The influence of prosocial motivation and civility on work engagement:The mediating role of thriving at work

Abid, Ghulam; Sajjad, Iqra; Elahi, Natasha Saman; Farooqi, Saira; Nisar, Asma Article The influence of prosocial motivation and civility on work engagement:The mediating role of thriving at work Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Abid, Ghulam; Sajjad, Iqra; Elahi, Natasha Saman; Farooqi, Saira; Nisar, Asma (2018) : The influence of prosocial motivation and civility on work engagement:The mediating role of thriving at work, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 5, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1493712 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/206090 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ MANAGEMENT | RESEARCH ARTICLE The influence of prosocial motivation and civility on work engagement:The mediating role of thriving at work Ghulam Abid 1 *, Iqra Sajjad 1 , Natasha Saman Elahi 1 , Saira Farooqi 2 and Asma Nisar 3 Abstract: Thriving at work is a psychological state in which employee experience both the sense of vitality and learning. Drawing on Self-Determination Theory, Job Demands and Resources model, and Socially Embedded Model of thriving, our study examines the direct influence of two behavioral antecedents (i.e. prosocial motivation and civility) on work engagement. Moreover, we also investigated the mediating mechanism of thriving at work in the relationship between workplace behavioral antecedents and work engagement. Data were collected in two-wave time lagged cross-sectional time horizon with a gap of two weeks from diverse sample. Using PROCESS macro by Hayes on actual sample of 239 employees from various job functions, strong empirical support is found for all the direct and indirect hypothesized relationships. The finding of the study contributes to the better understanding of the most emerging construct, namely, thriving at work. Theoretical and practical implications along with recommendations for further empirical research on thriving at work are also provided. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Ghulam Abid is an Assistant Professor of Management in School of Business Administration at National College of Business Administration & Economics (NCBA&E), Lahore, Pakistan. His research focuses on employee thriving and positive organizational scholarship. His most recent research is on examining how organizations can create a more positive environment where individuals can thrive, and how organizations benefit in terms of positive behavioral outcomes. He received his PhD degree from the NCBA&E. Iqra Sajjad received her MPhil from NCBA&E and is currently involved in research revolving around work engagement. Natasha Saman Elahi received her MPhil from NCBA&E and is currently involved in research circling around compassion at work. Saira Farooqi is a doctoral candidate at the NCBA&E and serving as Head of the Department at Kinnaird College for Women, Pakistan. Her research is in the realm of performance management and ethics. Asma Nisar is a doctoral candidate at the NCBA&E and serving as lecturer at Kinnaird College. She is particularly interested in researching voice behavior. PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT Sustaining competitive advantage and achieving excellence in performance through thriving workforce and by adopting best practices are the common course of actions for organizations. A thriving workforce itself is a competitive advantage as it helps in avoiding negative individual outcomes like stress, depression, physical illnesses, absenteeism, and promotes positive organizational outcomes, i.e. better performance, greater job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Therefore, to identify the antecedents, consequences, and mechanism of thriving at work, we conducted a two-wave time lagged study. Our study contributes to the literature on thriving at work by explaining how and why individuals thrive at work. Abid et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1493712 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1493712 © 2018 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Received: 02 May 2018 Accepted: 13 June 2018 First Published10 July 2018 *Corresponding author: Ghulam Abid, School of Business Administration, NCBA&E, Lahore, Pakistan E-mail: [email protected] Reviewing editor: Jason Harkins, Maine Business School, University of Maine, USA Additional information is available at the end of the article Page 1 of 19 Subjects: Multidisciplinary Psychology; Work & Organizational Psychology; Business, Management and Accounting; Keywords: prosocial motivation; civility; thriving at work; work engagement 1. Introduction Sustaining competitive advantage and achieving excellence in performance through adopting best practices are the common course of actions for