2020 Frey-Cordes Et Al

Eye for an eye?
Frontline service employee

reactions to customer incivility
Regina Frey-Cordes
International University of Applied Sciences, Bad Honnef, Germany
Meike Eilert
Gatton College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA, and
Marion Büttgen
Department of Marketing and Management, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany
Abstract
Purpose – Frontline service employees (FSEs) face high demands of emotional labor when dealing with difficult, and sometimes even uncivil,
customer behavior while attempting to deliver service with a smile. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether employees reciprocate uncivil
customer behavior. The authors investigate two potential processes – ego threat and perceived interactional justice – and further address boundary
conditions of this effect.
Design/methodology/approach – The data for this paper were collected in three studies: one field experiment and two online experiments using
adult samples. Hypotheses were tested and data was analyzed using ANOVA and regression-based modeling approaches.
Findings – Findings from a field-experimental study and online experiments show that FSEs offer lower service levels to uncivil customers. The
authors further find that this effect is mediated by a perceived ego threat and that employees’ regulation of emotion (ROE), as part of their
emotional intelligence, attenuates the effect of perceived ego threats on service levels.
Research limitations/implications – This study finds that perceived ego threat (but not perceived interactional justice) explains why employees
respond negatively to uncivil customer behavior. Therefore, it offers an emotion-driven explanation of retaliatory behavior in frontline service
contexts. Implications for theories focusing on service value co-destruction and customer incivility are discussed.
Practical implications – The findings from this research show that ROE attenuates the impact of perceived ego threat on employee retaliatory
behavior. Managerial implications include developing and training employees on emotion regulation. Furthermore, managers should identify
alternative ways for restoring an employee’s ego after the employee experiences uncivil customer behavior.
Originality/value – The authors propose and test two processes that can explain why employees reciprocate uncivil customer behavior to gain a
deeper understanding of which processes, or a combination of the two, drive employee responses. Furthermore, the authors shed insights into
boundary conditions and explore when employees are less likely to react to uncivil customer behavior while experiencing ego threat.
Keywords Retaliation, Customer incivility, Frontline service employees, Employee incivility
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction may facilitate the destruction of the service’s value, which is an

interactional process in which the customers experience a
“Always use please and thank you,” “don’t complain about decline in their own well-being during a service encounter (Plé
prices and don’t argue about your tab” and “don’t bang on the and Cáceres, 2010).
bar or waive money.” These are common items on etiquette Given that FSEs are the face of the organization and are
lists of how consumers should behave toward frontline service responsible for not only maintaining a consistent brand image
employees (FSEs) in the hospitality industry to facilitate a but also the customer experience (Elmadag et al., 2008;
positive service experience and create value. According to the Hartline et al., 2000; Punjaisri et al., 2009), the question is, why
service-dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004), customers and when do employees retaliate against uncivil customer by
play an important role in co-creating the value of a service. also behaving uncivilly? We address this question in this paper
Furthermore, these co-creation efforts involve their interaction by examining the service levels offered by FSEs in response to
with FSE (Grönroos, 2011). Yet, customers often exhibit rude
and uncivil behavior when interacting with FSEs whether at bars,
restaurants, clothing stores or supermarkets. Consequently, customers The first two authors contributed equally to this research. The authors
would like to thank Wayne D. Hoyer, Chance McCullough, the
anonymous reviewers and participants at the American Marketing
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Association’s Winter Educators’ and QUIS conferences for their
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/0887-6045.htm comments on previous versions of this research.
Received 19 July 2019

