Uncivil Supervisors and Perceived Work Ability: the Joint Moderating Roles of Job Involvement and Grit

J Bus Ethics (2019) 156:971–985 DOI 10.1007/s10551-017-3604-5

ORIGINAL PAPER

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

1 2 3 Dana Kabat-Farr • Benjamin M. Walsh • Alyssa K. McGonagle

Received: 28 June 2016 / Accepted: 8 June 2017 / Published online: 20 June 2017 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Abstract Uncivil behavior by leaders may be viewed as an grit, there was no significant relation between supervisor effective way to motivate employees. However, supervisor incivility and PWA, regardless of employee job involve- incivility, as a form of unethical supervision, may be ment. However, we found some evidence that for those low undercutting employees’ ability to do their jobs. We in grit, having high job involvement was associated with a investigate linkages between workplace incivility and stronger relationship between supervisor incivility and perceived work ability (PWA), a variable that captures PWA. Findings attest to the importance of unethical employees’ appraisals of their ability to continue working supervisor behavior, showing the potential for supervisor in their jobs. We draw upon the appraisal theory of stress incivility to erode PWA, as well as the importance of grit and social identity theory to examine incivility from as a potential buffer. supervisors as an antecedent to PWA, and to investigate job involvement and grit as joint moderators of this associa- Keywords Workplace incivility Á Perceived work ability Á tion. Results from data collected in two samples of working Grit Á Job involvement Á Unethical supervision adults provided evidence for three-way interactions in relation to PWA. Among employees with high levels of Introduction Portions of this paper were presented in 2015 at the Academy of Management annual meeting. ‘‘Nearly every person I worked with, I saw cry at their desk.’’ (Amazon, former employee) Dana Kabat-Farr and Benjamin M. Walsh have contributed equally to this work. A recent NY Times article detailed the cut-throat, toxic nature of the Amazon.com workplace (Kantor and Streit- & Benjamin M. Walsh [email protected] feld 2015). Some employees are propelled by increasingly intense demands and expectations; others find themselves Dana Kabat-Farr [email protected] pushed out by the long hours and unrealistic expectations (Kantor and Streitfeld 2015). Jeff Bezos, the founder of Alyssa K. McGonagle [email protected] Amazon.com, believes that harmony is overvalued. Anec- dotal evidence of this phenomenon exists among other 1 Dalhousie University, Kenneth C. Rowe Management revered leaders, such as in Isaacson’s (2011) biography of Building, 6100 University Ave, PO Box 15000, Halifax, Steve Jobs, whereby Jobs was known to use disparaging NS B3H 4R2, Canada 2 comments with the goal of spurring productivity and College of Business and Management, University of Illinois innovation at Apple. Characterized as ‘‘acting rudely or at Springfield, One University Plaza, MS UHB 4060, Springfield, IL 62703-5407, USA discourteously, without regard for others’’ (Andersson and Pearson 1999, p. 455), workplace incivility is evident in 3 Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd, Colvard 4026, descriptions of leaders such as Jobs and Bezos. Framed as a Charlotte, NC 28223-0001, USA transformative way to motivate and compel workers to be 123 972 D. Kabat-Farr et al. productive, supervisors may use such disrespectful behav- their jobs. However, efforts to stymie this negative trend ior as a means to an end, reflecting organizational priorities are unlikely to succeed without a better understanding of focused on profit rather than employee well-being (Pfeffer the boundary conditions for the supervisor incivility— 2016). PWA relationship. From a moral perspective, unethical supervisor behav- This brings us to our second contribution, in which we iors ‘‘violate normative standards regarding the proper focus on individual employee characteristics that might utilization of organizational authority and resources for the explain whether targets experience negative effects of well-being of the subordinates as well as that of the orga- supervisor incivility differently. Decrements to PWA in the nization as a whole’’ (U¨ nal et al. 2012, p. 6). Supervisor face of supervisor incivility are likely stronger under cer- incivility violates basic normative rights to dignity (Toth tain conditions relevant to the stress appraisal and coping 2008) and respect at work (Rowan 2000). Supervisors who process proposed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984). We ignore or disregard their employees as valued stakeholders integrate social identity theory (e.g., Tajfel and Turner in the organization (Freeman 1984) may be overcome by a 1986; Thoits 1991) with appraisal theory of stress (Lazarus drive to increase efficiency and profits, thereby ignoring the and Folkman 1984) to explore job involvement and grit as benefits of positive employee connections (Dutton and variables that may jointly modify the supervisor incivil- Heaphy 2003), instead viewing them as unnecessary for ity—PWA association. Although social identity theory success. That is, supervisors may view ‘‘morality as sepa- suggests that highly involved employees may be the most rate from (or antithetical to) prosperity’’ (Freeman et al. likely to appraise supervisor incivility as threatening and 2007, p. 304). We investigate whether this consequentialist experience detriments in PWA as a result (Petriglieri approach to management may backfire. Specifically, we 2011), this theoretical perspective may be limited in that it explore whether supervisor incivility may fundamentally does not consider the role of personal resources that may undermine employees’ perceived work ability (PWA)— protect targets from harm. Building on Petriglieri’s work, that is, their perceptions of their ability to continue working the present study further highlights the value of jointly in their current jobs. considering social identity theory and appraisal theory as Incivility presents as an insidious form of unethical complementary theoretical perspectives, and thereby sheds treatment of employees, and includes actions such as light on the employees for whom supervisor incivility may speaking over an employee’s contribution to a meeting or be most and least destructive. Moreover, the present study belittling an employee. More severe unethical behavior by builds on a growing evidence base suggesting that grit may supervisors is researched under labels such as abusive operate as a protective buffer of strain (e.g., Blalock et al. supervision (Tepper 2000), destructive leadership (Ei- 2015), by testing it as a protective mechanism against narsen et al. 2007) and corporate psychopathy (Boddy uncivil behaviors from supervisors, even among highly 2011). However, by definition, incivility is low-level and involved employees. may be perceived as ambiguous in its attempt to harm In summary, we seek to better understand the conditions (Anderson and Pearson 1999), making it easy for super- under which unethical supervisor behavior affects workers, visors to underestimate its negative effects and disregard it theorizing that incivility is perceived to be particularly as inconsequential in organizations. Supervisors who are threatening when one lacks personal resources to cope with unable to see the negative effects of incivility, or deny its it. In contrast, we expect incivility to have a weaker effect effects, are less likely to treat employees with respect and on PWA when one perceives it as less threatening and/or regard (Bandura 1999), despite the fact that workers yearn has adequate resources to cope. Next, we define workplace for and expect to be treated with dignity and respect (Lucas incivility and PWA, and articulate the theoretical basis for 2015). It is of utmost importance, then, to understand the our hypotheses. gravity of disrespectful supervisor treatment. We argue that incivility may represent an unraveling of moral and civil Workplace Incivility and Perceived Work Ability conduct in an organization, ultimately negatively affecting workers. Andersson and Pearson (1999) conceptualized incivility as Our contributions are twofold. First, we call attention to a low-level type of workplace deviance that is character- the subtle ways in which incivility by supervisors erodes istically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard civil and moral discourse in today’s organizations. Inci- for others. Uncivil behaviors are work stressors, and vility is often ‘‘swept under the rug’’ and viewed as include being put down, treated in a condescending man- inconsequential, or even favored as a motivational tool by ner, or ignored or excluded (Cortina et al. 2001). Although organizational authorities. We propose that, similar to other related to other forms of mistreatment, its low-level nature work-related stressors, incivility may fundamentally distinguishes incivility from other forms (Andersson and undermine employees’ appraisals of their capacity to do Pearson 1999; Schilpzand et al. 2016). Additionally, 123 Uncivil Supervisors and Perceived Work Ability: The Joint Moderating Roles of Job… 973 whereas other forms originate by definition from only a the likelihood that nurses will leave the nursing profession single source (e.g., abusive supervision), incivility can or change employers (Rongen et al. 2014). Work ability arise from many sources, including supervisors and/or also relates to individual outcomes, including psychologi- coworkers (Schilpzand et al. 2016). Although the incivility cal well-being (e.g., Tuomi et al. 2001). construct itself is not source-specific, calls have been made Work ability has only more recently been recognized in to specify the source of incivility as the majority of organizational studies, wherein researchers typically research has overlooked this aspect (Hershcovis and Bar- examine a subset of the initial work ability concept, sub- ling 2010; Schilpzand et al. 2016). We heed this call and jective perceptions or appraisals of work ability (PWA; focus on supervisor incivility in the present study, by iso- McGonagle et al. 2015). Research supports the distinc- lating the influence of supervisor incivility on PWA, while tiveness of subjective PWA from more ‘‘objectively’’ controlling for incivility experienced from coworkers measured forms of work ability, including the presence of (coworker incivility). Our focus on supervisor incivility is disease (Martus et al. 2010; Radkiewicz and