organizations. The service industries, in particular, face more challenges as compared to the manufacturing industries in sustaining their performance, therefore they require a workforce that thrives on an optimal level (Prem, Ohly, Kubiceki, & Korunka, 2017; Spreitzer & Porath, 2014). A thriving workforce itself is a competitive advantage as it helps in avoiding negative individual outcomes like stress, depression, physical illnesses (Gallup, 2013) and also promotes positive organizational outcomes, i.e. better performance, higher job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Gerbasi, Porath, Parker, Spreitzer, & Cross, 2015; Spreitzer & Porath, 2014). Thriving individuals are less likely to show absenteeism, stress, and burnout at job (Keyes, 2002). This is because thriving individuals are more energetic, physically and psychologically healthy which can ultimately reduce the costs that the organization would have to spend on providing medical care to employees (Spreitzer, Porath, & Gibson, 2012). Further, past studies on thriving at work demonstrated that thriving individuals are more prone towards creating resources as compared to depleting resources (Spreitzer et al., 2012). They strive more to achieve organizational objectives effectively and efficiently (Spreitzer & Porath, 2012). They continuously experience growth in their personalities which is portrayed through their zest for work (Miller & Stiver, 1997;Nix,Ryan, Manly, & Deci, 1999). Thriving is defined as “psychological state in which individuals experience both a sense of vitality and a sense of learning at work”(Porath, Spreitzer, Gibson, & Garnett, 2012;Spreitzer, Sutcliffe, Dutton, Sonenshein, & Grant, 2005). It comprises both an affective (vitality) and a cognitive (learning) component (Niessen, Sonnentag, & Sach, 2012). Vitality is defined as feeling energetic in one’s work experiences (Nix et al., 1999), and learning that refers to the ability to acquire and apply new skills and knowledge (Edmondson, 1999). According to Spreitzer et al. (2005), a feeling of vitality and a sense of learning both are essential components of thriving. If one of them is missing, then thriving is not possible as when people have the energy to work, but do not have opportunities to learn their energy gets wasted. Likewise, when employees have the opportunities to learn new things, but they do not have enough energy to indulge into such opportunities, then they will not be able to thrive (Spreitzer et al., 2012). The concept of thriving at work has attained an excessive deal of attention in organizational studies and positive organizational scholarship (Paterson, Luthans, & Jeung, 2014; Spreitzer & Porath, 2012). Employee health and safety has been one of the major concerns of organizations all over the globe. Owing to the increase in awareness of employee rights, organizations are giving more and more importance to healthy practices and factors that promote it (Mushtaq, Abid, Sarwar, & Ahmed, 2017). Thriving employees have stronger psychologically, more prone towards taking initiative and have a better life balance. For that reason, in this study, we are concerned for investigating factors that could encourage the employee thriving in the working environment. Therefore, in this study, we have empirically examined the role of the prosocial motivation in the transformation of individual psychological state i.e. thriving. Prosocial motivation is defined as “the desire to expend effort based on concern for helping or contributing to other people”(Grant, 2007). In the literature, the association between prosocial motivation and thriving was not examined. Therefore, this study has postulated that prosocial motivation is an important contributor of thriving at work which may increase the individual sense of vitality and learning ability. Abid et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1493712 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1493712 Page 2 of 19 Moreover, we assumed that civility is also an important factor and a major contributor of thriving at work. Civility is defined as “interpersonal behaviors that demonstrate mutual respect between individuals or groups”(Andersson & Pearson, 1999). To the best of our knowledge, the influence of civility on thriving at work was still unexplored. Therefore, in this study, we have empirically tested the relationship between civility and thriving at work. Furthermore, we also investigated that thrived individuals are more engaged with the organization. Though, there is an extant literature that has explored the mediating role of thriving at work (Abid et al., 2015; Paterson et al., 2014;Porathetal.,2012; Wallace, Butts, Johnson, Stevens, & Smith, 2016; Walumbwa, Muchiri, Misati, Wu, & Meiliani, 2017), but, the intervening role of thriving at work in the relationship of prosocial motivation and work engagement and also civility