from ten private schools in Uyo, Akwa- ibom state. In order to measure the variables of
interest, workplace incivility scale by Cortina and Magley (2009), job satisfaction scale by Hackman &
Oldham (1975), and turnover intention scale Bothman & Roodt (2013) were adopted. The study was a
cross- sectional survey utilizing the two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). In testing the two hypotheses
stated in the study, the first hypothesis which stated that teachers in high workplace incivility group will
have high turnover intentions than their counterparts in a low workplace incivility group was accepted.
Also, the second hypothesis which stated that teachers in high job satisfaction group will have low
turnover intentions than their counterparts in low job satisfaction group was also accepted. This means
that workplace incivility and low job satisfaction individually impacts turnover intentions. 5.3 Implication
of the Study The findings of this study showed that there is a significant impact of workplace incivility on
turnover intentions among teachers in private schools. This implies thatthe more a teacher experiences
workplace incivility the more likely the probability that they will experience turnover intentions. The
findings of the present study is very significant in a real work setting in that workers who experience
workplace incivility will have intentions to leave their workplace. Secondly, the finding of the study
showed that there is a significant impact of low job satisfaction on turnover intentions among teachers
in private school. This means that teachers who are not satisfied with their job are likely to experience
turnover intentions in their workplace. Job satisfaction just as the name implies involves the level of
contentment employees feel with their job. When an employee doesn't derive satisfaction from the job
they tend to have intentions to leave their job. Therefore, as indicated in this study, low job satisfaction
is a predictor of turnover intentions among teachers in private schools 5.4 Recommendations 1.
Workplaces, especially schools, should seriously take into consideration the issue of turnover intentions
by fully understanding workplace incivility and job satisfaction that contribute to its occurrence through
awareness, learning and responsiveness. 2. There should be punishment put in place for any form of
workplace incivility that is reported, in order to reduce occurrence of workplace incivility. 3.
Organizations should practice an open door policy for employees to report their grievance about
workplace incivility and job dissatisfaction.

4. Teachers generally should learn to be assertive by letting their intentions known on the things that
they are not satisfied with in their work place and should formally suggest to their organizations on the
things that make them more satisfied. 5. The teachers as well as their superiors should be given regular
training for identifying the trigger of turnover intentions when they occur. 5.5 Limitations of the Study
This study is not immune to its own limitations. Notable limitations of this study are: 1. The data
obtained was collected from a limited number of schools in Uyo. The findings from this study may not be
completely reliable as the study was based on self-report, which may contain random biased opinions
and social desirability effects of the respondents. This kind of bias is inevitable and can cause little effect
over data quality; which implies that generalization should be done with caution or not at all. 2. Most of
the schools from the population refused to participate because they didn't want to be involved in the
research. 3. The use of a purposive sample limits generalisability, since it doesn't pave the way for
randomisation of participants.

5.6 42 Suggestion for Further Studies The researcher wishes to suggest the following areas for further
research on this topic: 1. A replication of the study should use teachers in public schools or a different
population. 2. Alternative data collection techniques such as observation and interview should be
adopted in future studies. 3. A larger sample size should be used and a research assistant should be
hired.

1. REFERENCES Abbas, M. Raja, U., Darr, W., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2012). Combined Effects of
Perceived Politics and Psychological Capital on Job Satisfaction, Turnover Intentions, and
Performance. Journal of Management. Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity.
The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422-436. Aguenza, B.B., & Som, A.P. (2012).
Motivational Factors of Employee Retention and Engagement in Organizations. International Journal
of Advances in Management and Economics 1: 88-95. Ahmad, F.M, Zin M.Z., Nor M.R, Sakat A.A, &
Naim A. (2012). The Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention. Am J Appl Sci. 9:
1518-1526. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Alamdar H, Muhammad A. (2014). Impact of Job Satisfaction on
Employee Turnover: An Empirical Study of Autonomous Medical Institutions of Pakistan. Journal of
International Studies. (7) 122-132. Ali, N. (2008). Factors Affecting Overall Job Satisfaction and
Turnover Intention. Journal of Managerial Sciences. Alkahtani, A.H. (2015). Investigating Factors that
Influence Employees Turnover Intention: A Review of Existing Empirical Works. International Journal
of Business and Management. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling
effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452-471. Aquino, K.,
Galperin, B. L., & Bennett, R. J. (2004). Social status and aggressiveness as moderators of the
relationship between interactional justice and workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 34(5), 1001-1029. Armstrong, M. (2006). A Handbook of Human Resource Management
Practice (7th ed.), Work Study. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.