Introduction

People, inside organizations, seek to maintain their happiness, satisfaction and well-being (Johnson & Jiang, 2017; Joo et al., 2017; Koburtay & Alzoubi, 2021; Miller, 2016). As suggested by Krause (2019), religion and spirituality may support people coping with their work pressures and stressful life events. However, in some contexts and work environments, incivility toward workers leads to emotional exhaustion (e.g., Cho et al., 2016; Garrosa et al., 2022; Koon & Pun, 2018) and adversely impacts their psychological well-being and health (Smith & Kelloway, 2016).

Although prior studies have shown the adverse impact that workplace incivility may entail for workers’ well-being (e.g., Lim & Lee, 2011), little is known about the interaction effect between job demands and personal resources in the context of the JD-R theory (Grover et al., 2017; Hobfoll et al., 2003). In particular, barring few exceptions (e.g., Brown et al., 1990; Hashemi et al., 2020; Park et al., 2018; Svensson et al., 2022), previous studies have typically ignored the role of religiosity as a personal resource to mitigate stress and promote well-being (e.g., Abualigah et al., 2021; Bourini et al., 2022; Pradhan & Hati, 2022; Ryff, 2018). To address this gap, this paper seeks to (1) examine how workplace incivility may impact workers’ well-being, (2) examine how workers’ religiosity may enhance workers’ well-being and (3) examine how workplace incivility may moderate the link between workers’ religiosity and workers’ well-being. Achieving these aims will consolidate the existing theory development of workplace incivility, religiosity and psychology.

Because the majority of prior studies have been undertaken to studying incivility and religiosity and their implications in a Western/American context (e.g., Beattie & Griffin, 2014; Głaz, 2022; Hodapp & Zwingmann, 2019), and because limited scholarly attention and research (e.g., Schilpzand et al., 2016a, 2016b) have been undertaken toward studying the linkages between workplace incivility, religiosity and well-being in Muslim majority countries (Koburtay & Alzoubi, 2021), this study includes a sample of Muslim people working in different sectors in Jordan and the UAE. In this context, religious ideology and Islamic norms are dominant in national legislation and societal traditions (Haak-Saheem & Darwish, 2021; Tlaiss, 2015) and therefore the approach taken here is to define religiosity from an Islamic lens.

Concepts such as religiosity and psychology can be theorized in different ways and subscribe to several definitions. In this study, we define psychological well-being by following Ryff’s (1989) theory of eudaimonic psychological well-being as it has a “widespread scientific impact” (Ryff, 2018, p. 242). As a separate approach from pleasure attainment or pain avoidance, the eudaimonic view of well-being considers the positive functioning in organizational settings and conveys the notion that well-being refers to fulfilling or realizing one’s true nature.

In addition, we define workers’ religiosity by following Allport and Ross’s (1967) religious orientation framework and workplace incivility by following Andersson and Pearson’s (1999, p. 457) definition of incivility which refers to employees’ experiences of uncivil behaviors that are “characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard” for them. These frameworks are explained in further detail in the following sections. From a theoretical view, this study adopts the JD-R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014) which explains how a high level of job demands and a poor availability of job and personal resources may lead to stress, burnout and other negative psychological outcomes.

This study aspires to make several contributions to theory and practice. First, it builds on recent scholarly calls regarding the role of the personal resource of religiosity in the job demands-resources model (Abualigah & Koburtay, 2022) and compliments recent studies (Ab Wahab & Tatoglu, 2020) that examined the moderating role of job resources on the relationship between job demands and workers’ well-being. Second, it points the contextual relevance and possible extension of the JD-R theory by extending its model to workplace incivility, religiosity and workers’ well-being in a Middle Eastern context. Third, it presents a novel framework and fresh awareness on the link between the variables in a diverse cultural context in the Middle East. This, in turn, adds a conceptual novelty beyond the more typical Western culture that was widely examined, simply because the Western cultural perspective cannot apply to the Muslim majority culture.

To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the moderating effect of workplace incivility on the relationship between one of the important but ignored personal resources (i.e., religiosity) and well-being, hence expanding previous studies and the JD-R theory by paying more attention to this under-explored area.