Journal of Services Marketing
Revised 7 December 2019
34/7 (2020) 939–953 8 February 2020
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045] 1 April 2020
[DOI 10.1108/JSM-07-2019-0270] Accepted 1 April 2020
939
Employee reactions to customer incivility Journal of Services Marketing
Regina Frey-Cordes, Meike Eilert and Marion Büttgen Volume 34 · Number 7 · 2020 · 939–953
uncivil customer behavior. Customer incivility is a milder form explored individual differences in employees that increase the
of dysfunctional or aberrant customer behavior (Fisk et al., likelihood of retaliation and sabotage (Harris and Ogbonna,
2010) and is sometimes also referred to as customer 2002; Judge et al., 2006; Griffin et al., 1998; Sliter et al., 2012).
misbehavior (Tonglet, 2002). Across the different labels, Our research contributes to this literature stream by explaining
dysfunctional or aberrant customer behavior is when customers why and when FSEs may retaliate. Furthermore, this research
engage in thoughtless or abusive behavior toward employees, makes contributions to theories that focus on the importance of
customers or organizations (Bitner et al., 1994; Grove et al., FSE–customer interactions during service delivery. For
1989), such as faking insurance claims, shoplifting or tax instance, the service failure literature extensively focuses on the
deception. In contrast, incivility is defined as a “low-intensity importance of recovery efforts (Hess et al., 2003; Smith et al.,
deviant behavior, perpetrated by someone in a customer or 1999; Weun et al., 2004) and assumes that employees respond
client role, with ambiguous intent to harm an employee, in by aiding recovery efforts. Yet, employees may not be willing to
violation of social norms of mutual respect and courtesy” (Sliter help customers if their behavior is impolite and rude, and our
et al.’s, 2010, p. 468). Uncivil behavior violates social exchange research addresses why employees may not provide recovery
relationship norms and is interpersonal in that it requires a efforts. The present research also adds to the literature on value
perpetrator and a target (Sliter et al., 2010). In the case of co-destruction in services (Plé, 2016; Plé and Cáceres, 2010;
customer incivility, the customer is the perpetrator and the FSE Zhang et al., 2018), particularly contributing to research
is the target who receives the norm violation. examining the impact of employee–customer interactions in
FSE may cope with customer incivility by retaliating and contexts where the customer engages with the employee in a
reciprocating the incivility. We define retaliatory behavior as negative manner. The key contribution of the present research
any behavior toward the customer that reflects a lower service to these literature streams is increasing our understanding of
level than the employee would have provided otherwise, why and when FSEs retaliate and are unwilling to provide
regardless of whether the customer observes the lower service consistent service levels in the context of uncivil and rude
level. Therefore, we also assess whether service value is customer behavior.
destroyed as a result of customer incivility. Specifically, we In addition, Employee-related research in the service
focus on understanding the underlying processes that lead to literature is still scarce. Less than 10% of articles in the service
employees’ perceptions of incivility as a threat and why some literature mention the word employee in the abstract,
employees feel compelled to reciprocate by retaliating with indicating an unfulfilled potential of employee-related research
lower service levels. in service management (Subramony et al., 2017). In their
We consider two possible explanations for employee seminal paper, Subramony et al. (2017) call for increased
retaliatory behavior based on affective events theory (AET) research on collective turnover, service climate, emotional
(Rupp and Spencer, 2006) and social exchange theory (SET) labor and occupational stress of service employees. Many types
(Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Both theories focus on of services are characterized by intense dyadic client–employee
explaining workplace behaviors of individuals as part of interactions and by a high level of personal rapport between
interactions and are therefore well-suited in the context of customers and FSEs (Gremler and Gwinner, 2000).
norm violations in FSE and customer interactions. Although Furthermore, previous research has shown that a “prevalent
AET suggests that an affective process results in retaliatory stressor in service roles is customer misbehaviour” (Subramony
behavior because of customer incivility, SET proposes an et al., 2017 p. 859). For FSEs, negative customer interactions
equity-driven explanation path driving employee retaliation can culminate into a major source of resource depletion that
after such a norm violation. After exploring the mechanism increases employees’ need to cope (Reynolds and Harris,
behind FSE retaliation in services, we examine a potential 2006).
boundary condition under which the identified affective In addition to the theoretical implications, understanding
process based AET – ego threat – occurs. FSE responses to uncivil customer behavior has significant
We examine FSE retaliation of uncivil customer behavior in implications for practice. When FSEs reciprocate uncivil
hospitality service contexts where FSEs are integral in behavior in customer–employee interactions, companies run
providing the customer experience as they require a high degree the risk of increasing customer dissatisfaction, negative word-
of interaction between customer and FSEs. Thus, in this of-mouth and churn – all of which have negative consequences
context, FSEs play an important role in creating value with the for a firm’s bottom-line (Luo, 2009). Moreover, reciprocating
customer. Furthermore, FSE and customer interactions in uncivil behavior has the potential to trigger what is known as an
hospitality contexts can be prone to uncivil customer behavior “incivility spiral,” resulting in an escalation of conflict
because service dissatisfaction occurs frequently and can (Andersson and Pearson, 1999; Bies and Tripp, 1995). A
impact customers’ moods (Allen et al., 2015; Tang et al., report by New Voice Media estimates that US companies alone
2018). lost $75bn in 2018 – an increase from $62bn in 2016 – because
Previous research has examined customer incivility from the of FSEs providing rude customer service (Hyken, 2018).
perspective of the customer and that of employees. Research Therefore, it is imperative for companies to understand why
has primarily focused on factors in the service environment and and when employees react negatively to customer incivility to
customer characteristics that impact retaliatory behavior, reduce reciprocal behavior and reduce top-line and bottom-line
(Jerger and Wirtz, 2017) employee reactions to customer losses.
incivility (Henkel et al., 2017; Hershcovis and Bhatnagar, The research question is examined through a series of three
2017) and adverse work and health outcomes for employees studies: one field experiment and two online experiments.
(van Jaarsveld et al., 2010; Sliter et al., 2010). Research has also Through Study 1’s field experiment, we establish that FSEs
940
retaliate against uncivil customer behavior by providing lower destructive behaviors include FSEs being blunt, raising the
service levels. Study 2 extends this finding to a controlled tone of their voices and increasing the wait times of customer
laboratory setting and examines the two possible processes that service (van Jaarsveld et al., 2010; Walker et al., 2014). If the
may explain FSE retaliatory behavior. Building on the findings customer becomes aware of the retaliatory behavior, they may
from Study 2, the purpose of Study 3 is twofold. First, Study 3 respond negatively to the employee in return, triggering an
increases the generalizations of our findings by testing our “incivility spiral” (Andersson and Pearson, 1999). Therefore,
hypotheses in a different service setting, and, second, it the customer’s initial behavior can increase an FSE’s value
examines FSE emotional intelligence (EI), which can enable or destructive behavior and can reduce the quality of service that
hinder the retaliatory process identified in Study 2. the customer receives. Thus, customers may inadvertently
destroy the value of their service and experience a decline in
2. Literature review their well-being (Plé and Cáceres, 2010).
2.1 Employee responses to customer behavior
According to the service dominant logic, interactions between 2.2 Hypotheses development
FSE and customers is a core component of value creation FSEs and customer interactions are at the core of service value
(Grönroos, 2011), and studies have demonstrated that positive, creation and destruction; therefore, we ground our hypotheses
customer-oriented FSE behavior increases customer in theories that explain how individuals react to others in
satisfaction (Homburg et al., 2009; Gremler and Gwinner, service exchange settings. AET focuses broadly on an
2000; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2006; Mohr and Bitner, 1995) individual’s affective responses to work-related events and
and can help with service recovery efforts (Hess et al., 2003; workplace behaviors (Ashkanasy et al., 2002; Brief and Weiss,
Smith et al., 1999; Weun et al., 2004). Not only do FSEs 2002; Weiss and Beal, 2005; Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996)
influence customers’ attitudes and behaviors in service settings and emphasizes the role of affect and judgments in forming
but customers also impact attitudes and behaviors of FSEs attitudes and behaviors in the workplace. FSE–customer
which, in turn, impacts FSEs’ value-creating behavior. While interactions constitute a social exchange that is guided by
the service profit chain (Heskett et al., 1994; Kamakura et al., norms, which can be violated by either party which then can
2002) primarily focuses on service quality as an antecedent of result in service value destruction. Thus, SET can further
productive employee behavior, research shows that customers inform an FSE’s reaction to uncivil behavior by focusing on
can have a positive impact on productive employee behavior these dyadic interactions, which, according to AET, constitute
and commitment (Barnes et al., 2015; Frey et al., 2013; Yi et al., work-related events.
2011). Frey et al. (2013) showed in a professional service FSE–customer interactions are generally guided by norms
setting that customer satisfaction can rub off on employee about appropriate behavior, and uncivil customer behavior
satisfaction because of direct emotional contagion, and the violates these norms (Andersson and Pearson, 1999). Uncivil
effect can be mediated by customer appreciation of customer behavior includes the customer raising their voice or
employee effort. Similarly, perceptions of customer delight and blaming the employee rudely for a service failure, even if the
customer participation in the service process positively impact service failure is outside of the employee’s control (van
productive employee behavior and commitment (Barnes et al., Jaarsveld et al., 2010). Uncivil customer behavior is an affective
2015; Yi et al., 2011). event for service employees and can trigger emotional
However, customers can also impact FSEs negatively.
responses (Grandey et al., 2004; Shao and Skarlicki, 2014) that
Dysfunctional customer behavior, such as verbal abuse or
can result in counterproductive workplace attitudes such as
aggression, can exacerbate occupational stress in FSEs and can
anger and hostility as well as diminished altruism, optimism
lead to turnover, depersonalization or negative work attitudes
and attitude flexibility. In addition, these affective responses
(Goussinsky, 2012). FSEs are often the first to encounter and
can cause employees to be less inclined toward helpfulness
endure customer complaints, frustrations and other possible
(Forgas and George, 2001; Forgas et al., 1990; Hertel and
stressors (Grandey et al., 2004). Furthermore, Walker et al.
Fiedler, 1994; Isen, 1987). Moreover, considerable research in
(2017) show that targeted verbal aggressions and interruptions
by the customer are likely to be reciprocated by the employee the areas of retaliation (Skarlicki and Folger, 1997), revenge
through uncivil behavior. This behavior is the result from (Kim et al., 2008), aggression (Greenberg and Barling, 1999)
problem-focused or emotion-focused coping with service- and injustice (Inness et al., 2005) has shown that targets of
interaction-induced stress (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). incivility are likely to respond aggressively.
Emotion-focused coping is aimed at reducing the emotional According to SET, however, FSE reactions to uncivil
distress, and it includes a wide range of responses, such as customer behavior is guided by reciprocity and justice
venting, denial, avoidance and mental or behavioral (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005), which results in a less
disengagement from the stressor. These responses can be emotional and more cognitive response to the uncivil behavior.
classified into “fight” – venting – or “flight” – denial, avoidance In the context of customer and employee deviance, research has
and disengagement – responses. For FSE, “flight” or avoidance acknowledged that both emotional and cognitive responses are
of the situation is oftentimes not possible, which makes a two plausible explanations as to why individuals act in an
“fight” response more likely to occur (Yagil, 2018). uncivil manner (Fisk et al., 2010), and we propose that similar
Ultimately, uncivil customer behavior can result in processes, either an emotionally driven or a cognitively driven
unproductive employee behavior, which can result in the one, can explain employee retaliation in response to uncivil
destruction, rather than the creation, of value. Value customer behavior.
941
2.2.1 Uncivil customer behavior and perceived ego threat price-on-politeness-for-customers-that-is). Although this
Affective events can trigger various emotions and regulation treatment was made a company policy, it reflects the inputs (the
strategies in service employees depending on negativity or politeness of the request) and the expected outputs (the price of
positivity of the event (Grandey et al., 2004). In the case of coffee) that are deemed equitable in customer–FSE
uncivil customer behavior, this event can trigger negative interactions.
emotions. Specifically, we propose that such negative customer We therefore hypothesize the following:
interactions can induce a threat to a FSE’s ego. Ego threat
refers to a threat to a person’s self-esteem or public image or to H3. Perceived interactional injustice mediates the
decreased control over negative events (Leary et al., 2009) relationship between uncivil customer behavior and
which can include others ridiculing the person or commenting lower service levels.
on their inadequacy. A customer being rude to an FSE can
create an ego threat because it can signal that the employee is
performing inadequately, and this signal can constitute a direct 3. Research methodology
challenge to FSE’s competency and self-esteem. 3.1 Study 1
When encountering incivility, FSEs may reciprocate uncivil Study 1 tests H1 and the basic assumption of a direct effect of
behavior to restore a degraded sense of self-worth and to customer incivility on service levels through a field study. For
reinstate a favorable identity (Andersson and Pearson, 1999). the field study, we trained confederates to make ice cream
Therefore, FSEs can perceive customer incivility as a challenge purchases at 19 different ice cream shops in Germany for a total
to their desired identity and can result in coercive or vindictive of 221 unique service interactions with different FSEs at these
behavior toward the customer (Tedeschi and Felson, 1994). shops. Ice cream shops were chosen to test the first hypothesis
Thus, perceived ego threat may act as the underlying for several reasons. First, interactions in this setting are guided
mechanism for FSE retaliation to customer incivility. by norms; employees should generally expect customers to
Therefore, we propose the following: exhibit civil behavior. Therefore, uncivil behavior would
H1. Employees are more likely to offer lower service levels to constitute a norm violation that could motivate the FSE to
uncivil customers than to neutral or polite customers. reciprocate the uncivil behavior. Second, FSEs can offer lower
service levels by underserving customers and giving out less
H2. Perceived ego threat mediates the relationship between generous scoops of ice cream. Therefore, in this case,
uncivil customer behavior and lower service levels. measuring the amount of ice cream received would provide an
objective measure of retaliation. This approach was used given
2.2.2 Uncivil customer behavior and perceived interactional that an explicit measure of retaliation, such as asking a survey
injustice question, would likely be impacted by response biases.
However, AET also suggests that evaluative judgments impact Each confederate–FSE interaction involved either an uncivil,
how individuals respond to an event. According to SET, a neutral or polite customer interaction. The three-level research
norm violation such as uncivil customer behavior can influence design followed ethical codes guiding research in Germany,
judgments of fairness and justice, which, in turn, can result in and we ensured that each FSE encountered a limited number
retaliatory behavior (Skarlicki et al., 2008). Thus, employee of uncivil interactions. As ice cream vending interactions are
retaliation is a reciprocal behavior to maintain equity and typically very short in duration, the display of uncivil customer
justice in the interaction (Gilliam and Rayburn, 2016; Skarlicki behavior can only be transferred by a lack of “please” and
et al., 2008). Justice perceptions have been predominantly “thank you,” a comment about waiting in line too long or
studied in service recovery because these perceptions take on a through facial expression (Appendix 1). Thus, uncivil
key role in determining customer satisfaction with recovery encounters in an ice cream vending setting are likely to only
efforts (Blodgett et al., 1997). Interactional justice can be have a mild effect, if any, on FSE’s overall well-being or
particularly relevant in this context as well. Interactional justice commitment.
refers to “the manner in which people are treated during the Each FSE was debriefed after the transaction and was given
[. . .] process; for example, with courtesy and respect, or rudely” the opportunity to opt out of the study. All FSEs consented,
(Blodgett et al., 1997, p. 189). Therefore, if FSEs are the and their interactions were included in the data set.
targets of customer incivility, they may perceive injustice in the
interaction. 3.1.1 Procedure
Ultimately, FSEs may restore equity in the interaction by A total of 14 university students from a German university
reciprocating uncivil behavior and offering lower service levels. served as confederates in the field study. Study recruitment was
The most common way of releasing negative affect and carried out as part of an elective course in a graduate program
restoring fairness is to reciprocate with further unfairness for business students, and students were given an opportunity
(Rupp and Spencer, 2006). A recent example of establishing to drop out of the study. The confederates received actor
equity in uncivil customer–employee interactions from a coffee training and self-selected into the roles of polite, neutral or
shop went viral. A coffee shop priced a cup of coffee based on uncivil customers. It is important to note that we encouraged
how the customer ordered: “One small coffee” was priced at confederates to only assume behavioral roles that they were
$5, “One small coffee, please” was priced at $3 and “Hello, I’d comfortable with. As a result, several confederates selected
like one small a coffee, please” was priced at $1.75 (www. polite or neutral roles only, which was noted and implemented
theblaze.com/news/2016/07/14/a-coffee-shop-that-puts-a- accordingly during the field study. However, the majority of
942
confederates were comfortable cycling through all three To control for spurious effects, we tested for gender effects but
behavioral roles. did not find significant differences in the net weight of ice
In the training sessions, we gave the confederates instructions cream (Eta2 = 0.03, p = 0.42), indicating that neither males nor
on how to behave as uncivil, neutral or polite customers, and females received systematically bigger portions of ice cream.
we tested their behavior to ensure role consistency We also tested for the individual student actor bias (Eta2 =
(Appendix 1). Given the short nature of the transaction, 0.05, p = 0.61), but there were no systematic differences in the
displays of civility were limited to facial expressions, brief amount of ice cream a confederate received. We also tested the
comments about the service encounter and politeness: i.e. dyads for sex-related effects, i.e. if opposite-sex customers
using “please” and “thank you.” Confederates then would receive more ice cream than same-sex customers, but no
participated in the ice cream purchases. significant effects were found. Finally, we tested for differences
To measure employee retaliation, we used the weight of the among the ice-cream shops and found a significant difference
ice cream served to each confederate. Measuring employee (Eta2 = 0.63, p < 0.01). However, these differences are most
reciprocity objectively, i.e. with a manifest weight variable and likely because of the different models of scooping spoons, cup
in a disguised experimental setting, has the advantage of ruling sizes and corporate philosophies; yet, these differences do not
out social desirability biases. Furthermore, prices per scoop are compromise the validity of our findings on customer behavior.
fully transparent such that no obscure charge could be added as These results support the argument that FSE are more likely to
a means of retaliation. To make the weight variable offer lower service levels to customers that treat them in an
comparable, we allowed only for two flavors – vanilla or uncivil manner, which supports H1.
chocolate – and controlled for their corresponding densities.
Each confederate ordered two scoops of ice cream during each 3.1.3 Discussion
interaction, and the weight varied between 3.60 and 6.28 In Study 1, we tested the basic relationship between customer
ounces. We identified 19 ice cream shops that fulfilled our incivility and employee service level outcomes. With ice cream
prerequisites: full price and service transparences, standardized weight as a proxy variable for service levels, we tested the
spoons for scooping and multiple customer service employees. differences in ice cream weight between polite, neutral and
In total, data consisted of 221 service interactions across 19 ice uncivil customer behavior in a field-experiment across 221
cream shops. Of the interactions, 55 involved polite distinct service interactions staged by 14 different confederates.
confederate customers, 92 involved neutral confederate The effect of customer behavior was significant and provides
customers and 74 involved uncivil confederate customers. initial support for employees matching service levels with
behavior received from customers. One limitation of the field
3.1.2 Results
study is that we are unable to examine the process through
We performed an analysis of covariance of the ice cream which this differential treatment occurs. Therefore, the
portions related to the three manipulated customer behavior
objective of Study 2 is to replicate Study 1 using a laboratory
conditions to test the robustness and causality of the customer
setting and testing for mediated and moderated effects to shed
incivility–employee retaliation relationship. We found a
light on the reasons and conditions under which this effect
significant effect of customer behavior on portion size (Eta2 =
occurs. This allows us to test both H1 and H2 in a controlled
0.032, p < 0.05, Figure 1). The mean portion sizes confirmed
setting.
H1, which stated that employees reciprocate uncivil behavior.
In other words, confederates displaying polite behavior
3.2 Study 2
received the biggest portions (mean = 5.57 oz; standard
The objective of this laboratory experiment is to replicate the
deviation [SD] = 1.03), and confederates displaying uncivil
field experiment’s finding that customers who behave in an
behavior received the smallest portions (mean = 5.13 oz; SD =
uncivil manner receive lower service levels than customers who
0.97, p < 0.05). Confederates displaying neutral behavior
behave in a neutral or polite manner. Moreover, we seek to
(mean = 5.46 oz; SD = 1.01) yielded portions similar to the
polite customers (mean = 5.57 oz; SD = 1.03, p > 0.10) and address ego threat and interactional injustice as processes that
greater than those the uncivil group received (p < 0.05). explain the differences in employee reactions. We also use a
different service context: airline travel. We chose this context to
not only increase the generalizability of our results but also
Figure 1 Study 1 results: amount of ice cream served is influenced by because air travel is a familiar setting in which FSE–customer
customer behavior interactions play an important role in value creation (Babbar
6 and Koufteros, 2008). Furthermore, this setting allowed us to
use an indirect measure of retaliation because any direct
5.5 measure could be impacted by response bias.
5 3.2.1 Participants
Ounces
5.57 5.46 5.13 A total of 90 English-speaking respondents (53% female,