Widerszal- guided by several considerations, including the need to Bazyl 2005). In other words, work ability can be thought of consider the ethical implications of supervisor as having two factors, one subjective and one objective. mistreatment. Notably, the subjective factor has been demonstrated to Supervisor incivility is not a rare occurrence: recent correlate positively and strongly with an overall measure of research using experience sampling methods found 45% of work ability (a composite of both factors; Ahlstrom et al. employees to report supervisor incivility in a two-week 2010; McGonagle et al. 2015). Further, studies of PWA period (Meier and Gross 2015). Furthermore, the inherent have found that it predicts important workplace outcomes, status difference in a supervisor-employee relationship including worker absence (Ahlstrom et al. 2010), work- (French and Raven 1959) arguably affords the supervisor force departure through retirement and disability pension greater opportunity to be uncivil to those of lower orga- (e.g., McGonagle et al. 2015; Sell et al., 2009; von Bons- nizational status. In addition, although this is unknown dorff et al. 2011), and work engagement (Airila et al. with respect to PWA as an outcome, mistreatment from 2014). We also focus on individuals’ PWA, due to its supervisors generally has a stronger impact on employees demonstrated importance in determining work-related than that from coworkers and individuals outside the outcomes. organization (Hershcovis and Barling 2010). Supervisors Although various antecedents of work ability and PWA may also use incivility, evidence of a lack of moral are known, empirical research linking workplace incivility engagement, as a tool to motivate poor performers (Tepper and related interpersonal mistreatment constructs to PWA et al. 2011). But to what end? Does supervisor incivility is limited and mixed. McGonagle et al. (2015) found no negatively influence one’s perceived ability to do their job link between conflictual contact with others on the job and (i.e., PWA) beyond interpersonal stressors from other PWA. However, Fischer et al. (2006, Fischer and Martinez sources (e.g., coworker incivility)? Addressing this ques- 2013) found that among healthcare workers in Brazil tion contributes to theory regarding the potential differen- verbal abuse and workplace violence, among other factors, tial effects of mistreatment experiences from different were related to inadequate levels of work ability. Further, sources, and builds on the preponderance of workplace Airila et al. (2014) examined supervisor support, sup- incivility research that does not specify the source of the portive interpersonal relations (the inverse representing behavior (Schilpzand et al. 2016). conflictual relations), and task resources and found that Past research has linked incivility (without regard to each had positive bivariate correlations with PWA, and source) to a variety of negative effects including worsened that the combination of the three positively and indirectly employee work attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction) and related to subsequent PWA through work engagement. decrements in psychological and physical well-being (for a Beyond these studies, however, we are unaware of review see Schilpzand et al. 2016). We propose that inci- research that specifically examines the effect of more vility’s impact extends to work ability. Work ability is subtle, low-level transgressions (i.e., incivility; Andersson defined as an individual worker’s job-related functional and Pearson 1999) on PWA, or whether supervisor inci- capacity: one’s ability to continue working in their current vility may harm PWA above and beyond incivility from job, given the demands of the job and their resources (Il- other sources. marinen et al. 2008). Typically employing samples of To understand the potential link between supervisor workers in European nations, studies of work ability have incivility and PWA, we turn our attention to the appraisal found it to be a robust predictor of work-related outcomes. model of stress (for more information, see Lazarus and For example, poor work ability predicted subsequent dis- Folkman 1984), which posits that individuals first engage ability leave in samples of Dutch construction workers in a primary appraisal of a situation or event that deter- (Alavania et al. 2009; Notenbomer et al. 2015), along with mines whether it is a potential or actual threat to their well- 123 974 D. Kabat-Farr et al. being and goals, and then a secondary appraisal in which Job Involvement as a Moderator of the Supervisor they take stock of their resources to cope with the stressor Incivility–PWA Relationship (Lazarus 1991). More specifically, we use this theory to suggest that incivility, as a work stressor (Lim et al. 2008), We are particularly interested in the intersection of will trigger an appraisal process for employees, which may supervisor incivility and job involvement and the possi- result in erosion of PWA. This process may be conscious, bility that the supervisor incivility—PWA relation would or it may occur outside of consciousness, in an immediate vary across employees. In other words, unethical supervi- and automatic fashion (e.g., Lazarus 1982; Smith and sor behaviors including incivility may not have the same Lazarus 1990). effect for all. In a primary appraisal process, there are other Key in the appraisal process is a primary appraisal of factors beyond the source that may impact the degree to threat or potential harm—that is to say, the employee which incivility is appraised as threatening. A perception of appraises whether the event is stressful (a demand that is threat is more likely when one’s identity is attached to an actual or perceived threat to well-being and goals). In one’s work (Petriglieri 2011), as in the case of high levels the case of incivility, a primary appraisal of threat or of job involvement. Employees high in job involvement are potential harm is more likely when the individual perpe- ‘‘identified psychologically’’ with their job (Lodahl and trating the incivility has power over the target (as in the Kejner 1965, p. 24). Guided by social identity theory case of a supervisor–subordinate relationship). Supervisors (Tajfel and Turner 1986), we propose that job involvement are resource and reward gatekeepers (e.g., Rupp and may raise the risk of threat (primary appraisal) to a valued Cropanzano 2002), and are viewed as agents of the identity in the face of supervisor incivility, triggering lower organizations, making their actions influential in shaping PWA. Results consistent with such theorizing would have employee cognitions and attitudes about their work (Frone implications for work environments that tolerate or even 2000). Mistreatment coming from a supervisor, therefore, encourage rude, prickly behavior from supervisors, pro- may be appraised as particularly harmful and counter to viding evidence that not only is supervisor incivility one’s goals, resulting in decrements to PWA. For example, harmful, it may pose a particular stress on those employees employees may hear uncivil work-related remarks from organizations arguably value the most: those most involved their supervisor; Amazon’s Bezos is known for delivering in their jobs. to employees such condescending statements as ‘‘Are you Research shows that being highly involved with one’s lazy or just incompetent?’’ and ‘‘I’m sorry, did I take my job is associated with positive outcomes, including work stupid pills today?’’ (Schwartz 2015, para. 19). Given their effort and job performance (Brown and Leigh 1996), nature and origin from a more powerful source, such organizational citizenship behavior (Zhang 2014), and remarks should harm employees’ appraisals of their work greater work satisfaction, organizational commitment, and ability. Supervisor incivility violates basic normative self-esteem (Brown 1996). However, high job involvement rights to dignity (Toth 2008) and respect (Rowan 2000)at is not uniformly positive. When examined as a moderator work, and when coming from someone with greater in the stress-to-strain process, job involvement may exac- power, is particularly stressful. Yet, let us not forget that erbate negative effects. For example, Frone et al. (1995) incivility is not unique to supervisors and it may arise found that high levels of job involvement magnified asso- from other sources such as coworkers (Schilpzand et al. ciations between several work stressors (e.g., role ambi- 2016). Incivility from coworkers also represents an inter- guity) and negative outcomes (e.g., alcohol use). personal stressor on account of the social power of peers; Social identity theory and the more recent concept of however, coworkers have less formal authority to affect identity-relevant stressors provide an explanation for these performance and completion of work tasks, which sug- negative effects. According to social identity theory, when gests that the effect of coworker incivility on PWA may an individual identifies as a member of a group that they be weaker when compared with supervisor incivility. To value, membership in that social group becomes self-ref- test the source-specific effect of supervisor incivility, and erential (Tajfel and Turner 1986). Individuals who strongly help to build on a workplace incivility literature that has identify with their job may feel a ‘‘merging’’ of self and largely ignored the sources from which mistreatment group, a ‘‘perceived oneness with the organization’’ (Ash- occurs (Schilpzand et al. 2016), we examine the influence forth and Mael 1989, p. 23). Building on this, Thoits (1991) of supervisor incivility on PWA after controlling for cautions of the power of identity-relevant stressors in the coworker incivility. workplace, wherein stress associated with a highly valued identity may increase vulnerability to strain. Petriglieri Hypothesis 1 Supervisor incivility is negatively related (2011) further theorizes that identity threat stems from a to PWA, above and beyond the influence of coworker subjective appraisal of an experience that might damage a incivility. valued identity. Employees view supervisors as 123 Uncivil Supervisors and Perceived Work Ability: The Joint Moderating Roles of Job… 975 organizational representatives, and rude behavior from attitudes and beliefs regarding the importance of work in these powerful individuals may have a particularly nega- one’s life (Miller et al. 2002), is a key individual difference tive effect for those who identify with their job. In the face in determining success in