The Effect of Experienced Incivility From Supervisor and Coworkers Towards Instigated Incivility in Daily Level Among Nurses

Workplace Incivility is a common phenomenon in many organisation’s workplace. Zhou (2014), explain that workplace incivility as an uncivil behavior, which is characterized by the low intensity, the intention to harm others, and violence of norms in the respected workplace. The example of behavior is expressing rude comments, using humiliating tone, and talking unprofessionally to someone. Altough incivility gives a disadvantage, but only few organization that consider, report, and investigate it. Many organizations don’t even realize it until it changes the culture. That’s why the impact of incivility is not only on national culture but also industrial culture and organization tends to influence perceptions and reactions to incivility (Schilpzand, Pater, & Erez, 2016). This shows that incivility has spread and become a phenomenon that has negative consequences. Although the number of workplace incivility has been increased, but in Indonesia, study about incivility is newest issues (Christlevica, Joan, & Ricky, 2016; Sleem & Seada, 2017).


INTRODUCTION
Workplace Incivility is a common phenomenon in many organisation's workplace. Zhou (2014), explain that workplace incivility as an uncivil behavior, which is characterized by the low intensity, the intention to harm others, and violence of norms in the respected workplace. The example of behavior is expressing rude comments, using humiliating tone, and talking unprofessionally to someone. Altough incivility gives a disadvantage, but only few organization that consider, report, and investigate it. Many organizations don't even realize it until it changes the culture. That's why the impact of incivility is not only on national culture but also industrial culture and organization tends to influence perceptions and reactions to incivility (Schilpzand, Pater, & Erez, 2016). This shows that incivility has spread and become a phenomenon that has negative consequences. Although the number of workplace incivility has been increased, but in Indonesia, study about incivility is newest issues (Christlevica, Joan, & Ricky, 2016;Sleem & Seada, 2017).
Nurses in the healthcare center are the vital parts. They continuously work for 24 hours to take care and -interact with patients (Asmuji, 2014). They are required to give good service and they are such a big hope for the patients to obtain maximum healthcare service (Prayogi, 2014). Unfortunately, the work environment of the nurses is often accompanied by various types of mistreatment, which is may be from doctors, other nurses, patients or supervisors (Beattie & Griffin, 2014;Vagharseyyedin, 2015). Unconsciously, nurses are influenced by negative interpersonal behavior in their work environment, and it will be ignored by managers because workplace incivility has a low intensity (Vagharseyyedin, 2015).
The number of workplace incivility in healthcare settings has been increased and it would give impact on nurses to delivering healthcare services. Nurses has been abused verbally by the supervisor and collegues (Luparell, 2011), but in 2016, more than 73% of nurses at emergency departments in the United States feel that violence is part of their work so they are reluctant to report the incident (Christlevica et al., 2016). Incivility has potentially detrimental effects on healthcare providers and patient safety (Elmblad, Kodjebacheva, & Lebeck, 2014;Brooks, 2017). Workplace deviance is a common response to workplace aggression. Specifically, victims with low task interdependence will be more vulnerable to reply abusive behavior, at higher level triggers (Hershcovis, Parker, Reich, & Bozeman, 2012).
The greater incivility frequency and prepetrator power are associated with greater emotionality (negative emotions, guit, sadness, fear/anxiety, and disgust) and it will increased reciprocation (Bunk & Magley, 2013). Nurses that experienced incivility from supervisor and coworkers has significant relationship with instigated incivility (Torkelson, Holm, Bäckström, & Schad, 2016). But, incivility from coworkers has more the strongest relationship with instigated incivility than supervisor. The reason is individu more likely to act in a deviant manner if they had information about deviant action by colleagues, particularly if group cohesion was high (Ferguson & Barry, 2011).
Experieced worklplace incivility is related to work satisfaction and general job satisfaction's decrease (Bunk & Magley, 2013); and more job stress for employees who reported having less emotional support (Miner, Settles, Pratt-Hyatt, & Brady, 2012); because emotion, especialy emotional exhaustion plays a mediating role between coworker incivility and job satisfaction (Hur, Kim, & Park, 2015). In other side, social support from coworkers will decreased instigated incivility, but when variable experienced incivility was add, it will be increased instigated incivility (Miner et al., 2012;Holm, Torkelson, & Bäckström, 2015). Based on previous research, we can draw temporary conclusion that social support and job satisfaction play an important role in working incivility.
Incivility is in several ways related to the power position of the instigator and social power theory (Torkelson et al., 2016). Torkelson et al. (2016) also explained that the instigator status could be explained in two ways. Based on that, this research will focused on workplace incivility from supervisors and coworkers.
First, it is common for the instigator status to be found higher up in the organizational hierarchy.
In an organizational context, social power theory posits that employees of lower social status, such as those lower in the organizational hierarchy or those who are part of low-status groups in the workplace, may be more susceptible to incivility from higher status employees. In this way, the incivility process often starts from the top of the organization when high-status employees enact uncivil behaviours towards lower status employees (Torkelson et al., 2016).
Second way, incivility may take different forms that are related to the instigator's power position in the organization. Pearson (2010) found that incivility that starts from the bottom of the organizational hierarchy and directs upwards is exerted in other ways than incivility exerted in the opposite direction,such as subtle forms of sabotage.
A third way in which incivility also related the power of the target's perception of bad behaviour may be linked to the power position of the instigator (Torkelson et al., 2016). A study by Cortina and Magley (cited in Torkelson et al. 2016) revealed that employees experienced rude treatment in a more negative way if it was initiated by someone who had a higher position. In the light of the relationship between incivility and power position, it is relevant to investigate incivility from co-workers and incivility from supervisors separately.
Its necessary to discussed about the variables which is included in this study, that is experienced incivility and instigated incivility in daily life. In the current study, the conceptual framework is illustrated below (Figure 2.1).