4.5 median age = 31 years) participated in this study on Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk in exchange for monetary compensation.
4
Respondents were randomly assigned to either an uncivil,
3.5 neutral or polite customer-employee interaction. Therefore,
Polite Neutral Uncivil this study used a three-condition (customer behavior: uncivil,
Customer Behavior neutral and polite), between-subjects design.
943
3.2.2 Procedure assigned to the customer as reflected in the rating of the seat
Respondents were asked to put themselves in the shoes of an ( b = 0.32, S.E. = 0.11, p < 0.01). The direct effect of the
airline check-in clerk and to respond to a scenario involving an polite condition on the dependent variable was insignificant
interaction with an airline customer. They were told that they (p > 0.10), indicating that ego threat fully mediated the
were approached by the customer about changing seats. We customer behavior–seat rating relationship (effect = 0.60,
manipulated uncivil, neutral or polite behavior by adjusting the bootstrapped S.E. = 0.25, bootstrapped 95% confidence
tone the customer used when approaching the airline employee interval (CI) [0.17, 0.1.17])[1], supporting H2.
(Appendix 2). Respondents were then shown a seating chart of We further find that polite treatment by the customer
the plane and asked to make a decision about the customer’s reduces perceptions of interactional injustice ( b = 3.02,
seat assignment. Respondents had the option to leave the seat S.E. = 0.25, p < 0.01) but interactional justice does not impact
as is, upgrade the customer to economy plus or business class – the quality of the assigned seat ( b = 0.08, S.E. = 0.11, p >
both with an additional upcharge, or offer the customer a better 0.10). The bootstrapped indirect effect of customer treatment
economy seat on a flight leaving 4 h later. After indicating of the employee through interactional justice is not significant
which option they would present to the customer, respondents (effect = 0.23, bootstrapped S.E. = 0.47, bootstrapped 95%
completed a manipulation check regarding the perceived CI[ 1.15, 0.69]). Therefore, interactional justice does not
behavior of the respondent (seven-point scale, anchors “Very mediate between rude or polite employee treatment and
friendly – Very unfriendly” and “Polite – Rude,” r = 0.92) and retaliatory behavior. We therefore reject H3. The mediation
additional questions about the customer interaction, including model is depicted in Figure 2.
ego threat (a = 0.90) and interactional injustice scales (a =
3.2.4 Discussion
0.95) (Appendix 3). In line with Skarlicki et al. (2008), we
The findings from Study 2 provide further support that FSE
developed and added a measure of interactional injustice
retaliation in the form of lower service levels is dependent on
relevant to our research context. The ad hoc ego threat measure
how customers treat the employee – uncivilly as compared to
taps into the feelings of being devalued and having strong
politely – replicating the findings from Study 1. Moreover, this
negative emotions regarding the uncivil behavior as these
study addressed the process through which this behavior
negative emotions are strongly related to ego threat (Stucke and
occurs. We tested two plausible processes, perceived ego threat
Sporer, 2002).
and perceived interactional injustice. The findings show that
Respondents then rated each of the options they had
ego threat is a more compelling process in this context, and we
available for the customer’s new seating assignment, including
find full mediation of customer behavior on FSE retaliation
the one they decided to assign (1 = “Very Bad” to 5 = “Very
through this construct. Interactional justice, however, did not
Good”). We used the rating for chosen option as our
mediate the effect.
dependent variable because it reflects the service level the
The question remains whether all employees are likely to
customer would receive. As we focus on a context where we
experience ego threat because of uncivil customer behavior.
examine whether the participant would retaliate against the
Not all employees targeted by customer incivility are likely to
customer by offering a lower service level, we used this indirect
engage in an emotional-dysfunctional coping behavior,
measure of retaliation to reduce the likelihood of response bias
manifesting as retaliatory service behavior. Alternatively,
when using a direct measure.
employees could engage in more functional emotion-focused
3.2.3 Results coping behavior, such as ignoring uncivil behavior, giving the
The manipulation check indicated that our manipulation of customer “the benefit of the doubt” or deeming the rude
uncivil behavior was successful [F(2,87) = 103.94, p < 0.01]. customer unworthy of further attention (Bies and Tripp,
Respondents in the uncivil condition perceived the behavior of 1995). Importantly, research shows that some individuals are
the customer to be more rude and uncivil (Muncivil = 6.24, SD = better at managing emotions, including negative ones, than
1.33) than in the neutral (Mneutral = 2.48, SD = 1.36) and in the others (Grandey, 2000; Grandey et al., 2005; Totterdell and
polite condition (Mpolite = 1.93, SD = 1.02, both differences Holman, 2003), which typically is related to the degree of EI.
significant at p < 0.01). As there was no difference between the EI is “the ability to acquire and apply knowledge from one’s
polite and neutral conditions (p = 0.20), we assessed whether emotions and those of others to produce beneficial outcomes”
these conditions predicted ego threat or interactional justice (Kidwell et al., 2011, p. 78). This construct has been studied
differently before combining these levels of the behavior extensively in the organizational behavior literature (Joseph and
condition. We did not find that these conditions differ in how Newman, 2010; O’Boyle et al., 2011; Mayer et al., 2000). This
they predict ego threat ( b = 0.04, standard error (S.E.) = research proposes that EI is a skill that can be trained rather
0.28, p = 0.87) or interactional justice ( b = 0.06, S.E. = 0.29, than a stable trait making it extremely powerful during service
p = 0.84), and we therefore combined the neutral and polite encounters where it can enhance customer relationships and
levels into a single level, which we refer to as the polite level. performance as it can increase deliberation, adaptation and
We analyzed the data using Hayes PROCESS macro for even rapport (McFarland et al., 2016; Delcourt et al., 2013).
SPSS using Model 4 for mediation analysis using seat option Given the benefits of EI during interactions as mentioned
rating as the dependent variable and ego threat and above, we suggest that EI allows employees to use their
interactional justice as mediating variables. We found that the knowledge of their own and others’ emotions, it should also be
polite level relative to the uncivil condition reduced perceived beneficial when facing uncivil customer behavior. While prior
ego threat of the employee ( b = 1.91, S.E. = 0.27, p < 0.01) research has shown that some individuals are unable to self-
and that ego threat, in turn, reduced the quality of the seat regulate after an ego threat (Baumeister et al., 1993; Lambird
944
Figure 2 Study 2: ego threat mediates between customer behavior and seat rating
and Mann, 2006), we propose that EI allows for this self- manipulation of the customer–employee interaction. Similar to
regulation process to occur: the airline study, we asked respondents to imagine working at
the front desk of a hotel during a four-day conference. In this
H4. EI will attenuate the relationship between perceived scenario, they were approached by a customer, and the
customer incivility and offered service level. Specifically,
customer requested a different room. The customer had an
EI will reduce the impact of ego threat on offered service
economy-priced room and wanted a room with a view of the
level, such that this relationship is weaker for more
bay instead of the current assigned room; the current room’s
emotionally intelligent individuals.
view was blocked by a neighboring hotel. The tone of the
request was manipulated to be uncivil, neutral or polite, similar
3.3 Study 3 to Study 2 (Appendix 2).
The objective of Study 3 is to test H4 and expand on the After reading about the customer interaction, respondents
findings from Studies 1 and 2. In this study, we use the hotel completed a manipulation check regarding the perceived
industry as a service setting where FSE–customer interactions behavior of the respondent. Then, respondents chose what they
are important in influencing the customer experience (Kim and would offer the customer: leave the room as is, upgrade to an
Cha, 2002). Additionally, FSE have a significant impact on economy plus room with a view (costing $50 more a night),
perceived service quality and value (Hartline and Jones, 1996). upgrade to a junior suite (costing $100 more a night) or asking
Similar to Study 2, using this context allows us to use an the customer to wait a few hours to see whether one of the other
indirect measure of employee retaliation in the form of lower economy rooms with a partial bay view would open up. After
service quality offered. making this choice, respondents completed questions about the
interaction with the customer, the ego threat scale (a = 0.89)
3.3.1 Participants
and their rating for each of the different room options on a
A total of 115 English-speaking respondents (80% female,
seven-point scale (1 = Very Bad to 7 = Very Good). Similar to
median age = 47 years) participated in this study using an
our procedure in Study 2, we used this subjective rating of the
online panel in exchange for monetary compensation.
option offered to the customer as our measure of employee
Respondents were randomly assigned to an uncivil, a neutral or
retaliation.
polite customer–employee interaction level within the customer
behavior condition. Therefore, this study used a three- 3.3.3 Results
condition (customer behavior: uncivil, neutral and polite) The manipulation check indicated that our manipulation of
measured (EI) between-subjects design. uncivil behavior was successful [F(2,112) = 47.00, p < 0.01].
3.3.2 Procedure Respondents in the uncivil condition perceive the behavior of
The respondents were directed to a first unrelated task that the customer to be more rude and unfriendly (Muncivil = 5.15,
asked them to answer several questions about themselves. This SD = 2.20) than in the neutral (Mneutral = 2.03, SD = 1.55) and
section included the EI scale (Law et al., 2004), which includes in the polite condition (Mpolite = 1.82, SD = 1.17, both
subscales on self-emotion appraisal (a = 0.91), others’ emotion differences were significant at p < 0.01). Respondents
appraisal (a = 0.90), use of emotion (a = 0.87) and regulation perceived the neutral and polite condition as similar in terms of
of emotion (ROE) (a = 0.91) (Appendix 3). EI was measured friendliness (p > 0.10). As in Study 2, these conditions did not
before manipulating customer behavior to ensure that EI was differ in how they predict ego threat ( b = 0.16, S.E. = 0.37,
not impacted by the manipulation. After this section, the p > 0.10). Therefore, we collapsed these two levels into a single
respondents were directed to a second task, which included our polite condition, which we will refer to as the polite level.
945
We tested for mediated moderation using Hayes PROCESS 4. General discussion

macro for model 14 with room rating as the dependent variable,
FSE–customer interactions play a central role in creating
customer behavior as the independent variable, ego threat as
service experiences and value, and the objective of the research
the mediator and EI as moderator of the ego threat and room
was to explore why FSEs offer lower service quality to
rating relationship. The results indicated that mediation [F(1,
customers as a response to uncivil behavior and when service
113) = 25.90, p < 0.01] and the main effect were statistically value can be destroyed rather than created. Across three
significant [F(4,110) = 4.81, p < 0.01]. In the ego threat studies, we find that FSEs are likely to reciprocate uncivil
model, we find that, as expected, the polite condition is behavior by lowering the quality of the service offered, whether
associated with lower perceived ego threat than the uncivil it is less ice cream (Study 1), a lower-rated airline seat (Study 2)
condition ( b = 1.59, S.E. = 0.31, p < 0.01), indicating or lower-rated hotel room (Study 3). All these behaviors can be
support for H2. In the room rating model, we found further considered retaliatory behavior that ultimately results in the
evidence that EI moderates the relationship between ego threat destruction of service value for the customer, even if he or she
and room rating ( b = 0.07, S.E. = 0.04, p = 0.08). Therefore, may not be aware of it.
we find marginal support that EI buffers the negative effect of Study 1 finds evidence of retaliatory behavior in response to
ego threat, providing support for H4. uncivil customer behavior in a field setting. We then examine the
To investigate the marginal interaction between EI and ego possibility of two mediating processes based on AET and SET –
threat more closely, we split up the EI measure into its four perceived ego threat and perceived interactional injustice. Study
subscales and ran analyses which each of the 2 finds support for ego threat as the predominant process. Study
dimensions separately to test which dimensions are driving the 3 then examines a condition under which this process impacts
marginally significant interaction. Only the dimension ROE retaliatory behavior and when it does not. This process is present
was significant [F(4,110) = 5.66, p < 0.01], and this dimension and impacts retaliation for FSEs that score low on the ROE
had a significant interaction with ego threat ( b = 0.07, S.E. = dimension of the EI construct. That is, FSEs that are average or
0.02, p < 0.01). high on ROE are able to provide consistent service quality level
The indirect effect of polite customer behavior on the regardless of customer behavior.
dependent variable is significant when ROE is below 1 S.D.
from the mean (effect = 0.21, bootstrapped S.E. = 0.12, 4.1 Theoretical implications
bootstrapped 95% CI[0.01, 0.48]). When ROE is low ( 1 S. This research makes several contributions to prior literature.
D. below the mean), the slope of ego threat is negative ( b = First, this research contributes to the emerging literature on
0.14, S.E. = 0.06, p < 0.05) but it is not significant for customer incivility and employee reactions (Henkel et al., 2017;
average or high levels of ROE (both p > 0.10). This finding Jerger and Wirtz, 2017). In addition, this research thus responds
supports the hypothesis that EI, particularly the emotional to the call for increased research on FSEs, particularly on
regulation in oneself, buffers the effect of ego threat on situations evoking occupational stress (Subramony et al., 2017).
retaliatory behavior, but not for individuals who score low on While other studies have predominantly focused on adverse
emotional regulation, which supports H3. employee outcomes such as burnout and exhaustion (van
Jaarsveld et al., 2010; Sliter et al., 2010), we address reciprocal
3.3.4 Additional analyses uncivil employee behavior in the form of lower service levels.
We further address the question whether EI also moderates the This type of retaliatory behavior is particularly important
customer behavior – ego threat relationship (i.e. the first part of from the perspective of service value co-destruction as
the mediated effect). To test this relationship, we run Model 58 constitutes a misuse of resources involving the FSE’s behavior
of the Hayes PROCESS macro. The results from the model (Plé and Cáceres, 2010). Thus, we show process evidence of
with ego threat as the dependent variable [F(3,111) = 11.74, how the destruction of value in services occurs because of
p < 0.01] revealed that neither the main effect of EI (p = 0.91) uncivil customer behavior, which can be conceived as resource
nor the interaction with polite behavior (p = 0.75) is significant. misuse in the context of service value creation by itself. Our
This finding is replicated for all EI subscales. Consequently, EI, research implies that retaliatory behavior is an emotionally
specifically the ROE, acts as a buffer of whether employees triggered response to the uncivil customer behavior. Uncivil
respond to ego threatening behavior with retaliatory behavior, behavior constitutes a threat to the employee’s ego and is
but it does not impact the extent to which employees are reciprocated by offering lower service levels to the customer.
experiencing ego threat in the first place. We contend that customer incivility, as investigated in this
current study, could induce a loss of face or sense of shame,
3.3.5 Discussion given that the face-to-face customer–FSE interaction likely
This study replicates the finding from Study 2 that perceived occurs in public where the FSE is often surrounded by co-
ego threat mediates the relationship between customer workers or other customers.
incivility and employee retaliation and further extends them to In contrast, interactional injustice did not mediate the effect of
a different service context. Moreover, this study shows that the uncivil customer behavior on the service levels. This finding is
impact of perceived ego threat on retaliation is weaker for interesting in the light of the service recovery literature, which
employees that can regulate their emotions. Therefore, not all finds strong support that justice perceptions influence how
employees are engaging in counterproductive behaviors toward customers respond to recovery efforts after service failures
customers even when faced with rude behavior. We discuss the (Blodgett et al., 1997). FSEs appear to not be influenced by the
theoretical and practical implications of our results next. inputs and outputs, and thus possible inequity, in the customer–
946
employee relationship. An explanation for this emotional behavior the chance to save face, for example, through issuing
response to customer incivility could be that uncivil behavior may polite reprimands, thus alleviating the ego threat.
be perceived as an open challenge of the employee’s competency Also, emotional regulation can be trained (Hülsheger et al.,
and a strong norm violation, especially if the employee did 2015) and companies can develop interventions, such as those
nothing to warrant the uncivil behavior. Furthermore, customers fostering deep acting which, in contrast to surface acting, are
are interacting with a company to acquire a product or service, geared toward modifying one’s inner feelings (Grandey, 2003).
thus, the inputs and outputs into the relationship are front and Thus, it is important that managers find a productive way for
center. While FSEs compensation may be influenced by their FSEs to experience their negative emotions rather than hiding
interactions with the customer (i.e. through tips), it is often one them. Hiding negative emotions can result in adverse
interaction of many and the injustice from a single interaction consequences, such as emotional exhaustion and deviant
may not be as important. behaviors (Gaucher and Chebat, 2019), which are similar to
Finally, our research highlights the need to disaggregate the the ones employees experience as a result of uncivil behavior in
EI construct into its dimensions. Although self-emotion the first place.
appraisal, others’ emotion appraisal and use of emotion did not
buffer the ego threat–service quality level relationship, ROE 4.3 Limitations and future research
did. Using an aggregate measure of EI would have masked this While this study sheds novel insight into employee retaliatory
effect of ROE. Specifically, in contexts where incivility occurs, behavior after customer incivility, it is not without limitations.
the regulatory system plays an important role to deal with In all studies, we focused on uncivil customer behavior that was
threats (Baumeister et al., 1993). Interestingly, others’ emotion not triggered by the employee itself. Therefore, employees were
appraisal did not impact the ego threat–service quality level confronted with seemingly unwarranted rude behavior. Given
relationship. Thus, emotional contagion is unlikely to play a that blame and empathy have been shown to play a role in
role in this context and does not exacerbate the impact of negative service interactions (Bedi and Schat, 2017), it is
uncivil customer behavior. possible that different processes and moderators exist in
contexts where customer incivility is more legitimate and
4.2 Managerial implications warranted (e.g. after a service failure). Although only ROE
From a managerial perspective, this research is highly relevant buffered the negative impact of uncivil behavior on service
because FSEs retaliatory behavior can be deemed quality level, it is plausible that perspective-taking and other
counterproductive work behavior as it contributes to the dimensions of EI play a role in such a context.
destruction, rather than the creation, of value (Penney and In the two online experiments, we did not observe differences
Spector, 2005). By identifying the underlying process behind between polite and neutral behavior, and we thus collapsed
this behavior and the conditions under which FSEs are able to these two conditions. A possible explanation is that in this
still provide a high service quality, our research can help context, FSEs are highly sensitive to negative but not positive
managers limit the extent of reciprocal, uncivil FSE behavior. norm violations. It is possible that there are contexts in which
Limiting this type of behavior is important as incivility can customers are strategically engaging in highly positive
perpetuate and possibly start an incivility spiral (Andersson and interactions to obtain better service levels. Thus, customers
Pearson, 1999). Furthermore, identifying other means for the themselves may engage in a persuasion attempt and create a
employee to cope more productively with customer incivility condition with a positive norm violation. Prior research has
may ward off the negative consequences of this behavior, such shown that individuals can use non-coercive and coercive
as the negative impact on work and health outcomes (van pressure strategies to achieve their objective (Payan and
Jaarsveld et al., 2010; Sliter et al., 2010). McFarland, 2005). While persuasion knowledge has been
As ego threat is the predominant process through which primarily applied in contexts where customers are subjected to
uncivil employee behavior occurs in customer interactions, sales tactics, the persuasion knowledge model (Friestad and
managers may want to consider other ways in which employees Wright, 1994) may also extend to employees dealing with
are able to rebuild their self-esteem and ego. For example, uncivil customers. Recognizing very civil or uncivil behaviors as
research has shown that employees may turn to prosocial a persuasion attempt could possibly result in more constructive
behavior to cope with mistreatment in the workplace (Yue employee behavior toward the customer.
et al., 2017). Providing opportunities to help co-workers and Furthermore, this present research focuses on a single type of
other customers may fulfill the need of the FSE to thwart the retaliatory behavior – the lowering of service level offered to the
ego threat. Managers could, for instance, create employee- customer. However, prior research has shown that employees
directed corporate social responsibility programs, such as may also retaliate through other means related to the overall
volunteering or employee matching opportunities. customer experience, such as putting a customer on hold for a
Further, managers may want to train FSEs in such a way that long time (Skarlicki et al., 2008). It is also possible that FSEs
they look for sources of social support during such episodes. retaliate “in-kind” by being uncivil to the customer, thus
For example, Henkel et al. (2017) suggest that employees could increasing the probability of an incivility spiral (Andersson and
recognize customers as a potential source of alleviation. Pearson, 1999). Additional research can thus investigate
Research has shown that other customers can be sympathetic to further types of retaliatory behaviors beyond the ones studied in
a FSE that is confronted by a rude customer, albeit their this research.
sympathy depends on how the employee responds (Henkel Along these lines, we examine types of retaliatory behavior that
et al., 2017; Hershcovis and Bhatnagar, 2017). Ultimately, may not be easily observed by customers. Thus, it gives
managers should give employees subject to uncivil customer employees an opportunity to cope with uncivil customer
947
behavior?show $146#?> while possibly evading negative behavior research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 28 No. 3,
consequences triggered by their behavior such as poor pp. 307-338.
performance evaluations or negative word of mouth from this Babbar, S. and Koufteros, X. (2008), “The human element in
customer. However, employees may feel different pressures to airline service quality: contact personnel and the customer”,
refrain from retaliation when there is a greater likelihood that International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
their behavior is caught by the customer, or when subsequent Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 804-830.
negative consequences have a strong impact on their Barnes, D.C., Ponder, N. and Hopkins, C.D. (2015), “The
employment. Future research can therefore examine contexts impact of perceived customer delight on the frontline
where such customer evaluations are integral to the employee’s employee”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 2,
own performance evaluations. pp. 433-441.
There are several additional avenues for future research. In Baseel, C. (2018), “Tokyo restaurant that charges rude
this present research, we did not explicitly manipulate the customers more sees dramatic increase in number of rude
presence of other customers or employees. Given that ego orders”, available at: https://soranews24.com/2018/08/24/
threat is the process emerging in our studies, it is plausible that tokyo-restaurant-that-charges-rude-customers-more-sees-
this process is exacerbated when other individuals – whether it dramatic-increase-in-number-of-rude-orders/ (accessed 4
be customers or other employees – observe the uncivil customer May 2020).
behavior toward the FSE. In contrast, contexts in which no one Baumeister, R.F., Heatherton, T.F. and Tice, D.M. (1993),
else is present may reduce ego threat. “When ego threats lead to self-regulation failure: negative
For example, future studies can investigate the impact of consequences of high self-esteem”, Journal of Personality and
explicit cues for polite customer behavior, such as “How to” Social Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 1, p. 141.
guides and price discounts for polite behavior. Explicit service Bedi, A. and Schat, A.C. (2017), “Employee revenge against
rules could possibly mitigate uncivil customer behavior and uncivil customers”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 31
increase perceived competence of FSEs if enforced (Habel et al., No. 6, pp. 636-649.
2017). However, a Japanese restaurant that charged customers Bies, R.J. and Tripp, T.M. (1995), “The use and abuse of
based on their rudeness experienced an increase in such behavior power: justice as social control”, in Cropanzano, R. and
rather than seeing customers comply with polite ordering Kacmar, K.M. (Eds), Organizational Politics, Justice, and
practices and receiving a price discount (Baseel, 2018). Support: Managing Social Climate at Work, Quorum Books,
Moreover, research can examine the interlink between (de) Westport, CT, pp. 131-145.
humanization of FSE and uncivil customer behavior. Prior Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H. and Mohr, L.A. (1994), “Critical
research has shown that dehumanizing FSE results in more service encounters: the employee’s viewpoint”, Journal of
aggressive behavior of customers toward the FSE (Henkel et al., Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 95-106.
2018). Conversely, FSEs that feel that they are being Blodgett, J.G., Hill, D.J. and Tax, S.S. (1997), “The effects of
dehumanized, either by the company in general or by the distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on
customer in this situation, may retaliate more freely as this may postcomplaint behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 2,
lower their ability or willingness to self-regulate. On the other pp. 185-210.
hand, humanizing FSE, and possibly customers as well, Brief, A.P. and Weiss, H.M. (2002), “Organizational behavior:
especially in contexts such as fast food where relationships are affect in the workplace”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 53
primarily transactional, may reduce uncivil behavior. No. 1, pp. 279-307.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange
theory: an interdisciplinary review”, Journal of Management,
Note Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Delcourt, C., Gremler, D.D., Van Riel, A.C.R. and Van
1 Please note that because of coding the uncivil condition as
Birgelen, M. (2013), “Effects of perceived employee
“0” and the polite condition as “1,” the effect appears as
emotional competence on customer satisfaction and loyalty:
positive. It reflects that polite customer behavior has a
the mediating role of rapport”, Journal of Service
positive impact on seat rating by reducing perceived ego
Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 5-24.
threat, relative to the uncivil condition.
Elmadag, A.B., Ellinger, A.E. and Franke, G.R. (2008),
“Antecedents and consequences of frontline service
employee commitment to service quality”, Journal of
References
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 95-110.
Allen, A.M., Brady, M.K., Robinson, S.G. and Voorhees, Fisk, R., Grove, S., Harris, L.C., Keeffe, D.A., Daunt, K.L.,
C.M. (2015), “One firm’s loss is another’s gain: capitalizing Russell-Bennett, R. and Wirtz, J. (2010), “Customers
on other firms’ service failures”, Journal of the Academy of behaving badly: a state of the art review, research agenda and
Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 648-662. implications for practitioners”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Andersson, L.M. and Pearson, C.M. (1999), “Tit for tat? The Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 417-429.
spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace”, Academy of Forgas, J.P. and George, J.M. (2001), “Affective influences on
Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 452-471. judgments and behavior in organizations: an information
Ashkanasy, N.M., Härtel, C.E.J. and Daus, C.S. (2002), processing perspective”, Organizational Behavior and Human
“Diversity and emotion: the new frontiers in organizational Decision Processes, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 3-34.
948
Forgas, J.P., Bower, G.H. and Moylan, S.J. (1990), “Praise or Harris, L.C. and Ogbonna, E. (2002), “Exploring service
blame? Affective influences on attributions for achievement”, sabotage: the antecedents, types and consequences of
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 4, frontline, deviant, antiservice behaviors”, Journal of Service
pp. 809-819. Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 163-183.
Frey, R.-V., Bayon, T. and Totzek, D. (2013), “How customer Hartline, M.D. and Jones, K.C. (1996), “Employee
satisfaction affects employee satisfaction and retention in a performance cues in a hotel service environment: influence
professional services context”, Journal of Service Research, on perceived service quality, value, and word-of-mouth
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 503-517. intentions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 35 No. 3,
Friestad, M. and Wright, P. (1994), “The persuasion pp. 207-215.
knowledge model: how people cope with persuasion Hartline, M.D., Maxham, J.G., III. and McKee, D.O. (2000),
attempts”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, “Corridors of influence in the dissemination of customer-
pp. 1-31. oriented strategy to customer contact service employees”,
Gaucher, B. and Chebat, J.C. (2019), “How uncivil customers Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 35-50.
corrode the relationship between frontline employees and Henkel, A.P., Boegershausen, J., Rafaeli, A. and Lemmink, J.
retailers”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 46, (2017), “The social dimension of service interactions:
pp. 1-10. observer reactions to customer incivility”, Journal of Service
Gilliam, D.A. and Rayburn, S.W. (2016), “Propensity for Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 120-134.
reciprocity among frontline employees”, Journal of Services Henkel, A.P., Boegershausen, J., Hoegg, J., Aquino, K. and
Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 290-301. Lemmink, J. (2018), “Discounting humanity: when
Goussinsky, R. (2012), “Coping with customer aggression”, consumers are price conscious, employees appear less
Journal of Service Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 170-196. human”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 2,
Grandey, A.A. (2000), “Emotional regulation in the pp. 272-292.
workplace: a new way to conceptualize emotional labor”, Hennig-Thurau, T., Groth, M., Paul, M. and Gremler, D.D.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 1, (2006), “Are all smiles created equal? How emotional
pp. 95-110. contagion and emotional labor affect service relationships”,
Grandey, A.A. (2003), “When ‘the show must go on’: surface Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 58-73.
acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional Hershcovis, M.S. and Bhatnagar, N. (2017), “When fellow
exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery”, Academy of customers behave badly: witness reactions to employee
Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 86-96. mistreatment by customers”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Grandey, A.A., Dickter, D.N. and Sin, H.P. (2004), “The Vol. 102 No. 11, pp. 1528-1544.
customer is not always right: customer aggression and Hertel, G. and Fiedler, K. (1994), “Affective and cognitive
emotion regulation of service employees”, Journal of influences in social dilemma game”, European Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 397-418. Social Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 131-145.
Grandey, A.A., Fisk, G.M. and Steiner, D.D. (2005), “Must Heskett, J.L., Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser, W.E. and
‘service with a smile’ be stressful? The moderating role of Schlesinger, L.A. (1994), “Putting the service-profit chain to
personal control for American and French employees”, work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 164-174.
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 5, pp. 893-904. Hess, R.L., Jr, Ganesan, S. and Klein, N.M. (2003), “Service
Greenberg, L. and Barling, J. (1999), “Predicting employee failure and recovery: the impact of relationship factors on
aggression against coworkers, subordinates and supervisors: customer satisfaction”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
the roles of person behaviors and perceived workplace Science, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 127-145.
factors”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 6, Homburg, C., Wieseke, J. and Bornemann, T. (2009),
pp. 897-913. “Implementing the marketing concept at the employee-
Gremler, D.D. and Gwinner, K.P. (2000), “Customer- customer interface: the role of customer need knowledge”,
employee rapport in service relationships”, Journal of Service Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 64-81.
Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 82-104. Hülsheger, U.R., Lang, J.W., Schewe, A.F. and Zijlstra, F.R.
Griffin, R.W., O’Leary-Kelly, A. and Collins, J. (1998), (2015), “When regulating emotions at work pays off: a diary
“Dysfunctional work behaviors in organizations”, Journal of and an intervention study on emotion regulation and
Organizational Behavior, pp. 65-69. customer tips in service jobs”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Grönroos, C. (2011), “Value co-creation in service logic: a Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 263-277.
critical analysis”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 11 No. 3, Hyken, S. (2018), “Businesses lose $75 billion due to poor
pp. 279-301. customer service”, available at: www.forbes.com/sites/
Grove, S.J., Vitell, S.J. and Strutton, D. (1989), “Non- shephyken/2018/05/17/businesses-lose-75-billion-due-to-poor-
normative consumer behavior and the techniques of customer-service/#74b6d49316f9 (accessed 23 January 2019).
neutralization”, in Bagozzi, R. and Peter, J.P. (Eds), Inness, M., Barling, J. and Turner, N. (2005), “Understanding
Proceedings of the 1989 AMA Winter Educators’ Conference, supervisor-targeted aggression: a within-person, between-
American Marketing Association, New York, NY. jobs design”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 4,
Habel, J., Alavi, S. and Pick, D. (2017), “When serving pp. 731-739.
customers includes correcting them: understanding the Isen, A.M. (1987), “Positive affect, cognitive processes, and