employment settings (Meriac of supervisor incivility, highly involved employees may et al. 2015). In contrast, grit is not specific to the work feel especially threatened and experience lower levels of domain. Grit is also distinguished from conscientiousness PWA, given their investment in their role and incorporation (Goldberg 1990). Conscientiousness and grit are positively of the organization’s interests into their self-concept (Van related to one another (e.g., Duckworth et al. 2007); Knippenberg and Sleebos 2006). however, grit explains incremental variance in outcomes (Duckworth et al. 2007), suggesting a unique construct Grit as a Moderator of the Supervisor Incivility– domain. Finally, grit is related to hardiness, which Maddi PWA Relationship et al. (2012) describe as ‘‘a pattern of attitudes and skills that provides the existential form of courage and motiva- However, are involved employees equally subject to the tion needed for learning from stressful circumstances, in harm of supervisor incivility? Or might some individuals order to determine what will be the most effective perfor- have protective qualities? Indeed, as Isaacson (2011) notes mance’’ (p. 21). Grit and hardiness are positively correlated after interviewing some of Jobs’ former employees, ‘‘There (Maddi et al. 2012), though Maddi et al. also found that grit were some upsides to Jobs’ demanding and wounding explained unique variance in retention of military cadets behavior. People who were not crushed ended up being who were the focus of their study. These results suggest stronger’’ (p. 121). This suggests that some may weather that grit and hardiness are positively related, yet unique the storm of supervisor incivility, so to speak, and not constructs. experience declines in PWA, whereas others may not be so Given the theoretical importance placed on personal fortunate. After a primary appraisal of threat, a secondary resources in the stressor-to-strain relationship, we investi- appraisal process is employed, wherein an individual gate grit as a resource that may protect employees from the evaluates available resources to cope with or manage the harms of supervisor incivility. This conceptualization fol- situation (Lazarus 1991). A social identity perspective lows Beattie and Griffin (2014) who studied core self- alone may lead one to assume that supervisor incivility evaluations as a personal resource and moderator of the may be especially and uniformly harmful to highly relationship between incivility and engagement, and Airila involved employees, but consideration of cognitive et al. (2014) who found that self-esteem was an important appraisal theory suggests greater complexity given the personal resource that predicted workers’ PWA. Specific to importance of secondary appraisals (Lazarus and Folkman grit, recent limited research outside of the workplace 1984). We identify an individual difference that may be context supports its protective role, wherein grit buffered critical in this secondary appraisal: employee grit. the relationship between negative life events and later- Duckworth et al. (2007) define grit as ‘‘perseverance and assessed suicidal ideation (Blalock et al. 2015). Expanding passion for long-term goals’’ (p. 1087). High levels of grit on this research, we propose that in the context of incivility are associated with positive outcomes, including more from one’s supervisor, grit may provide the buffer neces- education and better GPA (Duckworth et al. 2007), greater sary to preserve PWA. For example, an uncivil supervisor teacher effectiveness (Duckworth et al. 2009), higher levels may lose his/her temper and yell or swear, and a gritty of hardiness (Maddi et al. 2012), lower surgical resident employee should be able to brush off the incident and not burnout (Salles et al. 2014), and greater retention of Army doubt his/her ability to do their work. Or an uncivil Special Operations Forces and sales employees (Eskreis- supervisor may ignore employee contributions in a meet- Winkler et al. 2014). Gritty employees are able to push ing, but a ‘‘gritty’’ employee should be more likely to through tough circumstances to get the job done. We argue persevere in performance of work tasks, perhaps keeping that grit can be conceptualized as a personal resource, an eye on longer-term career goals. giving gritty individuals resilience in the face of an uncivil Consideration of the aforementioned theory and supervisor. research enabled us to develop hypotheses concerning Research on grit has established a conceptual distinction interactions among supervisor incivility, job involvement, between it and related, but distinct, constructs. For exam- and grit in relation to PWA. To the extent that supervisor ple, both self-control and grit are related to pursuit of incivility is an identity-relevant experience (Thoits 1991), valued goals despite adversity; however, self-control rep- we expect workers’ primary appraisals of incivility to be resents the ability to successfully resolve the immediate threatening. In other words, we expect stronger negative conflict between two impulsive actions, whereas grit rep- relations between supervisor incivility and PWA when job resents the pursuance of long-term goals (Duckworth and involvement is high. Yet, the appraisal process does not Gross 2014). Work ethic, a multidimensional set of end with the primary appraisal. We explained how grit can 123 976 D. Kabat-Farr et al. be conceptualized as a personal resource that is drawn upon survey research and were given specific instructions on by workers in a secondary appraisal process related to recruiting participants and a description of characteristics coping with supervisor incivility. Such findings would also of ideal survey respondents (e.g., employed at least 30 h contribute to theories of identity threat that reinforce the each week, at least 18 years old). Extra credit was earned importance of secondary appraisals, yet do not consider by students for recruiting participants. The 60 students personal resources in this process (e.g., Petriglieri 2011). recruited an average of 9.6 participants each before data We therefore hypothesize a three-way interaction, such that cleaning. high levels of job involvement will be associated with a Responses were initially collected from 575 partici- stronger negative relation between supervisor incivility and pants. However, we screened participants for insufficient PWA only when grit is at low levels. When levels of grit effort responding (IER; Huang et al. 2015) using three are high, we do not expect to see a moderation effect of job items including two instructed response items (e.g., involvement due to the effectiveness of grit in helping to ‘‘Please select somewhat agree’’) and one infrequency item maintain workers’ PWA. (‘‘I have paid no attention to this survey so far.’’). Partic- ipants were flagged as IER if they skipped or failed any of Hypothesis 2 Job involvement and grit jointly moderate these items. One hundred sixty-seven participants were the negative association between supervisor incivility and flagged and removed (29% of the sample), which are rates PWA. High levels of job involvement are associated with a comparable to those seen in the literature (McGonagle stronger negative relationship between supervisor incivility et al. 2016). An additional nine participants were elimi- and PWA when levels of grit are low, but not when levels nated because they had missing data on a focal variable, of grit are high. 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 Method and 42 years old, and worked 41.8 h on average per week (SD = 10.9). Participants had worked in their jobs for We tested our model in two samples, for which informed 5.6 years on average (SD = 6.8) and their organizations consent was solicited from individuals prior to participa- for 8.0 years (SD = 8.3). Individuals worked in various tion. Sample 1 relied on cross-sectional data collected from industries, including other services except public admin- workers in a variety of industries to conduct an initial test istration (11.8%), educational services (11.3%), and of hypotheses. Sample 2 was collected in an attempt to finance and insurance (11.3%). replicate Sample 1 findings, and build upon the limitations of its cross-sectional nature. Specifically, Sample 2 inclu- Sample 2 ded data collected from employees of childcare programs. Some evidence suggests that work in childcare relates to Sample 2 consisted of employees of childcare programs in poor health and work ability (Tuomi et al. 1991), making a state in the Midwestern USA. Directors of 92 childcare the context relevant for studying PWA. In addition, in centers were contacted to solicit their center’s participation Sample 2 the outcome measure of PWA was assessed in two online surveys, for which the first (Time 1) was approximately two weeks following the other variables, completed in late January/early February of 2014, and the which is a recommended approach to mitigate potential second (Time 2) was completed approximately two weeks bias in relationships due to common method variance later. PWA was assessed at Time 2, whereas all other (Podsakoff et al. 2012). Moreover, common method vari- variables were assessed at Time 1. Participants were ance is unlikely to explain any observed interaction effects included in a drawing for one of 40 $10 Amazon.com gift (Siemsen et al. 2010). certificates and a Kindle Fire tablet in each survey, and a feedback report was shared with respondents and centers. Sample 1 Employees of 60 of the 92 centers participated (65.2% center response rate), and of the participating centers, ini- Sample 1 was recruited through snowball sampling with a tial responses were obtained from 218 of 893 employees technique similar to methods used in other organizational (24.4% individual response rate). Four individuals were studies (e.g., Ambrose et al. 2013; Harold and Holtz 2015). removed based on IER at Time 1, identified with a single In fall 2013, sixty undergraduate business students at a US infrequency item. Time 2 responses were initially collected university recruited employed participants to complete an from 151 participants (69.3% retention rate); 120 could be online survey, using email templates approved by the matched with Time 1 responses. After listwise deletion University institutional review board. Before the study, based on focal variables and covariates, 116 respondents students were trained for 30 min on conducting online were retained for analysis. 123 Uncivil Supervisors and Perceived Work Ability: The Joint Moderating Roles of Job… 977

The 116 participants were 98.3% female and 94.8% took years of work.’’ Responses ranged from ‘‘1’’ (not at White. Approximately 62% of the sample was between the all like me)to‘‘5’’(very much like me). Cronbach’s a was ages of 18 and 42. Participants worked 40.7 h on average .74 in Sample 1 and .60 in Sample 2. each week (SD = 8.6) and had worked in their organizations for 7.7 years (SD = 6.7). We examined the degree to Covariates which there was between-center variability in ratings of the focal variables and found constructs to not vary signifi- We examined two possible covariates based on theory and cantly across centers (p [ .09 for all variables), so data previous research. First, we controlled for experiences of were analyzed at the individual level as hypothesized. incivility from coworkers using the Workplace Incivility Scale as described above (Cortina et al. 2001), modified Measures specifically to measure incivility specifically from coworkers. Cronbach’s a was .92 in Sample 1 and .91 in Measures used in Samples 1 and 2 were identical. Sample 2. Second, given the potential for respondent negative affect to cause method variance (Podsakoff et al. Perceived Work Ability 2003), we controlled for negative affect using five items from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; PWA was assessed using four items modified from the Watson et al. 1988). Cronbach’s a was .87 in Sample 1 and Work Ability Index (Tuomi et al. 1998) validated by .88 in Sample 2. McGonagle et al. (2015). The instructions asked participants to think about their work ability on their job and assume that their work ability at its best has a value of 10 Data Analysis points. Respondents evaluated four items and a composite was created. A sample item is ‘‘How many points would Hypotheses were tested using moderated hierarchical you give your current ability to work?’’ Responses were multiple regression analysis. Mean composites were cre- made on a scale from 0 to 10. Cronbach’s a was .84 in ated for all variables, and predictor variables were stan- Sample 1 and .86 in Sample 2. dardized prior to creating interaction terms as recommended by Dawson (2014). Unstandardized coeffi- Supervisor Incivility Experiences cients are reported from output. We interpret findings based on the first step at which the particular variable was Incivility experiences from supervisors were measured entered, such that covariates were entered in step 1, main with the seven-item Workplace Incivility Scale (Cortina effects in step 2, two-way interactions in step 3, and the et al. 2001), using modified instructions to focus specifi- three-way interaction in step 4. We used the spreadsheet cally on experiences from supervisors. The instructions developed by Dawson and colleagues (Dawson 2014; were, ‘‘During the past year, have you been in a situation in Dawson and Richter 2006) to plot interactions, and to which any of your SUPERVISORS,’’ after which the items calculate simple slope estimates and slope difference tests. 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. Results