and work engagement association has been overlooked in the literature. Therefore, the main goals of our study are (a) to examine the direct impact of prosocial motivation and civility on thriving at work and work engagement, (b) to explore the effect of thriving at work on work engagement, and (c) to explore indirect effect prosocial motivation and civility on work engagement through thriving at work. The present study contributes to literature on thriving at work through incorporating prosocial motivation and civility. This study has also contributed in the prosocial motivation and civility literature for explaining the mechanism of the impact of prosocial motivation and civility through introducing thriving at work. 2. Literature review and hypotheses development 2.1. Prosocial motivation and thriving at work Prosocial motivation is defined as “the desire to help others”(Grant, 2007). Prosocial motivation has three significant characteristics, namely: self-regulation (autonomous vs. identified), goal directedeness (process vs. outcome), and temporal focus (present vs. future) (Gagne & Deci, 2005). According to the Self-Determination Theory, prosocial motivation can be established at various stages of autonomous regulation; the need to help others can be independently sustained by sense of recognition and value coherence or can be compelled by sense of stress, and responsibility or obligation (Gagne & Deci, 2005). Prosocial motivation comprises of freedom in self-regulation which means that employees are not only motivated to help others, but they also indulge in self-motivation to accomplish tasks (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The choice to consume energy is less autonomous as it establishes self-control to attain an objective (Gagne & Deci, 2005). Second, prosocial motivation varies in goal directedness as prosocially motivated workers believe that they have to achieve a target to give advantage to others (Grant, 2007). Third, the preceding difference recommends the prosocial motivation varies in terms of temporal focus as these individuals are future oriented and anxious about accomplishing their work (Batson, 1998). Prosocial motivated employees influences a person to feel the need to benefit others by offering combined compensations (De Dreu, Weingart, & Kwon, 2000), by inspiring individuals to reveal about how their behaviors will help colleagues and why that matters (Arieli, Grant, & Sagiv, 2014) and by giving knowledge about how work will give advantage to the beneficiaries (Belle, 2013; Hu & Liden, 2015). Hence, when individuals behave prosocially as virtuous citizens, they are likely to experience positive moods, feeling of vitality, and create a quality relationship with other people. The overall heedful relating behavior (quality relationship) creates relational knowledge and positive affective resources that enable the employees to thrive at work (George & Bettenhausen, 1990). As individuals have high prosocial motivation, they share knowledge with each other and also become capable of applying this knowledge to execute work tasks as a result they thrive at workplace. This occurs because knowledge sharing with colleagues enhances their cognitive (learning) resources. Moreover, prosocially motivated individuals also experience the emotions of vitality by supporting others who need at hand (Ryan & Bernstein, 2004). On the basis of the above-mentioned information, we propose our first hypothesis as follows: H 1 :Prosocial motivation is positively related to thriving at work. Abid et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1493712 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1493712 Page 3 of 19 2.2. Thriving and work engagement Theoretical and empirical studies demonstrated the thriving through both its vitality and learning elements which brings many beneficial individual and job outcomes (Spreitzer & Sutciffe, 2007) i.e. job performance (Frazier & Tupper, 2016;Patersonetal.,2014;Porath et al., 2012;Shan,2016; Spreitzer et al., 2005); general health; career development initiative (Porath et al., 2012); innovative work behavior (Carmeli & Spreitzer, 2009; Wallace et al., 2016); self-development (Paterson et al., 2014;Spreitzer&Sutciffe,2007);constructivevoice behavior (Carmeli & Spreitzer, 2009); positive heatlh (Christianson, Spreitzer, Sutcliffe, & Grant, 2005;Porathetal.,2012); carreer adaptability (Jiang, 2017); subjective well-being (Basinska, 2017); affective organizational commitment (Walumbwa et al., 2017); life satisfaction (Zhai, Wang, & Weadon, 2017); job satisfaction (Abid, Khan, & Hong, 2016); and social, community, and family relationship (Spreitzer et al., 2012). It also reduced the strain, burnout (Porath et al., 2012), and turnover intention (Abid, Zahra, & Ahmed, 2015). Individuals have cognitive (learning) and affective (vitality) resources when they thrive in the workplace, in turn, their engagement towards work will enhance. Therefore, we have included work engagement as an outcome of thriving at work in this study. Work engagement has gained more intention in the fields of organizational behavior, and positive organizational scholarship (Macey, Schneider, Barbera, & Young, 2009). “It is referred to as a positive work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption”(Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). Vigor “is characterized by being energetic, resilient, and persistent in the face of workplace difficulties”. Dedication “is having inspiration,pride,enthusiasm,andthewill to overcome challenges at work”.Absorptionmeans “being content, and concentrating on work to such an extent that employee feels trouble while detaching from work”. Geldenhuys, Laba, and Venter (2014)explainedthatvigor, dedication, and absorption are three components of work engagement which represent the physical, emotional, and cognitive aspects. Thriving share a theoretical similarity to work engagement (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008) as both concepts consider vigor (termed vitality or vigor, correspondingly) as an essential element in work life (Spreitzer, Lam, & Fritz, 2010). Alternately, the difference between the two concepts is on the basis of creation and utilization of resources. Work engagement determines the level to which employees are keen to utilize their personal resources at work (Kahn, 1990), while thriving identifies the degree to which individuals feel that their work gives them personal growth that is contingent upon creation of resources. Ryan and Bernstein (2004) believed that the vitality is depicted through mental and physical sensation that forces a person to live with vigor and purpose. It comprises of advancing life with enthusiasm, strength, zest, zeal, and energy. Vital people do not work halfheartedly and are persistent as well as work energetically towards achieving their aim. On the other hand, learning employees are those who acquire knowledge and apply it to situations with confidence, thereby making themselves more and more capable to perform job (Carver, 1998). The Job Demands and Resources (JD-R) model explains that by providing an atmosphere of knowledge and learning, it is possible to keep employees engaged (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). Thriving employee feels energy while in taking challenging tasks (Carver, 1998). Accordingly, such employees utilize their large pool of enduring resources to safely anticipate consequences (Halbesleben, Harvey, & Bolino, 2009) and to keep themselves away from being anxious, stressed, and pressured due to challenging conditions (Hakanen, Perhoniemi, & Toppinen-Tanner, 2008). Prosocial behavior is expected to generate a helpful social environment that promotes cooperation and information sharing (Schaufeli, 2012). Employees learn new skills and knowledge during information sharing because it cannot happen in isolation (Spreitzer et al., 2005). Thus, on the basis of the above arguments, our second hypothesis is: H 2 :Thriving at work is positively associated to work engagement. Abid et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1493712 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1493712 Page 4 of 19 2.3. Prosocial motivation and work engagement Prosocial motivation has gained momentum in the fields of organizational behavior, positive organizational studies, and applied psychology (Grant & Berg, 2010) due to its beneficial outcomes for an organization (Grant & Berg, 2010; Grant & Sumanth, 2009). For example, prosocial motivation enhances work effort, performance, persistence (Grant, 2007), productivity, and in-role or extra-role activities (Grant et al., 2007). Prosocial attitude is an extra-role behavior that gives advantage to employees by helping in the team tasks (Anderson & Williams, 1996). Prosocially motivated employees pursue to have an encouraging influence on their colleagues (Grant, 2007). They indulge in being creative at work and also continually look for ways to help others (Rioux & Penner, 2001). Prosocially motivated employees are prone to take initiative (De Dreu et al., 2009), perform better, complete task persistently (Grant, 2008), and achieve excellence in the meeting their basic objectives while helping their colleagues in the process as well (Grant, 2007; Ryan & Deci, 2000). JD-R model (Demerouti et al., 2001) also explains work engagement (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011) by explaining that job resources are the characteristics of work that are useful in attaining task objectives and in motivating individual development. It is important to note that job resources promote work engagement, which help employees in achieving their goals and objectives (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Previous studies on work engagement showed a positive association among different job resources (such as, prosocially motivated learning environment, job freedom, skill variety, job control, task identity, and supervisor support) and work engagement (Bakker et al., 2011; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Van Rhenen, 2009). Based on the above discussion, therefore, in this study, we have proposed that: H 3 :Prosocial motivation is positively related to work engagement. 2.4. Thriving as a mediator between civility and work engagement Based on the hypothetical model, we have implicit that thriving mediates the relationship between prosocial motivation and work engagement. Prosocially motivated individuals could also share cognitive (learning) and affective (vitality) resources to their co-workers which could also benefit them (Hobfoll, 2002). Thriving employees exert greater levels of energy and actively engaged in their tasks and work (Eldor & VigodaGadot, 2016; Vigoda-Gadot, Eldor, & Schohat, 2013). So, we posit that: H 4 :Thriving at work mediates the relationship between prosocial motivation and work engagement. 2.5. Civility and thriving at work Civility is one of the main concerns of outcome-oriented organizations in these days (Brown, 2012). Civility is referred to “as the following of shared norms of politeness, courtesy and respect at workplace”(Ferriss, 2002; Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000). It refers to both formal and informal social relationships (Alderfer, 1972) and also includes consciously motivated organizational behavior (Peck, 1993). One approach to demonstrate the civility vs. incivility is through a spectrum of positive to negative deviance. Civility is on the positive end of the continuum representing concepts like being polite or considerate, respectful behavior, pleasurable and encouraging positive connections, and respecting emotions. In comparison to civility, incivility is at the negative end of the continuum (Porath, 2011). Theoretically, there are possible to be significant differences between behaving without respect, i.e. behaving with disregard (incivility), behaving courteously, and with concern for others norms of courtesy or respect (civil behavior) (Osatuke, Moore, Ward, Dyrenforth, & Belton, 2009). Civility is not only the nonappearance of mistreatment, but it includes being politically polite (Boyd, 2006; Walsh et al., 2012). Thriving occurs when individuals experience growth, development, and energy in their work routine (Carmeli & Spreitzer, 2009). Socially embedded model of thriving (Spreitzer et al., 2005) highlights the Abid et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1493712 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1493712 Page 5 of 19 significance of relative, and contextual aspects of work structure (for instance, climate of respect) that are formed in work procedures which encourage practices of vigor, vitality, and learning (Niessen et al., 2012;Patersonetal.,2014). Individuals are influenced by the environment in which they worked (Spreitzer et al., 2005). Civility creates positive emotions for oneself and with others. Individuals are considered themselves as admirable members of the organization when they face civil behavior. (Pearson & Porath, 2009). Organization norms of joint courteous behavior, respect, and civility develop learning environment that inspires individuals to share knowledge and support each other (Carmeli & Tischler, 2004). When employees feel civilized, they feel honored and are more likely to trust each other (Edmondson, 1999). This trust can increase feelings of competence and efficacy at work (Spreitzer, 1995). As a result of it, they feel vital. Consequently, civility enables thriving at work (Porath, Spreitzer, & Gibson, 2008) because individuals fail to thrive in the presence of incivility (Spreitzer & Porath, 2012). Incivility limits the work improvement and employee development while civility makes them lively, energetic, and gives them encouragement (Porath & Gerbasi, 2015). Hence, we suggest the following hypothesis: H 3 :Civility is positively related to thriving at work. 2.6. Civility and work engagement Civility was referred to as the interpersonal behavior that demonstrated respect and love for others (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). This concept was elaborated over the years to include being social and respected by others, a view that has extended to organizations now in the fields of organizational studies, applied psychology, and industrial organizational psychology areas (Osatuke et al., 2009) because it is considered as the antidote for various negative workplace behaviors (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Pearson et al., 2000). Civil organizational environment has been related to: positive employee and workplace outcomes involving greater levels of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and management trust (Leiter, Day, GilinOore, & Laschinger, 2012); performance and organization citizenship behavior (Porath et al., 2008); also with less turnover, absenteeism, anxiety, and stress (Leiter et al., 2012); and counterproductive work behavior (Porath et al., 2008). Civility creates the foundation for positive encouragement, vitalizing associations, and increased organizational performance (Meyer, 2006). Crawford, LePine, and Rich (2010) in their positive affect approach emphasized that an engaged individual face challenging stressors with positivity, encouragement, and motivation in the civil environment. Empirical evidence on engagement shows that it has a positive association with job responsibilities, and workload cognitive demands. In the respectful or civil working environment, engaged individuals react to challenging tasks with greater levels of vigor, energy, commitment, and dedication and generate respectful or civil working atmosphere (Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2007; Hakanen, Bakker, & Demerouti, 2005; Van den Broeck, De Cuyper, De Witte, & Vansteenkiste, 2010). While individuals facing civil or fair workplace rules, policies, and procedures, they recognize the organization as honest, responsible, and trustworthy and as a result, they respond positively to the organization (Agarwal, 2014) which leads to a higher level of work engagement. Trust in organizations is a significant driver of work engagement. As individuals give their strength, energy, time, and talent, they need to be assured that they are spending their efforts in the benefit of their organization (Macey et al., 2009). Civility in the organization has a strong influence on work engagement such that when innovative leaders show the greater level of work engagement, the sub-ordinates are 55% more likely to get engaged too (Porath & Gerbasi, 2015). On the basis of above literature, we propose our next hypothesis as: H 6 :Civility is positively related to work engagement. 2.7. Thriving as a mediator between civility and work engagement Civility, which is one of the main elements of the workplace environment, significantly impacts workplace outcomes (Osatuke et al., 2009). It is described in various perspectives, but nearly all descriptions agree Abid et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1493712 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1493712 Page 6 of 19 that this concept is explained through courtesy, politeness, respect, and an overall responsiveness for the rights of others (Carver, 1998;Elias,1982). When employees are civil, they feel much more hopeful and respected within the organization as a result of which they create an energetic work environment (Pearson & Porath, 2009). Civility is the honest, trustworthy, polite, prosocial, careful behavior at workplace that includes social style arrangements in relation with one’s engagement with others (Di Fabio et al., 2016;Rehfuss&DiFabio,2012). Civility creates quality relationship among people (Dutton, 2003) as a result of it, vitality and learning opportunities are created (Carmeli & Spreitzer, 2009). Individuals energetically share their skills and knowledge (Eldor & Harpaz, 2016; Parker & Griffin, 2011), when they have good connection with other because employees cannot learn in the isolation (Spreitzer et al., 2005). Griffin, Neal, and Parker (2007) explained that thriving individuals utilize extra strength (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Hornung & Rousseau, 2007) which in turn encourages the employee work engagement. Therefore, we propose that: H 7 :Thriving mediates the relationship between civility and work engagement. 3. Methods 3.1. Sample and procedure The current study has collected the data from the service sector (specifically banks and educational institutions) of Lahore through a self-administered questionnaire by using the non-probability convenience sampling technique. From the educational institutes, targeted respondents were lecturers and assistant professors, while from the banks, targeted respondents were those employees who were at managerial posts. Based on two-wave time lagged cross-sectional time horizon, 400 survey questionnaires were distributed among various educational institutions and banks for the removal of common method biases. At Time 1, data were collected for demographic variables (age, gender, education, and tenure) and study variables (civility and prosocial motivation). On the other hand, after the three weeks of T1 data collection, the data of thriving and work engagement were collected at T2. The actual response for this study was 239 (60% response rate) after the collection of data at two different time points which was beyond average and appropriate in organizational studies (Baruch & Holtom, 2008; Bordia, Restubog, Jimmieson, & