Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Dana Kabat-Farr
Alyssa K. McGonagle
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
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
974 D. Kabat-Farr et al.
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
Uncivil Supervisors and Perceived Work Ability: The Joint Moderating Roles of Job… 975
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.
976 D. Kabat-Farr et al.
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.
Uncivil Supervisors and Perceived Work Ability: The Joint Moderating Roles of Job… 977
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
978 D. Kabat-Farr et al.
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*
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
Uncivil Supervisors and Perceived Work Ability: The Joint Moderating Roles of Job… 979
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
980 D. Kabat-Farr et al.
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.
Uncivil Supervisors and Perceived Work Ability: The Joint Moderating Roles of Job… 981
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
982 D. Kabat-Farr et al.
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.
Uncivil Supervisors and Perceived Work Ability: The Joint Moderating Roles of Job… 983
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
Psychology, 4, 396–407.
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
Psychology, 30, 299–311.
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
984 D. Kabat-Farr et al.
123
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.
Uncivil Supervisors and Perceived Work Ability: The Joint Moderating Roles of Job… 985
123
Journal of Business Ethics is a copyright of Springer, 2019. All Rights Reserved.