Job Involvement Tables 1 and 2 show descriptive statistics, correlations among variables, and reliability estimates for Samples 1 Job involvement was measured with three items from and 2, respectively. Notably, supervisor incivility was Schaubroeck and Jones (2000). An example item is ‘‘The significantly and negatively associated with PWA in both most important things which happen to me involve my samples. Table 3 shows results from hypothesis tests. We job.’’ Responses were collected on a seven-point scale interpreted Model 2 in both samples to draw inferences ranging from ‘‘1’’ (very inaccurate)to‘‘7’’(very accurate). with respect to Hypothesis 1 concerning the main effect of Cronbach’s a was .79 in Sample 1 and .76 in Sample 2. supervisor incivility on PWA, finding partial support. With negative affect, coworker incivility, job involvement, and Grit grit included in the model, supervisor incivility was significantly and negatively related to PWA in Sample 1 Grit was measured with the six-item perseverance of effort (b =-.23, p \ .001), and although the coefficient was of subscale from the measure developed by Duckworth et al. similar magnitude in Sample 2 (b =-.17, p = .107), it (2007). An example item is ‘‘I have achieved a goal that did not reach traditional levels of statistical significance. 123 978 D. Kabat-Farr et al.

Table 1 Sample 1 correlations, Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 descriptive statistics, and reliability estimates 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, Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 descriptive statistics, and reliability estimates 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

Model 4 shows results from tests of the hypothesized To summarize, partial support was found for Hypothesis three-way interaction. Three-way interactions were 2. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, significant three-way observed in both samples (Sample 1 b = .09, p = .046; interactions were observed in both samples, and job Sample 2 b =-.15, p = .037). Figures 1 and 2 display the involvement only appeared to moderate the relationship form of the interaction in Sample 1 and Sample 2, between supervisor incivility and PWA when grit was low. respectively. Similarities were observed in the form of the Further, as expected, high levels of job involvement were interactions such that in both samples, the relationship associated with the strongest negative relationships between between supervisor incivility and PWA was not statisti- supervisor incivility and PWA at low levels of grit in Sample cally significant for employees high in grit, regardless of 1. However, this finding was not replicated in Sample 2. 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- Discussion ent =-.01, p = .925; Sample 2 gradient =-.14, p = .447). These slopes were not significantly different Rude and uncivil behavior by managers is a norm in some from one another in either sample. organizations as their leaders subscribe to a philosophy of Job involvement appeared to moderate the relation ethics wherein the ends justify the means (Pfeffer 2016). This between supervisor incivility and PWA when grit was low, has led to calls for management scholars to investigate how although the nature of the moderation differed between the such practices impact ‘‘human sustainability’’ (Pfeffer two samples. For Sample 1, among employees low in grit 2010). In the present study, we framed supervisor incivility and high in job involvement, the relation was negative as a form of unethical supervision (U¨ nal et al. 2012), drawing (gradient =-.82, p \ .001) and significantly different attention to the morally laden nature of workplace incivility. from all other slopes, which is consistent with Hypothesis Incivility theory to date has largely centered on an under- 2. However, in Sample 2, the relationship was positive, standing of its behavioral manifestation, ignoring the ethical albeit not statistically significant (gradient = .22, implications undergirding such behavior. We positioned this p = .282), which is inconsistent with Hypothesis 2. In construct in the context of ethical values and moral treatment addition, for employees low in grit and low in job of employees, framing it as a violation of normative rights involvement, a negative supervisor incivility—PWA including dignity and respect, with the potential to harm association was observed in both Sample 1 (gradi- employees. Our research suggests that with respect to PWA, ent =-.45, p \ .001) and Sample 2 (gradient =-.45, supervisor incivility does not have desirable effects. This p = .008). link is important to understand given connections between

123 Uncivil Supervisors and Perceived Work Ability: The Joint Moderating Roles of Job… 979

Table 3 Results from Ordinary Variable Sample 1 Sample 2 least squares regression analysis for perceived work ability 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* Coworker incivility -.03 -.18 Supervisor incivility -.28*** -.13 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 Coworker incivility -.03 -.17 Supervisor incivility -.33*** -.11 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

PWA and absenteeism, work engagement, turnover inten- association. Supervisor incivility was significantly and tions, and workforce departure, among other outcomes negatively related to PWA above and beyond all other (Airila et al. 2014; Camerino et al. 2006; McGonagle et al. included predictors in Sample 1. In Sample 2, there was a 2015). Our findings complement and extend research on significant negative correlation between supervisor inci- predictors of PWA, outcomes of workplace incivility, and vility and PWA, and there was a negative effect of moderators of the negative effects of incivility on PWA. supervisor incivility on PWA in model testing; however, this relationship did not reach traditional levels of statis- Implications for Theory and Research tical significance. Given the modest Sample 2 size, and given that the effect sizes were relatively comparable The appraisal theory of stress and coping (Lazarus and across samples, this may be due to lower statistical power Folkman 1984) provided the primary framework through to detect these effects, as well as the fact that we observed which we examined the supervisor incivility—PWA evidence for moderators of this relationship in both

123 980 D. Kabat-Farr et al.

Fig. 1 Sample 1 three-way interaction

Fig. 2 Sample 2 three-way interaction

samples (to be discussed below). Taking these findings as a may help explain the impact of supervisor incivility on whole, results provide initial evidence that supervisor outcomes. incivility may act as a workplace stressor triggering We proposed that the relationship between supervisor appraisals of lower PWA, bringing to light the role of incivility and PWA would vary as a function of the com- unethical supervisor behavior in PWA. Given the evidence bined effects of employee job involvement and grit. Results for associations between supervisor incivility and PWA, across both samples attest to the importance of grit when there is reason to believe that PWA may operate as a compared to job involvement. Consistent with our mechanism through which incivility leads to consequences hypothesis, for employees who reported high levels of grit, for employees (e.g., reduced task performance and job the relationship between supervisor incivility and PWA satisfaction, increased job withdrawal; Cortina et al. was not statistically significant, and this trend existed 2001, 2013; Porath and Erez 2007). Future research may regardless of employee job involvement. Thus, although benefit by drawing on the appraisal theory of stress and theories attest to concerns associated with threatening specifically testing the role of PWA as a mechanism that identity-relevant experiences (Petriglieri 2011; Thoits

123 Uncivil Supervisors and Perceived Work Ability: The Joint Moderating Roles of Job… 981

1991), in our study supervisor incivility appeared to be of differentiate among sources (Hershcovis and Barling 2010; little consequence to gritty employees who have a high Schilpzand et al. 2016). Hershcovis and Barling found that level of this personal resource. This finding was consistent mistreatment from supervisors who are in positions of in both Samples 1 and 2. It was for those low in grit that power over their employees generally had a more negative supervisor incivility appeared to matter most to PWA, and impact on targets compared with other sources. Our results where job involvement appeared to play a moderating role. replicate and extend this finding as it relates specifically to We saw evidence of this especially in Sample 1, where the PWA and underscore the need to keep unethical supervisor strongest negative relation between supervisor incivility behavior in check. Nonetheless, future research may focus and PWA was observed among employees high in job on the role of coworker incivility in influencing PWA, involvement and low in grit. Consistent with social identity rather than treating the variable as a covariate as was done theory and the appraisal theory of stress and coping, such in the present research. Results also showed that although individuals appear to experience low PWA because supervisor and coworker incivility are positively corre- supervisor incivility acts as a threat to their identity given lated, suggesting that they tend to cooccur, this correlation their high job involvement, a demand they are unable to is not so high as to suggest a lack of discriminant validity; endure given low levels of grit. Not only do these results respondents in the two samples appear to differentiate speak to the importance of grit, but also the potential risk meaningfully between sources of their own incivility. that supervisor incivility may pose for involved employees These results attest to the importance of taking what Her- not armed with this personal resource. Supervisor incivil- shcovis and Barling characterize as a multifoci approach, ity, in this case, may erode PWA, despite a strong identi- especially within the same study. fication with the organization. These findings have implications for theory in at least two ways. First, when theorizing how employees interpret Practical Implications and react to identity-threatening experiences, social identity theory may be helpful to the extent that it underscores Our research provides further evidence for the need to the role of organizational identity. However, our findings prevent workplace incivility, especially that from supervi- suggest that responses to identity-threatening experiences sors. We see practical implications stemming from this may also be influenced by personal resources such as grit. work at three levels: for individual supervisors, organiza- Indeed, Petriglieri (2011) points to the role of other tions, and societies. First, some supervisors may believe resources, such as social support, in shaping secondary that their rude behavior will stimulate an employee’s PWA; appraisals of identity threats. We augment this framework, our findings contradict such an assumption. At best, among drawing attention to the benefits of personal resources that employees high in grit the relation between supervisor may buffer individuals from identity-relevant stressors. incivility and PWA was flat, not positive. We did not find Moreover, in the context of workplace incivility, social support for the idea that disrespectful supervisor behaviors support from coworkers may be difficult to find. Correla- bolster worker’s PWA, countering the notion that disre- tions in both samples in the present study suggest that spect might fuel employee performance, and thus profits supervisor and coworker incivility cooccur. This observa- for an organization. These findings are consistent with tion further reinforces the need to rely on personal research on the stifling of creative performance of teams by resources in response to supervisor incivility. Lastly, abusive supervisors (Rousseau and Aube´ 2016). Thus, findings from the present study have implications for the- supervisors should refrain from uncivil behaviors to avoid oretical development surrounding the grit construct. harming their employees’ PWA. Results attest to the buffering role of grit, which supports Furthermore, organizations that focus on certain stake- its conceptualization as a personal resource. Gritty holders (i.e., customers and shareholders) to the neglect of employees are focused on long-term goals and persevere in others (i.e., employees) may create an unethical environ- the face of stressors, including, as we found, workplace ment where supervisor incivility can thrive. By acknowl- incivility. Indeed, evidence from our study suggests that edging the importance of and engaging with all stakeholder gritty workers do not suffer in terms of their PWA when groups, organizations can create a culture where human experiencing incivility. However, this does not imply that connections and collaborative relationships are valued incivility is without negative consequences for gritty indi- (Freeman et al. 2007). This includes a de-coupling of the viduals. Future research may examine long-term conse- notion that supervisor incivility should be used a means to quences of such incivility on health and well-being of gritty an end in the pursuit of maximizing productivity and individuals who persevere in difficult circumstances. profits. Instead, recognizing the needs of employees and Our analysis differentiated between supervisor and potential benefits of these relationships will be necessary to coworker incivility given recent calls by scholars to foster organizational success. 123 982 D. Kabat-Farr et al.

Subtle mistreatment of employees will not immediately in workers (e.g., McGonagle et al. 2014). To our knowl- translate into overt mistreatment; however, Bandura (1999) edge, no workplace coaching studies to date assess its cautions of gradualistic moral disengagement wherein effects on grit, yet we feel coaching shows promise for individuals lack self-censure, and their minor lapses in enhancing grit, and is therefore an important future area for moral judgement may become more severe as unethical research. practices become routine. In order to intervene in this process, Bandura (1986) suggests that interventions should Study Limitations take place at both the sociostructural and individual levels. Civility interventions that target workgroup social inter- Several limitations should be kept in mind in the interactions such as the Civility, Respect, and Engagement in pretation of our results. First, although there may be con- the Workplace program (Leiter et al. 2012) can be effective cern regarding the cross-sectional nature of Sample 1, we ways to reduce incivility in workgroups. Organizations attempted to address this by collecting a second sample for may choose to foster positive connections between super- which the measurement of PWA was separate from all visors and employees, spurring worker engagement, other variables. Second, all data reported were collected via empowerment, and thriving (e.g., Freeney and Fellenz self-report. This choice of method was guided largely by 2013; Kabat-Farr and Cortina 2017). the type of variables under consideration; targets are often But these individual and organizational-level efforts the best individuals to report on incivility experiences may fade under the persistent tension of a capitalist system because they are covert rather than overt in nature (Buss which values profits and shareholder value above all (e.g., 1961). Self-report data is also necessary to capture PWA, Frey and Oberholzer-Gee 1997). That is to say, supervisors given that an inherent characteristic of the construct is an who behave uncivilly have morally disengaged from norms individual’s subjective perception of their work ability of mutual respect and compassion toward their employees, (Perrewe´ and Zellars 1999). Further, we attempted to and are doing so within contexts which value self-interest address data quality by assessing and removing participants and profit maximization (Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara and suspected of insufficient effort responding (IER), and Guerra-Baéz 2016), in the pursuit of competitive and controlling for employee negative affect, which both have financial success (Passas 2000). Organizations embedded the potential to bias relationships among variables in American corporate capitalism are likely to internalize (McGonagle et al. 2016; Podsakoff et al. 2003). In addi- values consistent with it, including high levels of mastery tion, even though the focus in Sample 2 on childcare (e.g., seeing competitive advantage as ‘‘legitimate’’) and employees was guided by substantive and methodological hierarchy (e.g., power over others, wealth, and authority), considerations, the size of the sample was modest given the and low levels of egalitarianism (e.g., justice, honesty, complex interactions under study. Similarly, our measure equality; Kasser et al. 2007; Schwartz 2007). Such an of grit did not reach traditionally desired levels of internal ideology is likely to be at odds with compassion in orga- consistency. Although we saw consistent patterns of nizations (George 2014), and may promote supervisor supervisor incivility—PWA relationships across samples incivility. First step efforts to counter these societal norms for three of the four clusters of employees, we did not for may be implemented at the organizational level by the way the fourth group: those employees low in grit and high in of organizational values, such as respect and dignity. job involvement. It is plausible that the discrepancy may be Finally, this work highlights grit as a meaningful indi- due to the limited sample size and the lower internal vidual difference variable in organizational life, as it may consistency reliability of the grit measure. Additional function as a personal resource in the stress-to-strain rela- research may help to address these limitations. tionship. One way through which organizations may promote grit among their employees is through coaching. Coaching involves client-directed goal setting techniques, Conclusion which are effective in helping workers attain goals and are critical to a successful coaching engagement (Grant 2014). Taken together, our findings shed light on the way in which The coach and client work to set goals that align with the unethical supervisor behavior via incivility has implica- client’s values and desired outcomes (Grant et al. 2009). tions for employee perceptions of work ability. While brash Goal setting, in turn, promotes commitment to goals and and disrespectful behavior may be seen as an effective way perseverance toward goal attainment (Locke and Latham to motivate employees in a highly competitive capitalist 2006). Through these means, coaching may promote grit, society, our findings provide evidence to the contrary. or determination and perseverance toward the client’s Additionally, we show that this effect is dependent on grit valued work-related goals, because evidence indicates that and job involvement. Our results suggest that high levels of coaching can help foster other kinds of personal resources grit are generally important for buffering negative effects 123 Uncivil Supervisors and Perceived Work Ability: The Joint Moderating Roles of Job… 983 of supervisor incivility on PWA. Further, we found some Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological evidence that the negative effects of incivility on PWA are climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 358–368. worse when low levels of grit are combined with high Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York, NY: levels of job involvement. Managers should refrain from Wiley. incivility given its role in eroding PWA, and organizations Camerino, D., Conway, P. M., Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., Estryn- may reap benefits from having a gritty workforce. 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, Acknowledgements We are grateful to Cedric Dawkins for his 542–552. feedback on an earlier draft. Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E., Huerta, M., & Magley, V. (2013). Selective incivility as modern discrimination in Compliance with Ethical Standards organizations: Evidence and impact. Journal of Management, 39, 1579–1605. Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J., & Langhout, R. (2001). human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64–80. Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, standards. why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 1–19. Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all indi- Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way vidual participants included in the study. interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917–926. References Duckworth, A., & Gross, J. J. (2014). Self-control and grit: Related but separable determinants of success. Current Directions in Ahlstrom, L., Grimby-Ekman, A., Hagberg, M., & Dellve, L. (2010). Psychological Science, 23, 319–325. The Work Ability Index and single-item question: associations Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. with sick leave, symptoms, and health—a prospective study of (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. women on long-term sick leave. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1087–1101. Environment and Health, 36, 404–412. Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2009). Airila, A., Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., Luukkonen, R., Positive predictors of teacher effectiveness. The Journal of Punakallio, A., & Lusa, S. (2014). Are job and personal Positive Psychology, 4, 540–547. resources associated with work ability 10 years later? The Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. (2003). The power of high-quality mediating role of work engagement. Work and Stress, 28, connections. In K. Cameron, J. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), 87–105. Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 263–278). San Fran- Alavania, S. M., de Boer, A. G. E. M., van Duivenbooden, J. C., cisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Frings-Dresen, M. H. W., & Burdorf, A. (2009). Determinants of Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive work ability and its predictive value for disability. Occupational leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The Medicine, 59, 32–37. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207–216. Ambrose, M. L., Schminke, M., & Mayer, D. M. (2013). Trickle- Eskreis-Winkler, L., Shulman, E. P., Beal, S. A., & Duckworth, A. L. down effects of supervisor perceptions of interactional justice: A (2014). The grit effect: Predicting retention in the military, the moderated mediation approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, workplace, school and marriage. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 98, 678–689. 1–12. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling Fischer, F. M., Borges, F. N. S., Rotenberg, L., Latorre, M. R. D. O., effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Soares, N. S., Rosa, P. L. F. S., et al. (2006). Work ability of Review, 24, 452–471. health care shift workers: What matters? Chronobiology Journal, Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the 23, 1165–1179. organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39. Fischer, F. M., & Martinez, M. C. (2013). Individual features, Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self- working conditions and work injuries are associated with work efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, ability among nursing professionals. Work: Journal Of Preven- 359–373. tion Assessment and Rehabilitation, 45, 509–517. Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193. approach. Boston: Pittman Publishing. Beattie, L., & Griffin, B. (2014). Day-level fluctuations in stress and Freeman, R. E., Martin, K., & Parmar, B. (2007). Stakeholder engagement in response to workplace incivility: A diary study. capitalism. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 303–314. Work and Stress, 28, 124–142. Freeney, Y., & Fellenz, M. R. (2013). Work engagement, job design Blalock, D. V., Young, K. C., & Kleiman, E. M. (2015). Stability and the role of the social context at work: Exploring antecedents amidst turmoil: Grit buffers the effects of negative life events on from a relational perspective. Human Relations, 66, 1427–1445. suicidal ideation. Psychiatry Research, 228, 781–784. French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Boddy, C. (2011). Corporate psychopaths, bullying and unfair Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann supervision in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 100, Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. 367–379. Frey, B. S., & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1997). The cost of price Brown, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational incentives: An empirical analysis of motivation crowding-out. research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 120, American Economic Review, 87, 746–755. 235–255.

123 984 D. Kabat-Farr et al.

Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological Lucas, K. (2015). Workplace dignity: Communicating inherent, outcomes: Testing a model among young workers. Journal of earned, and remediated dignity. Journal of Management Studies, Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 246–255. 52, 621–646. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1995). Job stressors, job Maddi, S. R., Matthews, M. D., Kelly, D. R., Villarreal, B., & White, involvement and employee health: A test of identity theory. M. (2012). The role of hardiness and grit in predicting Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68, performance and retention of USMA cadets. Military Psychol- 1–11. ogy, 24, 19–28. George, J. M. (2014). Compassion and capitalism: Implications for Martus, P., Jakob, O., Rose, U., Seibt, R., & Freude, G. (2010). A organizational studies. Journal of Management, 40, 5–15. comparative analysis of the Work Ability Index. Occupational Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ‘‘description of personality’’: Medicine, 60, 517–524. The Big-Five Factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social McGonagle, A. K., Beatty, J. E., & Joffe, R. (2014). Coaching for Psychology, 59, 1216–1229. workers with chronic illness: Evaluating an intervention. Journal Grant, A. M. (2014). Autonomy support, relationship satisfaction and of Occupational Health Psychology, 19, 385–398. goal focus in the coach-coachee relationship: Which best McGonagle, A. K., Fisher, G. G., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Grosch, J. predicts coaching success? Coaching: An International Journal W. (2015). Individual and work factors related to perceived work of Theory, Research and Practice, 7, 18–38. ability and labor force outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, Grant, A. M., Curtayne, L., & Burton, G. (2009). Executive coaching 100, 376–398. enhances goal attainment, resilience and workplace well-being: McGonagle, A. K., Huang, J. L., & Walsh, B. M. (2016). Insufficient A randomized controlled study. The Journal of Positive effort survey responding: An under-appreciated problem in work Psychology, 4, 396–407. and organizational health psychology research. Applied Psy- Harold, C. M., & Holtz, B. C. (2015). The effects of passive chology: An International Review, 65, 287–321. leadership on workplace incivility. Journal of Organizational Meier, L. L., & Gross, S. (2015). Episodes of incivility between Behavior, 36, 16–38. subordinates and supervisors: Examining the role of self-control Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a multi-foci and time with an interaction-record diary study. Journal of approach to workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review of Organizational Behavior, 36, 1096–1113. outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of Organizational Meriac, J. P., Slifka, J. S., & LaBat, L. R. (2015). Work ethic and grit: Behavior, 31, 24–44. An examination of empirical redundancy. Personality and Huang, J. L., Bowling, N. A., Liu, M., & Li, Y. (2015). Detecting Individual Differences, 86, 401–405. insufficient effort responding with an infrequency scale: Eval- Miller, M. J., Woehr, D. J., & Hudspeth, N. (2002). The meaning and uating validity and participant reactions. Journal of Business and measurement of work ethic: Construction and initial validation Psychology, 30, 299–311. of a multidimensional inventory. Journal of Vocational Behav- Ilmarinen, J., Gould, R., Ja¨rvikoski, A., & Ja¨rvisalo, J. (2008). ior, 60, 451–489. Diversity of work ability. In R. Gould, J. Ilmarinen, J. Ja¨rvisalo, Notenbomer, A., Groothoff, J. W., van Rhenen, W., & Roelen, C. & S. Koskinen (Eds.), Dimensions of work ability. Results of the A. M. (2015). Associations of work ability with frequent and health 2000 survey (pp. 13–24). Helsinki: Finnish Institute of long-term sickness absence. Occupational Medicine, 65, Occupational Health. 373–379. Isaacson, W. (2011). Steve Jobs. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Passas, N. (2000). Global anomie, dysnomie, and economic crime: Kabat-Farr, D., & Cortina, L. M. (2017). Receipt of interpersonal Hidden consequences of neoliberalism and globalization in citizenship: Fostering agentic emotion, cognition, and action in Russia and around the world. Social Justice, 27, 16–44. organizations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47, 74–89. Perrewe´, P. L., & Zellars, K. L. (1999). An examination of Kantor, J., & Streitfeld, D. (2015, August). Inside Amazon: Wrestling attributions and emotions in the transactional approach to the big ideas in a bruising workplace. The New York Times. organizational stress process. Journal of Organizational Behav- Retrieved from www.nytimes.com. ior, 20, 739–752. Kasser, T., Cohn, S., Kanner, A. D., & Ryan, R. M. (2007). Some Petriglieri, J. L. (2011). Under threat: Responses to and the costs of American corporate capitalism: A psychological explo- consequences of threats to individuals’ identities. Academy of ration of value and goal conflicts. Psychological Inquiry, 18, Management Review, 36, 641–662. 1–22. Pfeffer, J. (2010). Building sustainable organizations: The human Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and factor. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24, 34–45. cognition. American Psychologist, 37, 1019–1025. Pfeffer, J. (2016). Why the assholes are winning: Money trumps all. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational Journal of Management Studies, 53, 663–669. theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 819–834. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A New York: Springer. critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Leiter, M. P., Day, A., Gilin Oore, D., & Spence Laschinger, H. K. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. (2012). Getting better and staying better: Assessing civility, Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). incivility, distress, and job attitudes one year after a civility Sources of method bias in social science research and recom- intervention. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, mendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 425–434. 63, 539–569. Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2007). Does rudeness really matter? The workgroup incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. effects of rudeness on task performance and helpfulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 95–107. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1181–1197. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting Radkiewicz, P., & Widerszal-Bazyl, M. (2005). Psychometric prop- theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, erties of the Work Ability Index in light of a comparative survey 265–268. study. International Congress Series, 1280, 304–309. Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement Rongen, A., Robroek, S. J., Heijden, B. I., Schouteten, R., Hasselhorn, of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 24–33. H. M., & Burdorf, A. (2014). Influence of work-related

123 Uncivil Supervisors and Perceived Work Ability: The Joint Moderating Roles of Job… 985

characteristics and work ability on changing employer or leaving Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of the profession among nursing staff. Journal of Nursing Man- abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dis- agement, 22, 1065–1075. similarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Rousseau, V., & Aube´, C. (2016). When leaders stifle innovation in Academy of Management Journal, 54, 279–294. work teams: The role of abusive supervision. Journal of Business Thoits, P. A. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research. Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3258-8. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 101–112. Rowan, J. R. (2000). The moral foundation of employee rights. Toth, M. A. (2008). The right to dignity at work: Reflections on Journal of Business Ethics, 24, 355–361. article 26 of the revised European social charter. Comparative Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of Labor Law and Policy Journal, 29, 275–316. social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes Tuomi, K., Huuhtanen, P., Nykyri, E., & Ilmarinen, J. (2001). from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior Promotion of work ability, the quality of work and retirement. and Human Decision Processes, 89, 925–946. Occupational Medicine, 51, 318–324. Salles, A., Cohen, G. L., & Mueller, C. M. (2014). The relationship Tuomi, K., Ilmarinen, J., Eskelinen, L., Jarvinen, E., Toikkanen, J., & between grit and resident well-being. The American Journal of Klockars, M. (1991). Prevalence and incidence rates of diseases Surgery, 207, 251–254. and work ability in different work categories of municipal Schaubroeck, J., & Jones, J. R. (2000). Antecedents of workplace occupations. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental emotional labor dimensions and moderators of their effects on Health, 17, 67–74. physical symptoms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, Tuomi, K., Ilmarinen, J. A., Jahkola, A., Katajarinne, L., & Tulkki, A. 163–183. (1998). Work Ability Index (2nd ed.). Helsinki: Finnish Institute Schilpzand, P., de Pater, I. E., & Erez, A. (2016). Workplace of Occupational Health. incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future U¨ nal, A., Warren, D., & Chen, C. (2012). The normative foundations research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, S57–S88. of unethical supervision in organizations. Journal of Business Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Cultural and individual value correlates of Ethics, 107, 5–19. capitalism: A comparative analysis. Psychological Inquiry, 18, van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2006). Organizational identi- 52–57. fication versus organizational commitment: Self-definition, Schwartz, T. (2015). The bad behavior of visionary leaders. The New social exchange, and job attitudes. Journal of Organizational York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com. Behavior, 27, 571–584. Sell, L., Bultmann, U., Rugulies, R., Villadsen, E., Faber, A., & von Bonsdorff, M. B., Seitsamo, J., Ilmarinen, J., Nyga˚rd, C., von Sogaard, K. (2009). Predicting long-term sickness absence and Bonsdorff, M. E., & Rantanen, T. (2011). Work ability in midlife early retirement pension from self-reported work ability. Inter- as a predictor of mortality and disability in later life: A 28-year national Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, prospective follow-up study. Canadian Medical Association 82, 1133–1138. Journal, 183, E235–E242. Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456–476. PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Emotion and adaptation. In L. 54, 1063–1070. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research Zhang, S. (2014). Impact of job involvement on organizational (pp. 609–637). New York: Guildford. citizenship behaviors in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 120, Tajfel, H. C., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of 165–174. intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, P., & Guerra-Baéz, R. M. (2016). A study Psychology of intergroup relations (Vol. 2, pp. 7–24). Chicago, of why anomic employees harm co-workers: Do uncompassion- IL: Nelson-Hall. ate feelings matter? Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/ Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy s10551-016-3313-5. of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.