METHOD
The population of this study will be taken from the Regional General Hospital in Special Region of South Sumatera, Indonesia. Purposive sampling method is used as the sampling method by categorizing the subjects (1) a nurse with nursing certificate (2) willing to be a repondent of this study, (4) having working period more than 2 years, (5) minimum age of 20 years, male or female, and is a nurse who has been appointed as permanent employee at the hospital, (6) understanding the instruction in filling in questionnaire in this research, and willing to follow research process for three consecutive days. Before the respondents to be a subject of this study, 150 nurses that fulfill the category must be following a screening test by filling out General Hospital Incivility (GHI) and finally 102 nurses could be to sample of this research. The result α GHI is 0.865, and V= 1.00 (X ≥ 0.66, its mean relevant), with the critical value of CVR is 0.496. Its mean that GHI Scale could be valid and reliable to be a screening test for this study. Based on data from the respondent's distribution, it was seen that the subjects of the study consisted of 102 people, with nurses who were mostly respondents were women (71.57%), most of them consisted of nurses who worked in inpatient units (46.08%), and had years of service more than 5 years (46.08%).

a. Experienced Incivility From Supervisor and Coworkers
The scale from Jiménez, Bregenzer, Leiter, & Magley (2018) consists of eight aitem measure the behavior of workgroup supervisors and coworkers, respectively (e.g., "Gossiped about you or your colleagues"). Answer scales range used only two answered Yes and No. The result of Conbrachs Alpha is 0.824 (α ≥ 0.6), its mean that thid aitem is reliable (Kerlinger, 1979). With the significance more then 95%. For the content validity this instrument used CVR from Lawshe (1975) cited in Azwar (2012)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the analysis (Table 3) indicate that there are differences in influence between experienced incivility from supervisors and coworkers on instigated incivility on the first, second, and third days. On the first day, the significance test results obtained sig. 0.037 (p <0.05), and second day was sig. 0.000 (p <0.005) which means that experienced incivility from supervisor, has a significant effect on instigated incitivity. But on the third day, the significance test results obtained sig 0.2888 (p >0.05), which means that experienced incivility from supervisor has no significant effect to the instigated incitivity.
Based on that results, there are differences effect of experienced incivility from supervisors on instigated incivility on measurements of days 1 and 2. On the first and second days, there is an influence between experienced incivility from supervisors and instigated incivility. Whereas on the third day, there was no significant effect between experienced incivility from supervisors and instigated incivility on nurses. This might be explained by "Status Model Instigator's theory" (C. M. Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000). Incivility tends to flow down, because the perpetrator of incivility has a status that three times higher than the target. In the end, nurses considered that violence as part of their work. (Christlevica et al., 2016) The value of the influence of experienced incivility from coworkers on instigated incivility can also be analyzed in table 1. On the first day, the results of significance test was sig. 758 (p > 0.05) which means that experienced incivility from coworkers have no significant effect on instigated incivility. But in the second day, the significance value was sig.0.049 (p < 0.05); and on third day, the significance value was sig.0.011 (p < 0.05), which means that experienced incivility from coworkers has a significant effect on instigated incivility.
The results of data analysis on the influence of experienced incivility from coworkers and instigated incentives, shows a different pattern with the results of data analysis on the influence of experienced incivility from supervisors on instigated incivility on the first, second and third days. In experienced incivility of coworkers against instigated incivility, there was no significant effect on the first day, but on the second and third days there was an influence of experienced incivility from coworkers on instigated incivility. This situation might be explained by "models of social support" (Cohen and Wills, 1985). Social support buffers, protects, individuals well being when they are under stress. Social support can reduce negative effects of stressful events with communicates that they are valued and accepted (Miner et al., 2012). But, this can worsen if the belief in the existence of social support is not fulfilled. Individu can act in a deviant manner, especially if they had information about deviant action by colleagues, particularly if group cohesion was high (Ferguson & Barry, 2011).  Shapiro, 2013).
The difference in incivility, between supervisors and colleagues greatly influences the impact of instigated incivility behavior. "The Escalating Spiral of Incivility" from Pearson et al. (2000) explains the influence between experienced incivility from supervisors and coworkers on instigated incivility. A worker who has experienced incivility can intentionally reply to the behavior with counter-intention which leads to an increased chain reaction to more aggressive behavior. Pearson et al. (2000) also explained that the difference in the impact of experienced incivility also affected the instigator status.
The status has a crucial role, when instigators have more power than targets, targets may feel helpful to fend off this mistreatment.

CONCLUSION
In this research, we find that experienced incivility by supervisors and coworkers has an influence on instigated incivility with the different results per day. The results have different patterns on instigated incivility between the experienced incivility from coworkers and from supervisors on the first, second and third days.
Inexperienced incivility from coworkers has no significant effect on the first day, but there was an influence on instigated incivility in the second and third days. While experienced incivility from the supervisor, there was a significant instigated incivility's effect on the first and second days but has no influence on the third day. The results of this study indicate a differential effect of experienced incivility on instigated incivility in terms of measurements per day.