Uncivil Supervisors and Perceived Work Ability: The Joint ......Introduction ‘‘Nearly every...

ORIGINAL PAPER

Uncivil Supervisors and Perceived Work Ability: The JointModerating Roles of Job Involvement and Grit

Dana Kabat-Farr1 • Benjamin M. Walsh2 • Alyssa K. McGonagle3

Received: 28 June 2016 / Accepted: 8 June 2017 / Published online: 20 June 2017

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Abstract Uncivil behavior by leaders may be viewed as an

effective way to motivate employees. However, supervisor

incivility, as a form of unethical supervision, may be

undercutting employees’ ability to do their jobs. We

investigate linkages between workplace incivility and

perceived work ability (PWA), a variable that captures

employees’ appraisals of their ability to continue working

in their jobs. We draw upon the appraisal theory of stress

and social identity theory to examine incivility from

supervisors as an antecedent to PWA, and to investigate job

involvement and grit as joint moderators of this associa-

tion. Results from data collected in two samples of working

adults provided evidence for three-way interactions in

relation to PWA. Among employees with high levels of

grit, there was no significant relation between supervisor

incivility and PWA, regardless of employee job involve-

ment. However, we found some evidence that for those low

in grit, having high job involvement was associated with a

stronger relationship between supervisor incivility and

PWA. Findings attest to the importance of unethical

supervisor behavior, showing the potential for supervisor

incivility to erode PWA, as well as the importance of grit

as a potential buffer.

Keywords Workplace incivility � Perceived work ability �Grit � Job involvement � Unethical supervision

Introduction

‘‘Nearly every person I worked with, I saw cry at

their desk.’’ (Amazon, former employee)

A recent NY Times article detailed the cut-throat, toxic

nature of the Amazon.com workplace (Kantor and Streit-

feld 2015). Some employees are propelled by increasingly

intense demands and expectations; others find themselves

pushed out by the long hours and unrealistic expectations

(Kantor and Streitfeld 2015). Jeff Bezos, the founder of

Amazon.com, believes that harmony is overvalued. Anec-

dotal evidence of this phenomenon exists among other

revered leaders, such as in Isaacson’s (2011) biography of

Steve Jobs, whereby Jobs was known to use disparaging

comments with the goal of spurring productivity and

innovation at Apple. Characterized as ‘‘acting rudely or

discourteously, without regard for others’’ (Andersson and

Pearson 1999, p. 455), workplace incivility is evident in

descriptions of leaders such as Jobs and Bezos. Framed as a

transformative way to motivate and compel workers to be

Portions of this paper were presented in 2015 at the Academy of

Management annual meeting.

Dana Kabat-Farr and Benjamin M. Walsh have contributed equally to

this work.

& Benjamin M. Walsh

[email protected]

Dana Kabat-Farr

[email protected]

Alyssa K. McGonagle

[email protected]

1 Dalhousie University, Kenneth C. Rowe Management

Building, 6100 University Ave, PO Box 15000, Halifax,

NS B3H 4R2, Canada

2 College of Business and Management, University of Illinois

at Springfield, One University Plaza, MS UHB 4060,

Springfield, IL 62703-5407, USA

3 Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at

Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd, Colvard 4026,

Charlotte, NC 28223-0001, USA

123

J Bus Ethics (2019) 156:971–985

DOI 10.1007/s10551-017-3604-5

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10551-017-3604-5&domain=pdf

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10551-017-3604-5&domain=pdf

productive, supervisors may use such disrespectful behav-

ior as a means to an end, reflecting organizational priorities

focused on profit rather than employee well-being (Pfeffer

2016).

From a moral perspective, unethical supervisor behav-

iors ‘‘violate normative standards regarding the proper

utilization of organizational authority and resources for the

well-being of the subordinates as well as that of the orga-

nization as a whole’’ (Unal et al. 2012, p. 6). Supervisor

incivility violates basic normative rights to dignity (Toth

2008) and respect at work (Rowan 2000). Supervisors who

ignore or disregard their employees as valued stakeholders

in the organization (Freeman 1984) may be overcome by a

drive to increase efficiency and profits, thereby ignoring the

benefits of positive employee connections (Dutton and

Heaphy 2003), instead viewing them as unnecessary for

success. That is, supervisors may view ‘‘morality as sepa-

rate from (or antithetical to) prosperity’’ (Freeman et al.

2007, p. 304). We investigate whether this consequentialist

approach to management may backfire. Specifically, we

explore whether supervisor incivility may fundamentally

undermine employees’ perceived work ability (PWA)—

that is, their perceptions of their ability to continue working

in their current jobs.

Incivility presents as an insidious form of unethical

treatment of employees, and includes actions such as

speaking over an employee’s contribution to a meeting or

belittling an employee. More severe unethical behavior by

supervisors is researched under labels such as abusive

supervision (Tepper 2000), destructive leadership (Ei-

narsen et al. 2007) and corporate psychopathy (Boddy

2011). However, by definition, incivility is low-level and

may be perceived as ambiguous in its attempt to harm

(Anderson and Pearson 1999), making it easy for super-

visors to underestimate its negative effects and disregard it

as inconsequential in organizations. Supervisors who are

unable to see the negative effects of incivility, or deny its

effects, are less likely to treat employees with respect and

regard (Bandura 1999), despite the fact that workers yearn

for and expect to be treated with dignity and respect (Lucas

2015). It is of utmost importance, then, to understand the

gravity of disrespectful supervisor treatment. We argue that

incivility may represent an unraveling of moral and civil

conduct in an organization, ultimately negatively affecting

workers.

Our contributions are twofold. First, we call attention to

the subtle ways in which incivility by supervisors erodes

civil and moral discourse in today’s organizations. Inci-

vility is often ‘‘swept under the rug’’ and viewed as

inconsequential, or even favored as a motivational tool by

organizational authorities. We propose that, similar to other

work-related stressors, incivility may fundamentally

undermine employees’ appraisals of their capacity to do

their jobs. However, efforts to stymie this negative trend

are unlikely to succeed without a better understanding of

the boundary conditions for the supervisor incivility—

PWA relationship.

This brings us to our second contribution, in which we

focus on individual employee characteristics that might

explain whether targets experience negative effects of

supervisor incivility differently. Decrements to PWA in the

face of supervisor incivility are likely stronger under cer-

tain conditions relevant to the stress appraisal and coping

process proposed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984). We

integrate social identity theory (e.g., Tajfel and Turner

1986; Thoits 1991) with appraisal theory of stress (Lazarus

and Folkman 1984) to explore job involvement and grit as

variables that may jointly modify the supervisor incivil-

ity—PWA association. Although social identity theory

suggests that highly involved employees may be the most

likely to appraise supervisor incivility as threatening and

experience detriments in PWA as a result (Petriglieri

2011), this theoretical perspective may be limited in that it

does not consider the role of personal resources that may

protect targets from harm. Building on Petriglieri’s work,

the present study further highlights the value of jointly

considering social identity theory and appraisal theory as

complementary theoretical perspectives, and thereby sheds

light on the employees for whom supervisor incivility may

be most and least destructive. Moreover, the present study

builds on a growing evidence base suggesting that grit may

operate as a protective buffer of strain (e.g., Blalock et al.

2015), by testing it as a protective mechanism against

uncivil behaviors from supervisors, even among highly

involved employees.

In summary, we seek to better understand the conditions

under which unethical supervisor behavior affects workers,

theorizing that incivility is perceived to be particularly

threatening when one lacks personal resources to cope with

it. In contrast, we expect incivility to have a weaker effect

on PWA when one perceives it as less threatening and/or

has adequate resources to cope. Next, we define workplace

incivility and PWA, and articulate the theoretical basis for

our hypotheses.