Theories and Foundations

From a theoretical view, the present study follows the JD-R theory to underpin the emerged framework and the hypotheses formulated. JD-R theory explains how both the existence of high job demands and the lack of job and personal resources may adversely impact some job-related outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). According to Bakker and Demerouti (2008, p. 312), job demands include “physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological (cognitive and emotional) effort or skills and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs.”

On the other hand, job resources include physical, psychological, social or organizational aspects of the job that are functional in achieving work goals and reducing job demands. Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) extended the JD-R theory by including personal resources. Personal resources refer to employees’ abilities to control and influence their work environment successfully. In this study, workplace incivility is considered as a job demand, workers’ religiosity is considered as a personal resource, and workers’ well-being is considered as a job-related outcome.

Workers’ Well-being

Well-being and satisfaction are important for people life and work (Fastame et al., 2021; Senasu et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2022). Previous studies and efforts were undertaken toward defining some key indicators of people’s well-being (e.g., Colenberg et al., 2020; Kobau et al., 2010; Pradhan & Hati, 2022; Zhang et al., 2020); however, the results remain inconsistent (Senasu et al., 2019). Some studies argue that well-being and happiness include indicators like anxiety and frustration (Karakas et al., 2015) and also a physical health including heart condition and blood pressure (e.g., Rahimnia & Sharifirad, 2015) as determinants of a good psychological functioning (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Other studies define well-being as a “positive psychological state that arises from how an individual perceives and assesses their life” (Viot & Benraiss-Noailles, 2019, p. 3). For example, Ryan and Deci (2001) define well-being as having both healthy psychological experience and functioning.

These conflicting views on well-being imply that exploring and defining exemplary psychological performance and experience is complicated. To handle this complexity, we follow Ryff’s (1989) psychological well-being framework, by which the core aspects that underlie Ryff’s conceptualization are hedonia and eudaimonia views of well-being. According to the hedonic approach, well-being is defined as the ability to avoid pain and achieve pleasure (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Turban & Yan, 2016), whereas the eudaimonic view explains well-being as being able to develop potential (Turban & Yan, 2016), even during times when individuals are experiencing congruity between their sense of self and their social role (e.g., as employees).

In relation to the question “how does workplace incivility impact employees’ psychological well-being,” we adopt the eudaimonia perspective, because it concentrates on the degree to which establishing a fit between individuals and their social roles may influence their well-being. Ryff’s view of eudaimonic well-being includes six dimensions: self-acceptance, personal growth, autonomy, positive relationships with others, a feeling of purpose and meaning in life and environmental mastery.

Self-acceptance factor outlines the way in which a person evaluates positively his/her present or previous life. Personal growth, however, demonstrates the continuity of an individual’s development and growth. Autonomy reflects independence and self-determination, including the ability to assess oneself through personal standards. The dimension of positive relationships signifies the goodness of interpersonal relationships between individuals. The dimension of purpose in life focuses on how an individual believes that his/her life has a clear sense of meaning and direction. Lastly, environmental mastery indicates the degree to which an individual can manage his/her life effectively (Disabato et al., 2016; Ryff, 1989). The following sections highlight the implications of workplace incivility and religiosity for workers’ well-being.

Workplace Incivility and Workers’ Well-being

Experiencing incivility in the workplace may affect happiness and satisfaction, which then leads to a depletion in employees’ physical and mental health (Lim et al., 2008). Workplace incivility includes not listening to others, avoiding or belittling someone and making derogatory remarks toward others (Porath & Pearson, 2010). These rude or impolite attitudes or behaviors against colleagues at workplaces may lead to lower creativity, dissatisfaction, reduced commitment, high level of absenteeism and intent to leave (e.g., Cortina & Magley, 2009; Jawahar & Schreurs, 2018; Reknes et al., 2021).

Barring few notable exceptions (e.g., Cho et al., 2016; Cortina & Magley, 2009; Gabriel et al., 2018), it should be noted that little attention has been paid to studying the link between workplace incivility, as a job demand, and some psychological outcomes including workers’ eudaimonic well-being. The present study fills this gap by examining the linkages between these constructs.

In the current study, we conceptualize workplace incivility as a job demand (Beattie & Griffin, 2014) which falls under the emotional demands’ category (Crawford et al., 2010). Specifically, we follow Andersson and Pearson’s (1999, p. 457) definition of incivility implying that uncivil behaviors are “characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others.” Incivility can be differentiated from other kinds of interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace (Arshad & Ismail, 2018) such as abusive supervision, violence and harassment in that these negative behaviors are characterized by a clear intent to harm the target, whereas incivility is not always clear to targets that there is an actual intent to harm (Cortina et al., 2017).

In terms of empirical evidences for the linkages between workplace incivility and workers’ well-being, the literature demonstrates a negative association between these constructs. For example, Cho et al. (2016) and Loh et al. (2021) suggest that experiencing incivility in the workplace is associated with emotional exhaustion. Giacalone and Promislo (2010) found that unethical practices (e.g., bullying, workplace harassment and victimization) are associated with poor levels of well-being and high levels of intention to leave (Reknes et al., 2021). In some cases, uncivil behaviors may lead to a depression because targets may feel that others underestimate their potential and violate their dignity (Arnold & Walsh, 2015; Paulin & Griffin, 2016). In addition, victims’ well-being may be impacted by uncivil behavior because they are more likely to keep thinking about and always remember the experience of this mistreatment (Lata & Chaudhary, 2020; Lim & Lee, 2011).

Along similar lines, previous studies highlight the linkages between “workplace civility” (e.g., ethical behaviors toward others) and workers’ well-being. As suggested by Ip (2010, p. 106), “ethics-based workplace well-being generates job satisfaction, and hence enhances positive personal well-being.” Based on a study of 902 managers, Huhtala et al. (2011) found that the managers’ views of the diffused ethical culture and norms were linked with their well-being at work. From the same point, Hwang and Kim (2018) found that ethics are positively linked with happiness.

The literature also explains how some other workplace civility practices are linked with people’s well-being, including authenticity and anti-discrimination. For example, Wood et al. (2013) found that discrimination is negatively linked with victims’ well-being. Rahimnia and Sharifirad (2015) found that authentic leadership is positively linked with job satisfaction and negatively linked with perceived work stress and stress symptoms. According to these studies, we provide a preliminary advocacy for the argument that workplace civility practices is important for workers’ well-being.

Drawing on preceding studies (e.g., Cho et al., 2016; Gabriel et al., 2018) and following the notion that job demands include “physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job [which are] associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008, p. 312; Wang et al., 2022), this study posits the following:

H1

There is a negative relationship between workplace incivility and workers’ eudaimonic well-being.

Workers’ religiosity and well-being

Because this study seeks to examine a framework using a sample of Muslim people who are working in different sectors in Muslim majority countries (Jordan and the UAE), we conceptualize individual’s religiosity by following Allport and Ross’s (1967) religious orientation framework through an Islamic lens implying that individual’s religiosity shows the extent to which a person is obliged with the Islamic rules.

Previous studies define religiosity or religion as a system that includes beliefs and practices (Rodrigues & Harding, 2008) implying two types of religiosity, namely extrinsic and intrinsic religiosity (Allport & Ross, 1967). Allport (1950) clarifies the difference between them by defining the extrinsic type of religiosity as practices that use religion for social benefits, while the intrinsic religiosity as practices that are in light of the inherent goals of religion (cited in Chowdhury & Fernando, 2013). In this study, both extrinsic and intrinsic religiosity will be followed to measure the level of workers’ religiosity.

In relation to the empirical association between religiosity and people’s well-being, Park et al.’s (2018) study reported a positive relationship between appropriate religious coping styles (RCS) and well-being. Hashemi et al., (2020, p. 8) suggested that “engagement in religious activities, and belief in [Allah] provide individuals with a sense of significance, positive emotions, self-esteem, positive relations, sense of meaning, and purpose in life.” As noted by Karakas et al. (2015), the positive relationship between religiosity and well-being can be justified since people believe that they are accountable to God, and also their prosperity in the hereafter relies on what they did in their lives.

Moreover, Kutcher et al. (2010) found that individuals’ well-being can be improved through having a purpose in life, social support and close relations, and “for many, religion provides these kinds of solutions” (Kutcher et al., 2010, p. 320). Abu Bakar et al. (2018) and Koburtay and Alzoubi (2021) highlighted that religiosity supports happiness and well-being at work. Brown et al. (1990) also found that religiosity is associated with fewer depressive symptoms. Drawing on the JD-R theory and the reviewed literature (see Devine et al., 2019; Yaden et al., 2022), the following hypothesis was developed.

H2

There is a positive relationship between workers’ religiosity and their eudaimonic well-being.

Although previous studies show a positive link between religiosity and well-being and examined the moderating role of religiosity/spirituality on the relationship between workplace stressors and well-being (e.g., Fabricatore et al., 2000; Zou & Dahling, 2017), no research, to our knowledge, has examined the moderating role of workplace incivility on the relationship between workers’ religiosity and eudaimonic well-being. Hence, we hypothesize the following:

H3

Workplace incivility moderates the relationship between workers’ religiosity and their eudaimonic well-being, such that this relationship is weaker at high vs low levels of incivility.

Figure 1 depicts our model including the hypotheses formulated. This model emerged drawing on two assumptions from the JD-R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). The first assumption is that personal and job resources start a motivational process that lead to a positive work-related outcomes. The second assumption is that personal and job resources become more salient and gain their motivational potential when employees are confronted with high job demands. In this study’s model, and in light of the main notion of the JD-R theory, workplace incivility is considered as a job demand, workers’ religiosity is considered as a personal resource, and workers’ well-being is treated as a job-related outcome.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Theoretical framework

Full size image

Methods

Procedure and sample

Using a quantitative–deductive approach, an online-survey questionnaire was used, uploaded online and made available for a period of 7 months. The authors used an online-based survey to overcome the restrictions of COVID-19, as it was not allowed to distribute or to use hard copies of the questionnaire inside workplaces. Following convenience and snowball sampling protocols, participants were recruited via social networks and personal emails. The participants were recruited from different sectors including education, telecommunication, health and banks.

We justify this diverse sample because the topic under study is applicable and relevant to all employees working in different sectors and industries. In total, 261 questionnaires were submitted online, while 247 questionnaires were used for the final analysis as some questionnaires were directly excluded because they did not include responses. Table 1 shows the participants’ demographic characteristics.

Table 1 Participant demographic characteristics
Full size table

To facilitate the process of data collection, Koenig and Al Zaben (2021) suggested that translation of existing scales is relevant in studying the interconnection between religion and health, where researchers may wish to translate existing measures into a different language. In this study, all items were translated to Arabic, since the sample includes people living in an Arabic-speaking country. This process is considered as the most common approach to apply equivalent tools in “cross-national and cross-lingual survey research” (Harkness & Schoua-Glusberg, 1998, p. 87). Because “back translation” technique does not necessarily ensure equivalence in meaning and concepts (Douglas & Craig, 2007), a collaborative translation (e.g., Douglas & Craig, 2007) was undertaken by the authors of this study due to their proficiency in both languages.

To ensure ethics in the data collection method, participation in this study was clearly and fully explained along with the right of withdrawal at any time, in the cover letter. Anonymity was also explained and maintained for all participants. This was done by informing all participants that their identities and other specific information will be kept anonymized and secured. This study was completed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, as endorsed by the World Medical Association (2013).

Measures

Workplace incivility

A 7-item Workplace Incivility Scale developed by Cortina et al. (2001) was used to measure workplace incivility. Respondents rated the items using a 5-point Likert scale from (1) “never” to (5) “always.” Example item is: “how often have you been in a situation where any of your superiors or coworkers put you down or was condescending to you?” Previous studies have reported high reliability for this scale. For example, according to Liu et al.’s (2019) and Arshad and Ismail’s (2018) studies, this scale accounted for α = 0.89. In the current study, the 7 items’ reliability level loads at α = 0.88.

Workers’ religiosity

The Intrinsic–Extrinsic Religious Orientation Scale—IEROS developed by Allport and Ross (1967), was used to measure workers’ religiosity. IEROS includes both intrinsic and extrinsic measures/scales to examine religiosity. In this study, a 14-item scale was used to measure religiosity. Six items of the scale measure the extrinsic religiosity, and eight items represent the intrinsic religiosity. Examples of the extrinsic religiosity are: “I go to religious services because it helps me to make friends”; “I go to religious services mostly to spend time with my friends.” Examples of the intrinsic religiosity are: “I enjoy reading about my religion”; “it is important for me to spend time in private thought and prayer”; “although I believe in my religion, many other things are more important in life” (reversed question). All items were anchored into a 5-point Likert scale.

Prior studies have reported high reliability for this scale. For example, the intrinsic religiosity scale accounted for α = 0.75 in Koburtay and Alzoubi’s (2021) study. According to Singhapakdi et al. (2013), extrinsic and intrinsic religiosity scales load at α = 0.70 and α = 0.87, respectively. In the present study, and after appropriate reverse coding, the reliability level loads at α = 0.0.77.

Workers’ well-being (eudaimonic view)

To measure workers’ psychological well-being, we follow Psychological Well-Being Scale (PWBS) developed by Ryff (1989). This measurement scale includes versions with 20 items, 14 items, 9 items and 3 items per scale. To validate this scale, Chan et al. (2017) raise some concerns in relation to the scale’s length and structure. They note none of the shortened versions of PWBS have had a satisfactory model fit or internal consistencies. In light of this and due to the conflicting perceptions in relation to how one can define psychological well-being, also to accommodate for the time and cost restrictions, a shortened version was used as explained here.

We adopt the eudaimonia perspective which includes six dimensions linked with well-being as follows: self-acceptance (SA), purpose in life (PL), environmental mastery (EM), positive relations (PR), personal growth (PG) and autonomy (AUT). In this study, two items per dimension were used. In total, the authors have selected the 12 most relevant items by judging the original scale against the following criteria: redundancy of the items and items’ inability to produce variable responses. This 12-item scale loads at α = 0.70 in Koburtay and Alzoubi’s (2021) study. In the present study, the reliability level loads at α = 0.867.

Control variables

Demographic variables have been controlled. In light of prior studies (e.g., Sawyerr et al., 2005), we controlled for sector, gender, age, educational level and job tenure, since these variables may have an effect on the focal variables (e.g., Liu et al., 2019; Mackey et al., 2019).

Analysis and results

SPSS (version 26) was used to examine the hypotheses and to generate the descriptive and inferential statistics. To ensure a full set of data, we applied the expectation maximization formula (through Missing Value Analysis) to substitute any missing value. All reversed questions were also reverted to their original values. Minimum and maximum values were also checked.

Because all the data were perceptual and collected using self-report evaluation tools, there is a possibility of common method bias. To limit the effect of this, we applied a statistical procedure as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003), namely Harman’s one-factor test. This test can be applied through loading all items for all focal variables by using EFA (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In this study, the total variance extracted by a single factor is 26.87%, which is below Fuller et al.’s (2016) recommended threshold of 50% and suggests that common method bias is not an issue. The following sections explain the descriptive and correlation statistics and regression tests.

Descriptive statistics

Table 2 shows means, standard deviations and inter-correlations among the study variables.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics
Full size table

Hypotheses testing

A regression analysis was applied through SPSS (version 26) to test the relationships between workplace incivility and workers’ well-being (Hypothesis 1) and workers’ religiosity and their well-being (Hypothesis 2). In relation to Hypothesis 1, the results report a negative (non-significant) relationship between workplace incivility and workers’ well-being (β =—0.128, p > 0.05). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was rejected. In relation to Hypothesis 2, the results show that there is a significant and positive relationship between workers’ religiosity and their well-being (β = 0.499, p < 0.01), providing support for Hypothesis 2.

While not specifically hypothesized, the possible impact of intrinsic vs extrinsic religiosity on workers’ well-being has been examined. The results show that intrinsic religiosity has a significantly stronger impact on workers’ well-being than extrinsic religiosity (β = 0.451, p < 0.01; β = 0.163, p < 0.01, respectively).

In relation to Hypothesis 3, a hierarchical moderated multiple regression analysis was used to test the moderating role of workplace incivility on the relationship between workers’ religiosity and their well-being. We followed Aiken and West’s (1991) recommendation to limit the effect of multi-collinearity. Both variables (i.e., workers’ religiosity and workplace incivility) were centralized. As pointed above, demographics (e.g., sector, gender, age, educational level and job tenure) were included in the first block of the regression equation. Then, workers’ religiosity and workplace incivility were included in the second block of the regression equation. The third block of the regression equation included the interaction effect (i.e., religiosity x incivility).

Table 3 shows that the interaction between workers’ religiosity and workplace incivility significantly predicted workers’ well-being (β = 0.220, p < 0.01). Contrary to our prediction, workplace incivility strengthened the relationship between religiosity and well-being. Although we predicted a negative effects of workplace incivility on the religiosity–well-being relationship, we did not anticipate that the effects of higher levels of workplace incivility could go beyond neutralizing the positive implications of workers’ religiosity for their well-being.

Table 3 Moderation analyses
Full size table

Following the recommendation of Aiken and West (1991), simple slopes test was conducted in order to observe the interaction effect. We applied the two-way unstandardized plotter available on Jeremy Dawson’s website for interaction effects to calculate simple slopes tests and develop the interaction plots (see http://www.jeremydawson.co.uk/slopes.htm). As shown in Fig. 2, the findings suggest that the relationship between religiosity and well-being was stronger under the conditions of high incivility.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The interaction effect of religiosity and workplace incivility on workers’ well-being

Full size image

Discussion

Studies of workplace incivility, religion and psychology have thus far failed to present a clear picture in terms of how workers’ well-being can be sustained and improved, specifically in Muslim majority countries. This study takes a step toward consolidating the existing theory development through examining the link between workplace incivility, religiosity and workers’ well-being. Guided by our research objectives, the results yield three key conclusions as follows: (1) workplace incivility negatively and insignificantly impacts workers’ psychological well-being, (2) workers’ religiosity positively and significantly enhances their psychological well-being, and (3) workplace incivility significantly impacts and increases the positive relationship between workers’ religiosity and their well-being.

Our findings lend support for the JD-R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014) by showing that the existence of high hindrance job demands may adversely impact job-related outcomes, while the existence of personal resources positively improves workers’ well-being. Prior studies have mainly highlighted the positive implications of workplace civility practices such as ethical behaviors (Hwang & Kim, 2018), servant leadership (Wang et al., 2022), authenticity (Rahimnia & Sharifirad, 2015) and anti-discrimination (Wood et al., 2013) for workers’ well-being. Therefore, we argue that organizations and policymakers should pay further attention for how to prevent all types of workplace incivility and encourage civility practices, such as benevolent (Viot & Benraiss-Noailles, 2019), integrity (Prottas, 2013) and humanism (Salas-Vallina et al., 2018) due to their relevance for well-being and happiness.

In relation to workers’ religiosity and well-being, the existing literature demonstrates that people’s religiosity is important for their well-being (e.g., Abu Bakar et al., 2018; Koburtay & Alzoubi, 2021; Park et al., 2018). Our results (for Hypothesis 2) support previous studies by reporting a positive and significant relationship between workers’ religiosity and well-being. In light of the context of this study (i.e., drawn on an Islamic view of religiosity), religious people who are adhering to Islamic teachings (the Quran and the Hadith) are encouraged to be ethical and sincere (Abbasi et al., 2010) and are required not to involve in unethical behaviors such as laziness, injustice and being unproductive.

In Islam, such values and teachings consider work as a worship and moral obligation to please God and also give meaning to people’s lives and work which in turn provide them levels of mental balance and psychological support and promote their happiness and well-being. Therefore, we provide a preliminary advocacy for the argument that organizations and managers should consider religiosity as an important predictor for workers’ well-being. In Muslim majority countries, some types of encouragement of religiosity in workplaces may include offering prayer spaces and allowing prayers on time (Koburtay, 2021).

Building on the JD-R theory and previous studies, we proposed that workplace incivility weakens the relationship between workers’ religiosity and their well-being (Hypothesis 3). Surprisingly, we found that workplace incivility had a positive effect on the relationship between workers’ religiosity and their well-being. This suggests that although ones’ religiosity is important for well-being and psychological status, incivility treatments and behaviors toward others, at times, can strengthen the positive relationship between people’s religiosity and their psychological well-being, because people may use religiosity as a coping strategy to get recovery from incivility (Ahrens et al., 2010; Welbourne et al., 2016) and stressful life events (Krause, 2019). This finding is in accordance with Krok et al.’s (2021) study which shows that some stressful life events (i.e., fear of COVID-19) moderate the meaning-making mediated relationships between religiosity and life satisfaction and religiosity and positive affect.

Our finding proposes that the relationship between people’s religiosity and their well-being is complicated and therefore it is likely that workplace incivility may affect this relationship via different mechanisms. One possible justification for this finding is that as Schilpzand et al., (2016a, 2016b) found, rude and uncivil treatments positively predicted self-blame, something that may lead the targets to become more religious to reduce the feelings of self-blame and to get recovery from different types of mistreatment in the workplace (e.g., Ahrens et al., 2010). We encourage future studies to examine additional mechanisms of this process.

Implications

The contributions in the present study were appealed from managerial challenges and theory shortage. Specifically, there is an evident lack of studies on the linkages between these constructs in Muslim and non-Western countries. This dearth of research limits the extension and application of these concepts in workplaces by which the present study takes a step in filling this gap. The following two sections highlight the implications for theory and practice.

Implications for theory: an extension of the JD-R theory

From a theoretical viewpoint, the importance of the current study can be viewed from three points. First, this study goes beyond prior studies that are widely and solely concerned with defining religiosity and distinguishing between spirituality and religiosity, through highlighting the psychological outcomes of religiosity. Specifically, theorizing on religious views of well-being has so far focused on a narrow conception linked with legal and political doctrines while ignoring its spiritual dimensions and implications. By examining religiosity/spirituality as predictors and well-being as an outcome, we advance theorizing on the broader literature on well-being in the context of work and workplaces.

Second, this paper further extends previous psychological theories by suggesting that elements of spirituality/religiosity better explain well-being than focusing solely on materialism or biologically-based views (e.g., Kasser & Ahuvia, 2002). This adds a conceptual novelty of well-being and psychology in a diverse cultural context in the Middle East. Third, this study extends the JD-R theory by examining the impact of workplace incivility (as a job demand) and religiosity (as a personal resource) on workers’ well-being. This points toward the contextual applicability and extension of the JD-R theory by extending its model to a Middle Eastern context. This section discusses this third point in detail.

Our study contributes to the JD-R theory as follows. First, based on the novel theorizations of the interplay between religiosity, incivility and well-being, we highlight how workplace incivility adversely impacts worker’ well-being, while workers’ religiosity enhances their well-being. In addition, and contrary to prior studies, the findings suggest that workplace incivility strengthens the relationship between religiosity and well-being. According to Weiß and Süß (2019), religiosity may change how individuals view a stressful work environment, enabling them to perceive it as a part of God’s plan or as an avenue for personal and spiritual development. That is to say, the importance of religiosity as a personal resource will increase, especially when employees are facing high levels of incivility, which may lead to enhanced mental health and well-being. Theoretically, and to frame our findings, one may consider the applicability of the JD-R theory which suggests that personal and job resources (e.g., religiosity) become more salient and gain their motivational potential when employees are confronted with high job demands (e.g., workplace incivility).

In addition, employees may consider religiosity as a coping mechanism to get recovery from stressful working conditions (e.g., workplace incivility). This, in turn, helps to promote employees’ well-being. In a similar study, Fan et al. (2021) revealed that work-related deviant behavior is positively related to work engagement through the mediating mechanism of recovery level. Therefore, this study’s findings contribute to the basic notion of the JD-R theory by showing that personal resources (i.e., religiosity) increase in importance and add to people’s motivational potential, particularly, when they are facing high levels of job demands (i.e., incivility).

Our study thereby constitutes specific contributions to the JD-R conceptual repertoire with typologies related to novel theorizations of personal resource and demand. In addition, this study has pushed the existing theory development of the JD-R framework through examining a new model of religiosity and incivility and further examining their implications for workers’ psychological well-being in workplaces. Therefore, because this study is the first to examine the interplay between the focal constructs, we argue that the juxtaposition of the JD-R theory with insights from spirituality and religion holds much promise.

Implications for practice

From a practical side, this paper has relevance and implications for human resource practices beyond the context of Jordan or the UAE as the issues presented are commonplace across the globe. Managers and HR practitioners are encouraged to pay further attention to the role of religion by embedding it with the institution’s diversity and inclusion policies and to review HRM policies and practices to embrace religious principles and values (Abualigah et al., 2021). This is important to facilitate organizational interventions in terms of fostering workers’ coping mechanisms and their well-being (see Zhao et al., 2022).

In addition, inside workplaces, HR managers must carefully address how to prevent all types of workplace incivility (see Baruch et al., 2017). This may be achieved by having a zero tolerance of uncivil behaviors through, for example, contract termination. However, considering our findings, it appears that incivility treatments and behaviors toward others, at times, encourage employees to use religiosity as a coping strategy to get recovery from such treatments and behaviors. Therefore, instead of terminating employees’ contracts who display uncivil behaviors, first, managers should carefully assess and compare between the possible benefits and detriments of workplace incivility and act accordingly. For example, a remedial action for someone who is not listening to others should not be the same as for someone who is making humiliating remarks toward others.

Moreover, we recommend HR managers to offer proper training to enhance employees’ awareness and sensitivity in stress and conflict management, foster civil behaviors and link employees’ career progression with well-mannered behavior at work. In addition, establishing workplace harmony is advisable for organizations through providing trainings for employees on how to communicate with one another. Within similar lines, toward offering an emotional assistance and helping employees to overcome possible uncivil or rude treatments, we highlight the need for a bipartisan collaboration between HR departments and well-being centers and psychologists.

Furthermore, this study encourages HR mangers and decision makers to embrace the positive aspect of workplace religiosity and spirituality. In accordance with this study’s findings, employers are encouraged to devise actionable strategies and resources to support and consider employees’ religious needs as a coping or recovery mechanism from stressful working conditions and uncivil treatments. For example, spiritual workshops and religious meetings should be a part of the HR policies to evaluate their implications for workers’ well-being (e.g., Zhang et al., 2020).

HR managers are also advised to track the progress of these workshops and meetings for optimal results. In Muslim majority countries, this study encourages managers and policymakers to support religiosity in organizations by permitting workers to pray, offering prayer spaces, mats, copies of the Quran and built-in ablution facilities. In a wider context, and in light of Gotsis and Grimani’s (2017) study, HR policies grounded on universally held values and spiritual activities may extend the scope of spiritual practices addressing the needs of employees’ well-being and happiness.

Limitations and future research

Some limitations of the current study should be noted that emphasize the need for future studies. Firstly, the use of self-report data raises concerns of response bias and therefore longitudinal design drawing on other-report evaluations is encouraged to examine the relationship between the variables. In addition, considering the used sampling designs (i.e., convenience and snowball sampling) along with the sample size, our results should be interpreted with caution. Another limitation is that concepts, such as religiosity, incivility and well-being, can be theorized differently and are culturally specific. Therefore, future work and studies may explore why and how people define these concepts and how cultural values and norms impact these definitions.

Globally, some research questions merit further investigation to understand the possible differences or perhaps commonalities between Muslim and non-Muslim perceptions and definitions of religiosity and well-being. However, because the field of religiosity and psychology in organizations has been grounded on a Western context, further studies are needed to test these constructs in non-Western areas, such as the Middle East and South Asia.

Finally, we encourage future studies to undertake in-depth interviews to gain deep awareness and understanding about possible psychological problems, such as depression and anxiety, that may occur due to incivility within workplaces. This may support the existing theory development and highlight new conceptual thinking in the field of workplace incivility.

Conclusion

Studies considering the implications of workplace incivility and religiosity for workers’ psychological well-being have thus far failed to offer a conspicuous understanding, specifically in Muslim majority countries. This study sought to broaden this field of research by examining the interplay among workplace incivility, workers’ religiosity and psychological well-being. Findings revealed that workers’ religiosity is positively and significantly associated with their psychological well-being, while workplace incivility is negatively (but insignificantly) associated with workers’ psychological well-being. Contrary to our expectations, findings suggested that workplace incivility strengthens the direct relationship between religiosity and well-being proposing that uncivil treatments, at times, predict self-blame, which in turn may encourage the targets to use religiosity as a coping mechanism to confront different types of incivility and stressful life events. This finding suggests that the interconnection among religiosity and well-being is complicated as workplace incivility may moderate this relationship via different mechanisms.

Thus to conclude, the conceptual novelty of this study lies in presenting a fresh awareness about this complex intersection in a diverse cultural context in the Middle East. Theoretically, this points toward a contextual applicability of the JD-R theory into a Middle Eastern context. Practically, a bipartisan (rather than unilateral) collaboration between academics and practitioners may be more helpful to increase awareness and sensitivity about this field of inquiry.