ambivalent effects of enforcing service rules”, International social behavior”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 919-941. Vol. 20, pp. 203-253.
949
Jerger, C. and Wirtz, J. (2017), “Service employee responses to Payan, J.M. and McFarland, R.G. (2005), “Decomposing
angry customer complaints: the roles of customer status and influence strategies: argument structure and dependence as
service climate”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, determinants of the effectiveness of influence strategies in
pp. 362-378. gaining channel member compliance”, Journal of Marketing,
Joseph, D.L. and Newman, D.A. (2010), “Emotional intelligence: Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 66-79.
an integrative meta-analysis and cascading model”, Journal of Penney, L.M. and Spector, P.E. (2005), “Job stress, incivility,
Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 54-78. and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): the
Judge, T.A., Scott, B.A. and Ilies, R. (2006), “Hostility, job moderating role of negative affectivity”, Journal of
attitudes, and workplace deviance: test of a multilevel Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 777-796.
model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 1, Plé, L. (2016), “Studying customers’ resource integration by
pp. 126-317. service employees in interactional value co-creation”, Journal
Kamakura, W.A., Mittal, V., De Rosa, F. and Mazzon, J.A. of Services Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 152-164.
(2002), “Assessing the service-profit chain”, Marketing Plé, L. and Cáceres, R.C. (2010), “Not always co-creation:
Science, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 294-317. introducing interactional co-destruction of value in service-
Kidwell, B., Hardesty, D.M., Murtha, B.R. and Sheng, S. dominant logic”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 6,
(2011), “Emotional intelligence in marketing exchanges”, pp. 430-437.
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 78-95. Punjaisri, K., Evanschitzky, H. and Wilson, A. (2009),
Kim, W.G. and Cha, Y. (2002), “Antecedents and consequences “Internal branding: an enabler of employees’ brand-
of relationship quality in hotel industry”, International Journal supporting behaviours”, Journal of Service Management,
of Hospitality Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 321-338. Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 209-226.
Kim, T.Y., Shapiro, D.L., Aquino, K., Lim, V.K.G. and Reynolds, K.L. and Harris, L.C. (2006), “Deviant customer
Bennett, R.J. (2008), “Workplace offense and victims’ behavior: an exploration of frontline employee tactics”,
reactions: the effects of victim-offender (dis) similarity, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 2,
offense-type, and cultural differences”, Journal of pp. 95-111.
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 415-433. Rupp, D.E. and Spencer, S. (2006), “When customers lash out:
Lambird, K.H. and Mann, T. (2006), “When do ego threats
the effects of customer interactional injustice on emotional
lead to self-regulation failure? Negative consequences of
labor and the mediating role of discrete emotions”, Journal of
defensive high self-esteem”, Personality and Social Psychology
Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 971-978.
Bulletin, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 1177-1187.
Shao, R. and Skarlicki, D.P. (2014), “Service employees’
Law, K.S., Wong, C.-S. and Song, L.J. (2004), “The construct
reactions to mistreatment by customers: a comparison
and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its
between North America and East Asia”, Personnel Psychology,
potential utility for management studies”, Journal of Applied
Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 23-59.
Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 483-496.
Skarlicki, D.P. and Folger, R. (1997), “Retaliation in the
Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984), “Coping and
workplace: the roles of distributive, procedural, and
adaptation”, in Gentry, W.D. (Ed.), The Handbook of
interactional justice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82
Behavioral Medicine, Guilford Press, New York, NY,
pp. 282-325. No. 3, pp. 434-443.
Leary, M.R., Terry, M.L., Allen, A.B. and Tate, E.B. (2009), Skarlicki, D.P., Van Jaarsveld, D.D. and Walker, D.D. (2008),
“The concept of ego threat in social and personality “Getting even for customer mistreatment: the role of moral
psychology: is ego threat a viable scientific construct?”, identity in the relationship between customer interpersonal
Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, injustice and employee sabotage”, Journal of Applied
pp. 151-164. Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 6, pp. 1335-1347.
Luo, X. (2009), “Quantifying the long-term impact of negative Sliter, M., Sliter, K. and Jex, S. (2012), “The employee as a
word of mouth on cash flows and stock prices”, Marketing punching bag: the effect of multiple sources of incivility on
Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 148-165. employee withdrawal behavior and sales performance”,
McFarland, R.G., Rode, J.C. and Shervani, T.A. (2016), “A Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 1,
contingency model of emotional intelligence in professional pp. 121-139.
selling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 44 Sliter, M., Jex, S., Wolford, K. and McInnerney, J. (2010),
No. 1, pp. 108-118. “How rude! Emotional labor as a mediator between
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D. (2000), “Models of customer incivility and employee outcomes”, Journal of
emotional intelligence”, in Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), Handbook Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 468-481.
of Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, Smith, A.K., Bolton, R.N. and Wagner, J. (1999), “A model of
pp. 396-420. customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure
Mohr, L.A. and Bitner, M.J. (1995), “The role of employee and recovery”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 3,
effort in satisfaction with service transactions”, Journal of pp. 356-372.
Business Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 239-252. Stucke, T.S. and Sporer, S.L. (2002), “When a grandiose self-
O’Boyle, E.H., Humphrey, R.H., Pollack, J.M., Hawver, T.H. image is threatened: narcissism and self-concept clarity as
and Story, P.A. (2011), “The relation between emotional predictors of negative emotions and aggression following
intelligence and job performance: a meta-analysis”, Journal of ego-threat”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 70 No. 4,
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 788-818. pp. 509-532.
950
Subramony, M., Ehrhart, K., Groth, M., Holtom, B.C., van Yue, Y., Wang, K.L. and Groth, M. (2017), “Feeling bad and
Jaarsveld, D.D., Yagil, D. and Grönroos, C. (2017), doing good: the effect of customer mistreatment on service
“Accelerating employee-related scholarship in service employee’s daily display of helping behaviors”, Personnel
management: research streams, propositions, and Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 769-808.
commentaries”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 28 Zhang, T., Lu, C., Torres, E. and Chen, P.J. (2018), “Engaging
No. 5, pp. 837-865. customers in value co-creation or co-destruction online”,
Tang, X., Chang, E.C., Huang, X. and Zhang, M. (2018), Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 57-69.
“Timing and compensation strategies in service recovery”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 755-766.
Tedeschi, J.T. and Felson, R.B. (1994), Violence, Aggression, Further readings
and Coercive Actions, American Psychological Association. Ashforth, B.E. and Humphrey, R.H. (1993), “Emotional labor
Tonglet, M. (2002), “Consumer misbehaviour: an exploratory in service roles: the influence of identity”, Academy of
study of shoplifting”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 1 Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 88-115.
No. 4, pp. 336-354. Brotheridge, C.M. and Grandey, A.A. (2002), “Emotional labor
Totterdell, P. and Holman, D. (2003), “Emotion regulation in and burnout: comparing two perspectives of ‘people work’”,
customer service roles: testing a model of emotional labor”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 17-39.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, Fullerton, R.A. and Punj, G. (1993), “Choosing to misbehave:
pp. 55-73. a structural model of aberrant consumer behavior”, ACR
van Jaarsveld, D.D., Walker, D.D. and Skarlicki, D.P. (2010), North American Advances.
“The role of job demands and emotional exhaustion in the Hartline, M.D. and Ferrell, O.C. (1996), “The management of
relationship between customer and employee incivility”, customer-contact service employees: an empirical
Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1486-1504. investigation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4,
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “The four service marketing pp. 52-70.
myths: remnants of a goods-based, manufacturing model”, Lovelock, C. (1994), Product plus: How Product 1 Service=
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 324-335. Competitive Advantage, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Walker, D.D., Van Jaarsveld, D.D. and Skarlicki, D.P. (2014), Moschis, G.P. and Cox, D. (1989), “Deviant consumer
“Exploring the effects of individual customer incivility behavior”, ACR North American Advances,
encounters on employee incivility: the moderating roles of Wieseke, J., Geigenmüller, A. and Kraus, F. (2012), “On the
entity (in) civility and negative affectivity”, Journal of Applied role of empathy in customer-employee interactions”, Journal
Psychology, Vol. 99 No. 1, p. 151. of Service Research, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 316-331.
Walker, D.D., van Jaarsveld, D.D. and Skarlicki, D.P. (2017),
“Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can also
hurt me: the relationship between customer verbal Appendix 1. Acting instructions for Study 1
aggression and employee incivility”, Journal of Applied A typical conversation in an ice cream vending encounter is
Psychology, Vol. 102 No. 2, pp. 163-179. started by the employee (“What can I get you?”), a one-sentence
Weiss, H.M. and Beal, D.J. (2005), “Reflections on affective answer by the customer (“Two scoops of vanilla, please”), the
events theory”, in Ashkanasy, N.M., Zerbe, W.J. and Härtel, announcement of the price (“That’s one euro 40, please”) and
C.E.J., The Effect of Affect in Organizational Settings, Emerald, the exchange of the money and the cone. Because of the brief
Bingley, pp. 1-21. interaction, we practiced and explored with our students how
Weiss, H.M. and Cropanzano, R. (1996), “Affective events incivility can be expressed despite limited verbal exchange. We
theory: a theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and encouraged them to find individual expressions that fit their
consequences of affective experiences at work”, ” in Staw, B. personality. Some students suggested making an additional
(Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series grumpy remark if they had to wait in line (“Two scoops of
of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, Elsevier, New York, vanilla, after I nearly burnt in the sun waiting!”), other students
NY, pp. 1-74. suggested ordering without “please” and “thank you” while
Weun, S., Beatty, S.E. and Jones, M.A. (2004), “The impact of making an annoyed face or rolling their eyes.
service failure severity on service recovery evaluations and In the positive conditions, students would complement the
post-recovery relationships”, Journal of Services Marketing, employee on their hair, uniform or speed of serving and would
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 133-146. be especially polite when saying good-bye (“Thank you, this
Yagil, D. (2018), “Abuse from organizational outsiders: Customer looks delicious! I hope you’ll have a wonderful day after your
aggression and incivility”, in D’Cruz, P., Noronha, E., Keashly, shift ends!”) and put on big smiles. In the neutral condition,
L. and Tye-Williams, S. (Eds), Special Topics and Particular students would simply order (“Two scoops of vanilla,
Occupations, Professions and Sectors, Springer, pp. 1-26. please”).
Yi, Y., Nataraajan, R. and Gong, T. (2011), “Customer With 221 interactions in three rounds of data collection,
participation and citizenship behavioral influences on each student had an average of 15-16 interactions throughout
employee performance, satisfaction, commitment, and the study and a maximum of 10 per round of data collection.
turnover intention”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 Negative interactions were limited to five per round of data
No. 1, pp. 87-95. collection.
951
Appendix 2
Table A1 Laboratory experiment scenario descriptions (Studies 2 and 3)

Study 2 (Plane) Study 3 (Hotel)
Polite customer behavior
He smiles: “Oh, I totally love your uniform - so classy and professional! He smiles: “Oh, I totally love your uniform - so classy and professional! I’m
I’m sure you’re able to help me: On the way here, I had a horrible seat - sure you’re able to help me: During my last stay here, I unfortunately got one
right in front of the restroom. I was unable to recline my seat and of the rooms with a view of the neighboring hotel that blocks much of the
constantly had people walking by and I just noticed that I will have to light although I appreciate natural light very much. Is there any possibility that
sit in front of the restrooms on this flight again. Is there any possibility you can make my day and find me a real nice room for this stay - maybe even
that you can make my day and find me a great seat for this flight - like one with a view over the bay area?”
one in the first row of the economy cabin?”
Neutral customer behavior
He asks: “Could you please find me a good seat? On the way here I sat He asks: “Could you please find me a good room? Last time I stayed here, I
right in front of the restrooms and I would appreciate a different seat, unfortunately got one of the rooms with a bad view, but I really like to wake
like one in the first row of the economy cabin. I was unable to recline up to natural light and see the bay. Would you mind looking for a better
my seat and constantly had people walking by. I noticed that I have a room?”
seat by the restroom again. Would you mind looking for a better
seat?”
Uncivil customer behavior
He rants: “I hope you’re at least somewhat competent. I request a seat He rants: “I hope you’re at least somewhat competent. I would like to request
in the first row for this flight and not one right in front of restrooms a room with a view over the bay area, not such a horrible one with the awful
like I had on the trip here! I expect a better seat on this leg of the view I had last time! I need to get a better room this time!”
flight!”
952
Appendix 3
Table A2 Constructs and measurement

Scale Items
Perceived interactional justice I feel treated bad by this customer
This customer does not care about my opinions
The customer showed abusive behavior in this situation
That customer makes me feel treated unfairly
This incident makes me feel unequitable
Perceived ego threat I will not accept anyone talking to me like this
I have a strong need for retaliation toward this customer
This feeling of being devalued and abused makes me angry
Emotional intelligence Self-emotion appraisal
I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most of the time
I have good understanding of my own emotions
I really understand what I feel
I always know whether or not I am happy
Others’ emotion appraisal
I always know my friends’ emotions from their behavior
I am a good observer of others’ emotions
I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others
I have good understanding of the emotions of people around me
Use of emotion
I always set goals for myself and then try my best to achieve them
I always tell myself I am a competent person
I am a self-motivated person
I would always encourage myself to try my best
Regulation of emotion
I am able to control my temper and handle difficulties rationally
I am quite capable of controlling my own emotions
I can always calm down quickly when I am very angry
I have good control of my own emotions
Note: All items measured are on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) with all points labeled
Corresponding author
Meike Eilert can be contacted at: mei224@uky.edu
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
953

2020 Frey-Cordes Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2020 Frey-Cordes Et Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2020 Frey-Cordes Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eye for an eye?

Frontline service employee

1. Introduction may facilitate the destruction of the service’s value, which is an

Received 19 July 2019

5.57 5.46 5.13 A total of 90 English-speaking respondents (53% female,

We tested for mediated moderation using Hayes PROCESS 4. General discussion

Table A1 Laboratory experiment scenario descriptions (Studies 2 and 3)

Table A2 Constructs and measurement

You might also like