Workplace Incivility and Perceived Work Ability

Andersson and Pearson (1999) conceptualized incivility as

a low-level type of workplace deviance that is character-

istically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard

for others. Uncivil behaviors are work stressors, and

include being put down, treated in a condescending man-

ner, or ignored or excluded (Cortina et al. 2001). Although

related to other forms of mistreatment, its low-level nature

distinguishes incivility from other forms (Andersson and

Pearson 1999; Schilpzand et al. 2016). Additionally,

972 D. Kabat-Farr et al.

123

whereas other forms originate by definition from only a

single source (e.g., abusive supervision), incivility can

arise from many sources, including supervisors and/or

coworkers (Schilpzand et al. 2016). Although the incivility

construct itself is not source-specific, calls have been made

to specify the source of incivility as the majority of

research has overlooked this aspect (Hershcovis and Bar-

ling 2010; Schilpzand et al. 2016). We heed this call and

focus on supervisor incivility in the present study, by iso-

lating the influence of supervisor incivility on PWA, while

controlling for incivility experienced from coworkers

(coworker incivility). Our focus on supervisor incivility is

guided by several considerations, including the need to

consider the ethical implications of supervisor

mistreatment.

Supervisor incivility is not a rare occurrence: recent

research using experience sampling methods found 45% of

employees to report supervisor incivility in a two-week

period (Meier and Gross 2015). Furthermore, the inherent

status difference in a supervisor-employee relationship

(French and Raven 1959) arguably affords the supervisor

greater opportunity to be uncivil to those of lower orga-

nizational status. In addition, although this is unknown

with respect to PWA as an outcome, mistreatment from

supervisors generally has a stronger impact on employees

than that from coworkers and individuals outside the

organization (Hershcovis and Barling 2010). Supervisors

may also use incivility, evidence of a lack of moral

engagement, as a tool to motivate poor performers (Tepper

et al. 2011). But to what end? Does supervisor incivility

negatively influence one’s perceived ability to do their job

(i.e., PWA) beyond interpersonal stressors from other

sources (e.g., coworker incivility)? Addressing this ques-

tion contributes to theory regarding the potential differen-

tial effects of mistreatment experiences from different

sources, and builds on the preponderance of workplace

incivility research that does not specify the source of the

behavior (Schilpzand et al. 2016).

Past research has linked incivility (without regard to

source) to a variety of negative effects including worsened

employee work attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction) and

decrements in psychological and physical well-being (for a

review see Schilpzand et al. 2016). We propose that inci-

vility’s impact extends to work ability. Work ability is

defined as an individual worker’s job-related functional

capacity: one’s ability to continue working in their current

job, given the demands of the job and their resources (Il-

marinen et al. 2008). Typically employing samples of

workers in European nations, studies of work ability have

found it to be a robust predictor of work-related outcomes.

For example, poor work ability predicted subsequent dis-

ability leave in samples of Dutch construction workers

(Alavania et al. 2009; Notenbomer et al. 2015), along with

the likelihood that nurses will leave the nursing profession

or change employers (Rongen et al. 2014). Work ability

also relates to individual outcomes, including psychologi-

cal well-being (e.g., Tuomi et al. 2001).

Work ability has only more recently been recognized in

organizational studies, wherein researchers typically

examine a subset of the initial work ability concept, sub-

jective perceptions or appraisals of work ability (PWA;

McGonagle et al. 2015). Research supports the distinc-

tiveness of subjective PWA from more ‘‘objectively’’

measured forms of work ability, including the presence of

disease (Martus et al. 2010; Radkiewicz and Widerszal-

Bazyl 2005). In other words, work ability can be thought of

as having two factors, one subjective and one objective.

Notably, the subjective factor has been demonstrated to

correlate positively and strongly with an overall measure of

work ability (a composite of both factors; Ahlstrom et al.

2010; McGonagle et al. 2015). Further, studies of PWA

have found that it predicts important workplace outcomes,

including worker absence (Ahlstrom et al. 2010), work-

force departure through retirement and disability pension

(e.g., McGonagle et al. 2015; Sell et al., 2009; von Bons-

dorff et al. 2011), and work engagement (Airila et al.

2014). We also focus on individuals’ PWA, due to its

demonstrated importance in determining work-related

outcomes.

Although various antecedents of work ability and PWA

are known, empirical research linking workplace incivility

and related interpersonal mistreatment constructs to PWA

is limited and mixed. McGonagle et al. (2015) found no

link between conflictual contact with others on the job and

PWA. However, Fischer et al. (2006, Fischer and Martinez

2013) found that among healthcare workers in Brazil

verbal abuse and workplace violence, among other factors,

were related to inadequate levels of work ability. Further,

Airila et al. (2014) examined supervisor support, sup-

portive interpersonal relations (the inverse representing

conflictual relations), and task resources and found that

each had positive bivariate correlations with PWA, and

that the combination of the three positively and indirectly

related to subsequent PWA through work engagement.

Beyond these studies, however, we are unaware of

research that specifically examines the effect of more

subtle, low-level transgressions (i.e., incivility; Andersson

and Pearson 1999) on PWA, or whether supervisor inci-

vility may harm PWA above and beyond incivility from

other sources.

To understand the potential link between supervisor

incivility and PWA, we turn our attention to the appraisal

model of stress (for more information, see Lazarus and

Folkman 1984), which posits that individuals first engage

in a primary appraisal of a situation or event that deter-

mines whether it is a potential or actual threat to their well-

Uncivil Supervisors and Perceived Work Ability: The Joint Moderating Roles of Job… 973

123

being and goals, and then a secondary appraisal in which

they take stock of their resources to cope with the stressor

(Lazarus 1991). More specifically, we use this theory to

suggest that incivility, as a work stressor (Lim et al. 2008),

will trigger an appraisal process for employees, which may

result in erosion of PWA. This process may be conscious,

or it may occur outside of consciousness, in an immediate

and automatic fashion (e.g., Lazarus 1982; Smith and

Lazarus 1990).

Key in the appraisal process is a primary appraisal of

threat or potential harm—that is to say, the employee

appraises whether the event is stressful (a demand that is

an actual or perceived threat to well-being and goals). In

the case of incivility, a primary appraisal of threat or

potential harm is more likely when the individual perpe-

trating the incivility has power over the target (as in the

case of a supervisor–subordinate relationship). Supervisors

are resource and reward gatekeepers (e.g., Rupp and

Cropanzano 2002), and are viewed as agents of the

organizations, making their actions influential in shaping

employee cognitions and attitudes about their work (Frone

2000). Mistreatment coming from a supervisor, therefore,

may be appraised as particularly harmful and counter to

one’s goals, resulting in decrements to PWA. For example,

employees may hear uncivil work-related remarks from

their supervisor; Amazon’s Bezos is known for delivering

to employees such condescending statements as ‘‘Are you

lazy or just incompetent?’’ and ‘‘I’m sorry, did I take my

stupid pills today?’’ (Schwartz 2015, para. 19). Given their

nature and origin from a more powerful source, such

remarks should harm employees’ appraisals of their work

ability. Supervisor incivility violates basic normative

rights to dignity (Toth 2008) and respect (Rowan 2000) at

work, and when coming from someone with greater

power, is particularly stressful. Yet, let us not forget that

incivility is not unique to supervisors and it may arise

from other sources such as coworkers (Schilpzand et al.

2016). Incivility from coworkers also represents an inter-

personal stressor on account of the social power of peers;

however, coworkers have less formal authority to affect

performance and completion of work tasks, which sug-

gests that the effect of coworker incivility on PWA may

be weaker when compared with supervisor incivility. To

test the source-specific effect of supervisor incivility, and

help to build on a workplace incivility literature that has

largely ignored the sources from which mistreatment

occurs (Schilpzand et al. 2016), we examine the influence

of supervisor incivility on PWA after controlling for

coworker incivility.

Hypothesis 1 Supervisor incivility is negatively related

to PWA, above and beyond the influence of coworker

incivility.

Job Involvement as a Moderator of the Supervisor

Incivility–PWA Relationship

We are particularly interested in the intersection of

supervisor incivility and job involvement and the possi-

bility that the supervisor incivility—PWA relation would

vary across employees. In other words, unethical supervi-

sor behaviors including incivility may not have the same

effect for all. In a primary appraisal process, there are other

factors beyond the source that may impact the degree to

which incivility is appraised as threatening. A perception of

threat is more likely when one’s identity is attached to

one’s work (Petriglieri 2011), as in the case of high levels

of job involvement. Employees high in job involvement are

‘‘identified psychologically’’ with their job (Lodahl and

Kejner 1965, p. 24). Guided by social identity theory

(Tajfel and Turner 1986), we propose that job involvement

may raise the risk of threat (primary appraisal) to a valued

identity in the face of supervisor incivility, triggering lower

PWA. Results consistent with such theorizing would have

implications for work environments that tolerate or even

encourage rude, prickly behavior from supervisors, pro-

viding evidence that not only is supervisor incivility

harmful, it may pose a particular stress on those employees

organizations arguably value the most: those most involved

in their jobs.

Research shows that being highly involved with one’s

job is associated with positive outcomes, including work

effort and job performance (Brown and Leigh 1996),

organizational citizenship behavior (Zhang 2014), and

greater work satisfaction, organizational commitment, and

self-esteem (Brown 1996). However, high job involvement

is not uniformly positive. When examined as a moderator

in the stress-to-strain process, job involvement may exac-

erbate negative effects. For example, Frone et al. (1995)

found that high levels of job involvement magnified asso-

ciations between several work stressors (e.g., role ambi-

guity) and negative outcomes (e.g., alcohol use).

Social identity theory and the more recent concept of

identity-relevant stressors provide an explanation for these

negative effects. According to social identity theory, when

an individual identifies as a member of a group that they

value, membership in that social group becomes self-ref-

erential (Tajfel and Turner 1986). Individuals who strongly

identify with their job may feel a ‘‘merging’’ of self and

group, a ‘‘perceived oneness with the organization’’ (Ash-

forth and Mael 1989, p. 23). Building on this, Thoits (1991)

cautions of the power of identity-relevant stressors in the

workplace, wherein stress associated with a highly valued

identity may increase vulnerability to strain. Petriglieri

(2011) further theorizes that identity threat stems from a

subjective appraisal of an experience that might damage a

valued identity. Employees view supervisors as


123

organizational representatives, and rude behavior from

these powerful individuals may have a particularly nega-

tive effect for those who identify with their job. In the face

of supervisor incivility, highly involved employees may

feel especially threatened and experience lower levels of

PWA, given their investment in their role and incorporation

of the organization’s interests into their self-concept (Van

Knippenberg and Sleebos 2006).

Grit as a Moderator of the Supervisor Incivility–

PWA Relationship

However, are involved employees equally subject to the

harm of supervisor incivility? Or might some individuals

have protective qualities? Indeed, as Isaacson (2011) notes

after interviewing some of Jobs’ former employees, ‘‘There

were some upsides to Jobs’ demanding and wounding

behavior. People who were not crushed ended up being

stronger’’ (p. 121). This suggests that some may weather

the storm of supervisor incivility, so to speak, and not

experience declines in PWA, whereas others may not be so

fortunate. After a primary appraisal of threat, a secondary

appraisal process is employed, wherein an individual

evaluates available resources to cope with or manage the

situation (Lazarus 1991). A social identity perspective

alone may lead one to assume that supervisor incivility

may be especially and uniformly harmful to highly

involved employees, but consideration of cognitive

appraisal theory suggests greater complexity given the

importance of secondary appraisals (Lazarus and Folkman

1984). We identify an individual difference that may be

critical in this secondary appraisal: employee grit.

Duckworth et al. (2007) define grit as ‘‘perseverance and

passion for long-term goals’’ (p. 1087). High levels of grit

are associated with positive outcomes, including more

education and better GPA (Duckworth et al. 2007), greater

teacher effectiveness (Duckworth et al. 2009), higher levels

of hardiness (Maddi et al. 2012), lower surgical resident

burnout (Salles et al. 2014), and greater retention of Army

Special Operations Forces and sales employees (Eskreis-

Winkler et al. 2014). Gritty employees are able to push

through tough circumstances to get the job done. We argue

that grit can be conceptualized as a personal resource,

giving gritty individuals resilience in the face of an uncivil

supervisor.

Research on grit has established a conceptual distinction

between it and related, but distinct, constructs. For exam-

ple, both self-control and grit are related to pursuit of

valued goals despite adversity; however, self-control rep-

resents the ability to successfully resolve the immediate

conflict between two impulsive actions, whereas grit rep-

resents the pursuance of long-term goals (Duckworth and

Gross 2014). Work ethic, a multidimensional set of

attitudes and beliefs regarding the importance of work in

one’s life (Miller et al. 2002), is a key individual difference

in determining success in employment settings (Meriac

et al. 2015). In contrast, grit is not specific to the work

domain. Grit is also distinguished from conscientiousness

(Goldberg 1990). Conscientiousness and grit are positively

related to one another (e.g., Duckworth et al. 2007);

however, grit explains incremental variance in outcomes

(Duckworth et al. 2007), suggesting a unique construct

domain. Finally, grit is related to hardiness, which Maddi

et al. (2012) describe as ‘‘a pattern of attitudes and skills

that provides the existential form of courage and motiva-

tion needed for learning from stressful circumstances, in

order to determine what will be the most effective perfor-

mance’’ (p. 21). Grit and hardiness are positively correlated

(Maddi et al. 2012), though Maddi et al. also found that grit

explained unique variance in retention of military cadets

who were the focus of their study. These results suggest

that grit and hardiness are positively related, yet unique

constructs.

Given the theoretical importance placed on personal

resources in the stressor-to-strain relationship, we investi-

gate grit as a resource that may protect employees from the

harms of supervisor incivility. This conceptualization fol-

lows Beattie and Griffin (2014) who studied core self-

evaluations as a personal resource and moderator of the

relationship between incivility and engagement, and Airila

et al. (2014) who found that self-esteem was an important

personal resource that predicted workers’ PWA. Specific to

grit, recent limited research outside of the workplace

context supports its protective role, wherein grit buffered

the relationship between negative life events and later-

assessed suicidal ideation (Blalock et al. 2015). Expanding

on this research, we propose that in the context of incivility

from one’s supervisor, grit may provide the buffer neces-

sary to preserve PWA. For example, an uncivil supervisor

may lose his/her temper and yell or swear, and a gritty

employee should be able to brush off the incident and not

doubt his/her ability to do their work. Or an uncivil

supervisor may ignore employee contributions in a meet-

ing, but a ‘‘gritty’’ employee should be more likely to

persevere in performance of work tasks, perhaps keeping

an eye on longer-term career goals.

Consideration of the aforementioned theory and

research enabled us to develop hypotheses concerning

interactions among supervisor incivility, job involvement,

and grit in relation to PWA. To the extent that supervisor

incivility is an identity-relevant experience (Thoits 1991),

we expect workers’ primary appraisals of incivility to be

threatening. In other words, we expect stronger negative

relations between supervisor incivility and PWA when job

involvement is high. Yet, the appraisal process does not

end with the primary appraisal. We explained how grit can


123

be conceptualized as a personal resource that is drawn upon

by workers in a secondary appraisal process related to

coping with supervisor incivility. Such findings would also

contribute to theories of identity threat that reinforce the

importance of secondary appraisals, yet do not consider

personal resources in this process (e.g., Petriglieri 2011).

We therefore hypothesize a three-way interaction, such that

high levels of job involvement will be associated with a

stronger negative relation between supervisor incivility and

PWA only when grit is at low levels. When levels of grit

are high, we do not expect to see a moderation effect of job

involvement due to the effectiveness of grit in helping to

maintain workers’ PWA.

Hypothesis 2 Job involvement and grit jointly moderate

the negative association between supervisor incivility and

PWA. High levels of job involvement are associated with a

stronger negative relationship between supervisor incivility

and PWA when levels of grit are low, but not when levels

of grit are high.

Method

We tested our model in two samples, for which informed

consent was solicited from individuals prior to participa-

tion. Sample 1 relied on cross-sectional data collected from

workers in a variety of industries to conduct an initial test

of hypotheses. Sample 2 was collected in an attempt to

replicate Sample 1 findings, and build upon the limitations

of its cross-sectional nature. Specifically, Sample 2 inclu-

ded data collected from employees of childcare programs.

Some evidence suggests that work in childcare relates to

poor health and work ability (Tuomi et al. 1991), making

the context relevant for studying PWA. In addition, in

Sample 2 the outcome measure of PWA was assessed

approximately two weeks following the other variables,

which is a recommended approach to mitigate potential

bias in relationships due to common method variance

(Podsakoff et al. 2012). Moreover, common method vari-

ance is unlikely to explain any observed interaction effects

(Siemsen et al. 2010).

Sample 1

Sample 1 was recruited through snowball sampling with a

technique similar to methods used in other organizational

studies (e.g., Ambrose et al. 2013; Harold and Holtz 2015).

In fall 2013, sixty undergraduate business students at a US

university recruited employed participants to complete an

online survey, using email templates approved by the

University institutional review board. Before the study,

students were trained for 30 min on conducting online

survey research and were given specific instructions on

recruiting participants and a description of characteristics

of ideal survey respondents (e.g., employed at least 30 h

each week, at least 18 years old). Extra credit was earned

by students for recruiting participants. The 60 students

recruited an average of 9.6 participants each before data

cleaning.

Responses were initially collected from 575 partici-

pants. However, we screened participants for insufficient

effort responding (IER; Huang et al. 2015) using three

items including two instructed response items (e.g.,

‘‘Please select somewhat agree’’) and one infrequency item

(‘‘I have paid no attention to this survey so far.’’). Partic-

ipants were flagged as IER if they skipped or failed any of

these items. One hundred sixty-seven participants were

flagged and removed (29% of the sample), which are rates

comparable to those seen in the literature (McGonagle

et al. 2016). An additional nine participants were elimi-

nated because they had missing data on a focal variable,

leaving N = 399 for hypothesis tests.

The 399 participants were 59.4% female and 80.5%

White. Approximately 65% of the sample was between 18

and 42 years old, and worked 41.8 h on average per week

(SD = 10.9). Participants had worked in their jobs for

5.6 years on average (SD = 6.8) and their organizations

for 8.0 years (SD = 8.3). Individuals worked in various

industries, including other services except public admin-

istration (11.8%), educational services (11.3%), and

finance and insurance (11.3%).

Sample 2

Sample 2 consisted of employees of childcare programs in

a state in the Midwestern USA. Directors of 92 childcare

centers were contacted to solicit their center’s participation

in two online surveys, for which the first (Time 1) was

completed in late January/early February of 2014, and the

second (Time 2) was completed approximately two weeks

later. PWA was assessed at Time 2, whereas all other

variables were assessed at Time 1. Participants were

included in a drawing for one of 40 $10 Amazon.com gift

certificates and a Kindle Fire tablet in each survey, and a

feedback report was shared with respondents and centers.

Employees of 60 of the 92 centers participated (65.2%

center response rate), and of the participating centers, ini-

tial responses were obtained from 218 of 893 employees

(24.4% individual response rate). Four individuals were

removed based on IER at Time 1, identified with a single

infrequency item. Time 2 responses were initially collected

from 151 participants (69.3% retention rate); 120 could be

matched with Time 1 responses. After listwise deletion

based on focal variables and covariates, 116 respondents

were retained for analysis.


123

The 116 participants were 98.3% female and 94.8%

White. Approximately 62% of the sample was between the

ages of 18 and 42. Participants worked 40.7 h on average

each week (SD = 8.6) and had worked in their organiza-

tions for 7.7 years (SD = 6.7). We examined the degree to

which there was between-center variability in ratings of the

focal variables and found constructs to not vary signifi-

cantly across centers (p[ .09 for all variables), so data

were analyzed at the individual level as hypothesized.

Measures

Measures used in Samples 1 and 2 were identical.

Perceived Work Ability

PWA was assessed using four items modified from the

Work Ability Index (Tuomi et al. 1998) validated by

McGonagle et al. (2015). The instructions asked partici-

pants to think about their work ability on their job and

assume that their work ability at its best has a value of 10

points. Respondents evaluated four items and a composite

was created. A sample item is ‘‘How many points would

you give your current ability to work?’’ Responses were

made on a scale from 0 to 10. Cronbach’s a was .84 in

Sample 1 and .86 in Sample 2.

Supervisor Incivility Experiences

Incivility experiences from supervisors were measured

with the seven-item Workplace Incivility Scale (Cortina

et al. 2001), using modified instructions to focus specifi-

cally on experiences from supervisors. The instructions

were, ‘‘During the past year, have you been in a situation in

which any of your SUPERVISORS,’’ after which the items

appeared, including ‘‘Put you down or was condescending

to you.’’ Responses ranged from ‘‘1’’ (never) to ‘‘5’’

(daily). Cronbach’s a was .92 in both samples.

Job Involvement

Job involvement was measured with three items from

Schaubroeck and Jones (2000). An example item is ‘‘The

most important things which happen to me involve my

job.’’ Responses were collected on a seven-point scale

ranging from ‘‘1’’ (very inaccurate) to ‘‘7’’ (very accurate).

Cronbach’s a was .79 in Sample 1 and .76 in Sample 2.

Grit

Grit was measured with the six-item perseverance of effort

subscale from the measure developed by Duckworth et al.

(2007). An example item is ‘‘I have achieved a goal that

took years of work.’’ Responses ranged from ‘‘1’’ (not at

all like me) to ‘‘5’’ (very much like me). Cronbach’s a was

.74 in Sample 1 and .60 in Sample 2.

Covariates

We examined two possible covariates based on theory and

previous research. First, we controlled for experiences of

incivility from coworkers using the Workplace Incivility

Scale as described above (Cortina et al. 2001), modified

specifically to measure incivility specifically from

coworkers. Cronbach’s a was .92 in Sample 1 and .91 in

Sample 2. Second, given the potential for respondent

negative affect to cause method variance (Podsakoff et al.

2003), we controlled for negative affect using five items

from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS;

Watson et al. 1988). Cronbach’s a was .87 in Sample 1 and

.88 in Sample 2.

Data Analysis

Hypotheses were tested using moderated hierarchical

multiple regression analysis. Mean composites were cre-

ated for all variables, and predictor variables were stan-

dardized prior to creating interaction terms as

recommended by Dawson (2014). Unstandardized coeffi-

cients are reported from output. We interpret findings based

on the first step at which the particular variable was

entered, such that covariates were entered in step 1, main

effects in step 2, two-way interactions in step 3, and the

three-way interaction in step 4. We used the spreadsheet

developed by Dawson and colleagues (Dawson 2014;

Dawson and Richter 2006) to plot interactions, and to

calculate simple slope estimates and slope difference tests.

Results

Tables 1 and 2 show descriptive statistics, correlations

among variables, and reliability estimates for Samples 1

and 2, respectively. Notably, supervisor incivility was

significantly and negatively associated with PWA in both

samples. Table 3 shows results from hypothesis tests. We

interpreted Model 2 in both samples to draw inferences

with respect to Hypothesis 1 concerning the main effect of

supervisor incivility on PWA, finding partial support. With

negative affect, coworker incivility, job involvement, and

grit included in the model, supervisor incivility was sig-

nificantly and negatively related to PWA in Sample 1

(b = -.23, p\ .001), and although the coefficient was of

similar magnitude in Sample 2 (b = -.17, p = .107), it

did not reach traditional levels of statistical significance.


123

Model 4 shows results from tests of the hypothesized

three-way interaction. Three-way interactions were

observed in both samples (Sample 1 b = .09, p = .046;

Sample 2 b = -.15, p = .037). Figures 1 and 2 display the

form of the interaction in Sample 1 and Sample 2,

respectively. Similarities were observed in the form of the

interactions such that in both samples, the relationship

between supervisor incivility and PWA was not statisti-

cally significant for employees high in grit, regardless of

whether they were high in job involvement (Sample 1

gradient = -.03, p = .765; Sample 2 gradient = -.07,

p = .675) or low in job involvement (Sample 1 gradi-

ent = -.01, p = .925; Sample 2 gradient = -.14,

p = .447). These slopes were not significantly different

from one another in either sample.

Job involvement appeared to moderate the relation

between supervisor incivility and PWA when grit was low,

although the nature of the moderation differed between the

two samples. For Sample 1, among employees low in grit

and high in job involvement, the relation was negative

(gradient = -.82, p\ .001) and significantly different

from all other slopes, which is consistent with Hypothesis

2. However, in Sample 2, the relationship was positive,

albeit not statistically significant (gradient = .22,

p = .282), which is inconsistent with Hypothesis 2. In

addition, for employees low in grit and low in job

involvement, a negative supervisor incivility—PWA

association was observed in both Sample 1 (gradi-

ent = -.45, p\ .001) and Sample 2 (gradient = -.45,

p = .008).

To summarize, partial support was found for Hypothesis

2. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, significant three-way

interactions were observed in both samples, and job

involvement only appeared to moderate the relationship

between supervisor incivility and PWA when grit was low.

Further, as expected, high levels of job involvement were

associated with the strongest negative relationships between

supervisor incivility and PWA at low levels of grit in Sample

1. However, this finding was not replicated in Sample 2.

Discussion

Rude and uncivil behavior by managers is a norm in some

organizations as their leaders subscribe to a philosophy of

ethics wherein the ends justify the means (Pfeffer 2016). This

has led to calls for management scholars to investigate how

such practices impact ‘‘human sustainability’’ (Pfeffer

2010). In the present study, we framed supervisor incivility

as a form of unethical supervision (Unal et al. 2012), drawing

attention to the morally laden nature of workplace incivility.

Incivility theory to date has largely centered on an under-

standing of its behavioral manifestation, ignoring the ethical

implications undergirding such behavior. We positioned this

construct in the context of ethical values and moral treatment

of employees, framing it as a violation of normative rights

including dignity and respect, with the potential to harm

employees. Our research suggests that with respect to PWA,

supervisor incivility does not have desirable effects. This

link is important to understand given connections between

Table 1 Sample 1 correlations,

descriptive statistics, and

reliability estimates

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Supervisor incivility 1.43 .72 (.92)

2. Perceived work ability 8.88 1.20 -.30** (.84)

3. Grit 4.10 .60 -.11* .36** (.74)

4. Job involvement 3.86 1.36 -.12* .02 .29** (.79)

5. Negative affect 2.07 .81 .22** -.32** -.26** -.08 (.87)

6. Coworker incivility 1.53 .74 .59** -.27** -.18** -.11* .17** (.92)

N = 399. * p\ .05. ** p\ .01. Cronbach’s alpha reliability estimates along the diagonal

Table 2 Sample 2 correlations,

descriptive statistics, and

reliability estimates

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Supervisor incivility 1.37 .62 (.92)

2. Perceived work ability 9.05 1.04 -.34** (.86)

3. Grit 4.20 .49 -.16 .40** (.60)

4. Job involvement 4.28 1.15 -.16 -.02 .20* (.76)

5. Negative affect 2.02 .83 .27** -.37** -.18 .09 (.88)

6. Coworker incivility 1.55 .79 .59** -.38** -.14 -.01 .50** (.91)

N = 116. * p\ .05. ** p\ .01. Cronbach’s alpha reliability estimates along the diagonal


123

PWA and absenteeism, work engagement, turnover inten-

tions, and workforce departure, among other outcomes

(Airila et al. 2014; Camerino et al. 2006; McGonagle et al.

2015). Our findings complement and extend research on

predictors of PWA, outcomes of workplace incivility, and

moderators of the negative effects of incivility on PWA.

Implications for Theory and Research

The appraisal theory of stress and coping (Lazarus and

Folkman 1984) provided the primary framework through

which we examined the supervisor incivility—PWA

association. Supervisor incivility was significantly and

negatively related to PWA above and beyond all other

included predictors in Sample 1. In Sample 2, there was a

significant negative correlation between supervisor inci-

vility and PWA, and there was a negative effect of

supervisor incivility on PWA in model testing; however,

this relationship did not reach traditional levels of statis-

tical significance. Given the modest Sample 2 size, and

given that the effect sizes were relatively comparable

across samples, this may be due to lower statistical power

to detect these effects, as well as the fact that we observed

evidence for moderators of this relationship in both

Table 3 Results from Ordinary

least squares regression analysis

for perceived work ability

Variable Sample 1 Sample 2

b DR2 (%) b DR2 (%)

Model 1: covariates 15.3 18.6

Intercept 8.88*** 9.05***

Negative affect -.35*** -.25*

Coworker incivility -.26*** -.27*

Model 2: main effects 9.8 12.8

Intercept 8.88*** 9.05***

Negative affect -.24*** -.19�

Coworker incivility -.10 -.15

Supervisor incivility -.23*** -.17

Job involvement -.14* -.11

Grit .36*** .35***

Model 3: two-way interactions 6.0 3.8

Intercept 8.84*** 9.07***

Negative affect -.20*** -.20*



Job involvement -.17** -.14

Grit .39*** .32***

Supervisor incivility X job involvement -.10* .19*

Job involvement X grit .18*** .08

Supervisor incivility X grit .26*** .05

Model 4: three-way interaction .7 2.6

Intercept 8.84*** 9.06***

Negative affect -.19** -.17�



Job involvement -.16** -.15�

Grit .41*** .28**

Supervisor incivility X job involvement -.10* .18*

Job involvement X grit .17** .19�

Supervisor incivility X grit .31*** .01

Supervisor incivility X job involvement X grit .09* -.15*

Total R2 31.8 37.8

Sample 1 N = 399. Sample 2 N = 116. Predictors were standardized prior to creating interaction terms

and data analysis. Unstandardized coefficients reported from the output. � p\ .10 * p\ .05. ** p\ .01.

*** p\ .001


123

samples (to be discussed below). Taking these findings as a

whole, results provide initial evidence that supervisor

incivility may act as a workplace stressor triggering

appraisals of lower PWA, bringing to light the role of

unethical supervisor behavior in PWA. Given the evidence

for associations between supervisor incivility and PWA,

there is reason to believe that PWA may operate as a

mechanism through which incivility leads to consequences

for employees (e.g., reduced task performance and job

satisfaction, increased job withdrawal; Cortina et al.

2001, 2013; Porath and Erez 2007). Future research may

benefit by drawing on the appraisal theory of stress and

specifically testing the role of PWA as a mechanism that

may help explain the impact of supervisor incivility on

outcomes.

We proposed that the relationship between supervisor

incivility and PWA would vary as a function of the com-

bined effects of employee job involvement and grit. Results

across both samples attest to the importance of grit when

compared to job involvement. Consistent with our

hypothesis, for employees who reported high levels of grit,

the relationship between supervisor incivility and PWA

was not statistically significant, and this trend existed

regardless of employee job involvement. Thus, although

theories attest to concerns associated with threatening

identity-relevant experiences (Petriglieri 2011; Thoits

Fig. 1 Sample 1 three-way

interaction

Fig. 2 Sample 2 three-way

interaction


123

1991), in our study supervisor incivility appeared to be of

little consequence to gritty employees who have a high

level of this personal resource. This finding was consistent

in both Samples 1 and 2. It was for those low in grit that

supervisor incivility appeared to matter most to PWA, and

where job involvement appeared to play a moderating role.

We saw evidence of this especially in Sample 1, where the

strongest negative relation between supervisor incivility

and PWA was observed among employees high in job

involvement and low in grit. Consistent with social identity

theory and the appraisal theory of stress and coping, such

individuals appear to experience low PWA because

supervisor incivility acts as a threat to their identity given

their high job involvement, a demand they are unable to

endure given low levels of grit. Not only do these results

speak to the importance of grit, but also the potential risk

that supervisor incivility may pose for involved employees

not armed with this personal resource. Supervisor incivil-

ity, in this case, may erode PWA, despite a strong identi-

fication with the organization.

These findings have implications for theory in at least

two ways. First, when theorizing how employees interpret

and react to identity-threatening experiences, social iden-

tity theory may be helpful to the extent that it underscores

the role of organizational identity. However, our findings

suggest that responses to identity-threatening experiences

may also be influenced by personal resources such as grit.

Indeed, Petriglieri (2011) points to the role of other

resources, such as social support, in shaping secondary

appraisals of identity threats. We augment this framework,

drawing attention to the benefits of personal resources that

may buffer individuals from identity-relevant stressors.

Moreover, in the context of workplace incivility, social

support from coworkers may be difficult to find. Correla-

tions in both samples in the present study suggest that

supervisor and coworker incivility cooccur. This observa-

tion further reinforces the need to rely on personal

resources in response to supervisor incivility. Lastly,

findings from the present study have implications for the-

oretical development surrounding the grit construct.

Results attest to the buffering role of grit, which supports

its conceptualization as a personal resource. Gritty

employees are focused on long-term goals and persevere in

the face of stressors, including, as we found, workplace

incivility. Indeed, evidence from our study suggests that

gritty workers do not suffer in terms of their PWA when

experiencing incivility. However, this does not imply that

incivility is without negative consequences for gritty indi-

viduals. Future research may examine long-term conse-

quences of such incivility on health and well-being of gritty

individuals who persevere in difficult circumstances.

Our analysis differentiated between supervisor and

coworker incivility given recent calls by scholars to

differentiate among sources (Hershcovis and Barling 2010;

Schilpzand et al. 2016). Hershcovis and Barling found that

mistreatment from supervisors who are in positions of

power over their employees generally had a more negative

impact on targets compared with other sources. Our results

replicate and extend this finding as it relates specifically to

PWA and underscore the need to keep unethical supervisor

behavior in check. Nonetheless, future research may focus

on the role of coworker incivility in influencing PWA,

rather than treating the variable as a covariate as was done

in the present research. Results also showed that although

supervisor and coworker incivility are positively corre-

lated, suggesting that they tend to cooccur, this correlation

is not so high as to suggest a lack of discriminant validity;

respondents in the two samples appear to differentiate

meaningfully between sources of their own incivility.

These results attest to the importance of taking what Her-

shcovis and Barling characterize as a multifoci approach,

especially within the same study.

Practical Implications

Our research provides further evidence for the need to

prevent workplace incivility, especially that from supervi-

sors. We see practical implications stemming from this

work at three levels: for individual supervisors, organiza-

tions, and societies. First, some supervisors may believe

that their rude behavior will stimulate an employee’s PWA;

our findings contradict such an assumption. At best, among

employees high in grit the relation between supervisor

incivility and PWA was flat, not positive. We did not find

support for the idea that disrespectful supervisor behaviors

bolster worker’s PWA, countering the notion that disre-

spect might fuel employee performance, and thus profits

for an organization. These findings are consistent with

research on the stifling of creative performance of teams by

abusive supervisors (Rousseau and Aube 2016). Thus,

supervisors should refrain from uncivil behaviors to avoid

harming their employees’ PWA.

Furthermore, organizations that focus on certain stake-

holders (i.e., customers and shareholders) to the neglect of

others (i.e., employees) may create an unethical environ-

ment where supervisor incivility can thrive. By acknowl-

edging the importance of and engaging with all stakeholder

groups, organizations can create a culture where human

connections and collaborative relationships are valued

(Freeman et al. 2007). This includes a de-coupling of the

notion that supervisor incivility should be used a means to

an end in the pursuit of maximizing productivity and

profits. Instead, recognizing the needs of employees and

potential benefits of these relationships will be necessary to

foster organizational success.


123

Subtle mistreatment of employees will not immediately

translate into overt mistreatment; however, Bandura (1999)

cautions of gradualistic moral disengagement wherein

individuals lack self-censure, and their minor lapses in

moral judgement may become more severe as unethical

practices become routine. In order to intervene in this

process, Bandura (1986) suggests that interventions should

take place at both the sociostructural and individual levels.

Civility interventions that target workgroup social inter-

actions such as the Civility, Respect, and Engagement in

the Workplace program (Leiter et al. 2012) can be effective

ways to reduce incivility in workgroups. Organizations

may choose to foster positive connections between super-

visors and employees, spurring worker engagement,

empowerment, and thriving (e.g., Freeney and Fellenz

2013; Kabat-Farr and Cortina 2017).

But these individual and organizational-level efforts

may fade under the persistent tension of a capitalist system

which values profits and shareholder value above all (e.g.,

Frey and Oberholzer-Gee 1997). That is to say, supervisors

who behave uncivilly have morally disengaged from norms

of mutual respect and compassion toward their employees,

and are doing so within contexts which value self-interest

and profit maximization (Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara and

Guerra-Baez 2016), in the pursuit of competitive and

financial success (Passas 2000). Organizations embedded

in American corporate capitalism are likely to internalize

values consistent with it, including high levels of mastery

(e.g., seeing competitive advantage as ‘‘legitimate’’) and

hierarchy (e.g., power over others, wealth, and authority),

and low levels of egalitarianism (e.g., justice, honesty,

equality; Kasser et al. 2007; Schwartz 2007). Such an

ideology is likely to be at odds with compassion in orga-

nizations (George 2014), and may promote supervisor

incivility. First step efforts to counter these societal norms

may be implemented at the organizational level by the way

of organizational values, such as respect and dignity.

Finally, this work highlights grit as a meaningful indi-

vidual difference variable in organizational life, as it may

function as a personal resource in the stress-to-strain rela-

tionship. One way through which organizations may pro-

mote grit among their employees is through coaching.

Coaching involves client-directed goal setting techniques,

which are effective in helping workers attain goals and are

critical to a successful coaching engagement (Grant 2014).

The coach and client work to set goals that align with the

client’s values and desired outcomes (Grant et al. 2009).

Goal setting, in turn, promotes commitment to goals and

perseverance toward goal attainment (Locke and Latham

2006). Through these means, coaching may promote grit,

or determination and perseverance toward the client’s

valued work-related goals, because evidence indicates that

coaching can help foster other kinds of personal resources

in workers (e.g., McGonagle et al. 2014). To our knowl-

edge, no workplace coaching studies to date assess its

effects on grit, yet we feel coaching shows promise for

enhancing grit, and is therefore an important future area for

research.

Study Limitations

Several limitations should be kept in mind in the inter-

pretation of our results. First, although there may be con-

cern regarding the cross-sectional nature of Sample 1, we

attempted to address this by collecting a second sample for

which the measurement of PWA was separate from all

other variables. Second, all data reported were collected via

self-report. This choice of method was guided largely by

the type of variables under consideration; targets are often

the best individuals to report on incivility experiences

because they are covert rather than overt in nature (Buss

1961). Self-report data is also necessary to capture PWA,

given that an inherent characteristic of the construct is an

individual’s subjective perception of their work ability

(Perrewe and Zellars 1999). Further, we attempted to

address data quality by assessing and removing participants

suspected of insufficient effort responding (IER), and

controlling for employee negative affect, which both have

the potential to bias relationships among variables

(McGonagle et al. 2016; Podsakoff et al. 2003). In addi-

tion, even though the focus in Sample 2 on childcare

employees was guided by substantive and methodological

considerations, the size of the sample was modest given the

complex interactions under study. Similarly, our measure

of grit did not reach traditionally desired levels of internal

consistency. Although we saw consistent patterns of

supervisor incivility—PWA relationships across samples

for three of the four clusters of employees, we did not for

the fourth group: those employees low in grit and high in

job involvement. It is plausible that the discrepancy may be

due to the limited sample size and the lower internal

consistency reliability of the grit measure. Additional

research may help to address these limitations.

Conclusion

Taken together, our findings shed light on the way in which

unethical supervisor behavior via incivility has implica-

tions for employee perceptions of work ability. While brash

and disrespectful behavior may be seen as an effective way

to motivate employees in a highly competitive capitalist

society, our findings provide evidence to the contrary.

Additionally, we show that this effect is dependent on grit

and job involvement. Our results suggest that high levels of

grit are generally important for buffering negative effects


123

of supervisor incivility on PWA. Further, we found some

evidence that the negative effects of incivility on PWA are

worse when low levels of grit are combined with high

levels of job involvement. Managers should refrain from

incivility given its role in eroding PWA, and organizations

may reap benefits from having a gritty workforce.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to Cedric Dawkins for his

feedback on an earlier draft.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving

human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of

the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964

Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical

standards.

Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all indi-

vidual participants included in the study.

References

Ahlstrom, L., Grimby-Ekman, A., Hagberg, M., & Dellve, L. (2010).

The Work Ability Index and single-item question: associations

with sick leave, symptoms, and health—a prospective study of

women on long-term sick leave. Scandinavian Journal of Work,

Environment and Health, 36, 404–412.

Airila, A., Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., Luukkonen, R.,

Punakallio, A., & Lusa, S. (2014). Are job and personal

resources associated with work ability 10 years later? The

mediating role of work engagement. Work and Stress, 28,

87–105.

Alavania, S. M., de Boer, A. G. E. M., van Duivenbooden, J. C.,

Frings-Dresen, M. H. W., & Burdorf, A. (2009). Determinants of

work ability and its predictive value for disability. Occupational

Medicine, 59, 32–37.

Ambrose, M. L., Schminke, M., & Mayer, D. M. (2013). Trickle-

down effects of supervisor perceptions of interactional justice: A

moderated mediation approach. Journal of Applied Psychology,

98, 678–689.

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling

effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management

Review, 24, 452–471.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the

organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.

Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-

efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4,

359–373.

Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of

inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193.

Beattie, L., & Griffin, B. (2014). Day-level fluctuations in stress and

engagement in response to workplace incivility: A diary study.

Work and Stress, 28, 124–142.

Blalock, D. V., Young, K. C., & Kleiman, E. M. (2015). Stability

amidst turmoil: Grit buffers the effects of negative life events on

suicidal ideation. Psychiatry Research, 228, 781–784.

Boddy, C. (2011). Corporate psychopaths, bullying and unfair

supervision in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 100,

367–379.

Brown, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational

research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 120,

235–255.

Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological

climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 358–368.

Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York, NY:

Wiley.

Camerino, D., Conway, P. M., Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., Estryn-

Behar, M., Consonni, D., Gould, D., et al. (2006). Low perceived

work ability, ageing and intention to leave nursing: a comparison

among 10 European countries. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56,

542–552.

Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E., Huerta, M., & Magley,

V. (2013). Selective incivility as modern discrimination in

organizations: Evidence and impact. Journal of Management,

39, 1579–1605.

Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J., & Langhout, R. (2001).

Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64–80.

Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What,

why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29,

1–19.

Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way

interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development

and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 91, 917–926.

Duckworth, A., & Gross, J. J. (2014). Self-control and grit: Related

but separable determinants of success. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 23, 319–325.

Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R.

(2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1087–1101.

Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2009).

Positive predictors of teacher effectiveness. The Journal of

Positive Psychology, 4, 540–547.

Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. (2003). The power of high-quality

connections. In K. Cameron, J. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.),

Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 263–278). San Fran-

cisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive

leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The

Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207–216.

Eskreis-Winkler, L., Shulman, E. P., Beal, S. A., & Duckworth, A. L.

(2014). The grit effect: Predicting retention in the military, the

workplace, school and marriage. Frontiers in Psychology, 5,

1–12.

Fischer, F. M., Borges, F. N. S., Rotenberg, L., Latorre, M. R. D. O.,

Soares, N. S., Rosa, P. L. F. S., et al. (2006). Work ability of

health care shift workers: What matters? Chronobiology Journal,

23, 1165–1179.

Fischer, F. M., & Martinez, M. C. (2013). Individual features,

working conditions and work injuries are associated with work

ability among nursing professionals. Work: Journal Of Preven-

tion Assessment and Rehabilitation, 45, 509–517.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder

approach. Boston: Pittman Publishing.

Freeman, R. E., Martin, K., & Parmar, B. (2007). Stakeholder

capitalism. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 303–314.

Freeney, Y., & Fellenz, M. R. (2013). Work engagement, job design

and the role of the social context at work: Exploring antecedents

from a relational perspective. Human Relations, 66, 1427–1445.

French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D.

Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann

Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Frey, B. S., & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1997). The cost of price

incentives: An empirical analysis of motivation crowding-out.

American Economic Review, 87, 746–755.


123

Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological

outcomes: Testing a model among young workers. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 246–255.

Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1995). Job stressors, job

involvement and employee health: A test of identity theory.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68,

1–11.

George, J. M. (2014). Compassion and capitalism: Implications for

organizational studies. Journal of Management, 40, 5–15.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ‘‘description of personality’’:

The Big-Five Factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.

Grant, A. M. (2014). Autonomy support, relationship satisfaction and

goal focus in the coach-coachee relationship: Which best

predicts coaching success? Coaching: An International Journal

of Theory, Research and Practice, 7, 18–38.

Grant, A. M., Curtayne, L., & Burton, G. (2009). Executive coaching

enhances goal attainment, resilience and workplace well-being:

A randomized controlled study. The Journal of Positive


Harold, C. M., & Holtz, B. C. (2015). The effects of passive

leadership on workplace incivility. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 36, 16–38.

Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a multi-foci

approach to workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review of

outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 31, 24–44.

Huang, J. L., Bowling, N. A., Liu, M., & Li, Y. (2015). Detecting

insufficient effort responding with an infrequency scale: Eval-

uating validity and participant reactions. Journal of Business and


Ilmarinen, J., Gould, R., Jarvikoski, A., & Jarvisalo, J. (2008).

Diversity of work ability. In R. Gould, J. Ilmarinen, J. Jarvisalo,

& S. Koskinen (Eds.), Dimensions of work ability. Results of the

health 2000 survey (pp. 13–24). Helsinki: Finnish Institute of

Occupational Health.

Isaacson, W. (2011). Steve Jobs. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Kabat-Farr, D., & Cortina, L. M. (2017). Receipt of interpersonal

citizenship: Fostering agentic emotion, cognition, and action in

organizations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47, 74–89.

Kantor, J., & Streitfeld, D. (2015, August). Inside Amazon: Wrestling

big ideas in a bruising workplace. The New York Times.

Retrieved from www.nytimes.com.

Kasser, T., Cohn, S., Kanner, A. D., & Ryan, R. M. (2007). Some

costs of American corporate capitalism: A psychological explo-

ration of value and goal conflicts. Psychological Inquiry, 18,

1–22.

Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and

cognition. American Psychologist, 37, 1019–1025.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational

theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 819–834.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping.

New York: Springer.

Leiter, M. P., Day, A., Gilin Oore, D., & Spence Laschinger, H. K.

(2012). Getting better and staying better: Assessing civility,

incivility, distress, and job attitudes one year after a civility

intervention. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17,

425–434.

Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and

workgroup incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 95–107.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting

theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15,

265–268.

Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement

of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 24–33.

Lucas, K. (2015). Workplace dignity: Communicating inherent,

earned, and remediated dignity. Journal of Management Studies,

52, 621–646.

Maddi, S. R., Matthews, M. D., Kelly, D. R., Villarreal, B., & White,

M. (2012). The role of hardiness and grit in predicting

performance and retention of USMA cadets. Military Psychol-

ogy, 24, 19–28.

Martus, P., Jakob, O., Rose, U., Seibt, R., & Freude, G. (2010). A

comparative analysis of the Work Ability Index. Occupational

Medicine, 60, 517–524.

McGonagle, A. K., Beatty, J. E., & Joffe, R. (2014). Coaching for

workers with chronic illness: Evaluating an intervention. Journal

of Occupational Health Psychology, 19, 385–398.

McGonagle, A. K., Fisher, G. G., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Grosch, J.

W. (2015). Individual and work factors related to perceived work

ability and labor force outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology,

100, 376–398.

McGonagle, A. K., Huang, J. L., & Walsh, B. M. (2016). Insufficient

effort survey responding: An under-appreciated problem in work

and organizational health psychology research. Applied Psy-

chology: An International Review, 65, 287–321.

Meier, L. L., & Gross, S. (2015). Episodes of incivility between

subordinates and supervisors: Examining the role of self-control

and time with an interaction-record diary study. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 36, 1096–1113.

Meriac, J. P., Slifka, J. S., & LaBat, L. R. (2015). Work ethic and grit:

An examination of empirical redundancy. Personality and

Individual Differences, 86, 401–405.

Miller, M. J., Woehr, D. J., & Hudspeth, N. (2002). The meaning and

measurement of work ethic: Construction and initial validation

of a multidimensional inventory. Journal of Vocational Behav-

ior, 60, 451–489.

Notenbomer, A., Groothoff, J. W., van Rhenen, W., & Roelen, C.

A. M. (2015). Associations of work ability with frequent and

long-term sickness absence. Occupational Medicine, 65,

373–379.

Passas, N. (2000). Global anomie, dysnomie, and economic crime:

Hidden consequences of neoliberalism and globalization in

Russia and around the world. Social Justice, 27, 16–44.

Perrewe, P. L., & Zellars, K. L. (1999). An examination of

attributions and emotions in the transactional approach to the

organizational stress process. Journal of Organizational Behav-

ior, 20, 739–752.

Petriglieri, J. L. (2011). Under threat: Responses to and the

consequences of threats to individuals’ identities. Academy of

Management Review, 36, 641–662.

Pfeffer, J. (2010). Building sustainable organizations: The human

factor. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24, 34–45.

Pfeffer, J. (2016). Why the assholes are winning: Money trumps all.

Journal of Management Studies, 53, 663–669.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A

critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012).

Sources of method bias in social science research and recom-

mendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology,

63, 539–569.

Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2007). Does rudeness really matter? The

effects of rudeness on task performance and helpfulness.

Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1181–1197.

Radkiewicz, P., & Widerszal-Bazyl, M. (2005). Psychometric prop-

erties of the Work Ability Index in light of a comparative survey

study. International Congress Series, 1280, 304–309.

Rongen, A., Robroek, S. J., Heijden, B. I., Schouteten, R., Hasselhorn,

H. M., & Burdorf, A. (2014). Influence of work-related


123

http://www.nytimes.com

characteristics and work ability on changing employer or leaving

the profession among nursing staff. Journal of Nursing Man-

agement, 22, 1065–1075.

Rousseau, V., & Aube, C. (2016). When leaders stifle innovation in

work teams: The role of abusive supervision. Journal of Business

Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3258-8.

Rowan, J. R. (2000). The moral foundation of employee rights.

Journal of Business Ethics, 24, 355–361.

Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of

social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes

from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 89, 925–946.

Salles, A., Cohen, G. L., & Mueller, C. M. (2014). The relationship

between grit and resident well-being. The American Journal of

Surgery, 207, 251–254.

Schaubroeck, J., & Jones, J. R. (2000). Antecedents of workplace

emotional labor dimensions and moderators of their effects on

physical symptoms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21,

163–183.

Schilpzand, P., de Pater, I. E., & Erez, A. (2016). Workplace

incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future

research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, S57–S88.

Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Cultural and individual value correlates of

capitalism: A comparative analysis. Psychological Inquiry, 18,

52–57.

Schwartz, T. (2015). The bad behavior of visionary leaders. The New

York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com.

Sell, L., Bultmann, U., Rugulies, R., Villadsen, E., Faber, A., &

Sogaard, K. (2009). Predicting long-term sickness absence and

early retirement pension from self-reported work ability. Inter-

national Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health,

82, 1133–1138.

Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in

regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects.

Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456–476.

Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Emotion and adaptation. In L.

A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research

(pp. 609–637). New York: Guildford.

Tajfel, H. C., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of

intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.),

Psychology of intergroup relations (Vol. 2, pp. 7–24). Chicago,

IL: Nelson-Hall.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy

of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.

Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of

abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dis-

similarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance.

Academy of Management Journal, 54, 279–294.

Thoits, P. A. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research.

Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 101–112.

Toth, M. A. (2008). The right to dignity at work: Reflections on

article 26 of the revised European social charter. Comparative

Labor Law and Policy Journal, 29, 275–316.

Tuomi, K., Huuhtanen, P., Nykyri, E., & Ilmarinen, J. (2001).

Promotion of work ability, the quality of work and retirement.

Occupational Medicine, 51, 318–324.

Tuomi, K., Ilmarinen, J., Eskelinen, L., Jarvinen, E., Toikkanen, J., &

Klockars, M. (1991). Prevalence and incidence rates of diseases

and work ability in different work categories of municipal

occupations. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental

Health, 17, 67–74.

Tuomi, K., Ilmarinen, J. A., Jahkola, A., Katajarinne, L., & Tulkki, A.

(1998). Work Ability Index (2nd ed.). Helsinki: Finnish Institute

of Occupational Health.

Unal, A., Warren, D., & Chen, C. (2012). The normative foundations

of unethical supervision in organizations. Journal of Business

Ethics, 107, 5–19.

van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2006). Organizational identi-

fication versus organizational commitment: Self-definition,

social exchange, and job attitudes. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 27, 571–584.

von Bonsdorff, M. B., Seitsamo, J., Ilmarinen, J., Nygard, C., von

Bonsdorff, M. E., & Rantanen, T. (2011). Work ability in midlife

as a predictor of mortality and disability in later life: A 28-year

prospective follow-up study. Canadian Medical Association

Journal, 183, E235–E242.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and

validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The

PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

54, 1063–1070.

Zhang, S. (2014). Impact of job involvement on organizational

citizenship behaviors in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 120,

165–174.

Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, P., & Guerra-Baez, R. M. (2016). A study

of why anomic employees harm co-workers: Do uncompassion-

ate feelings matter? Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/

s10551-016-3313-5.


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3258-8

http://www.nytimes.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3313-5

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3313-5

Uncivil Supervisors and Perceived Work Ability: The Joint ......Introduction ‘‘Nearly every...

Documents

Transcript of Uncivil Supervisors and Perceived Work Ability: The Joint ......Introduction ‘‘Nearly every...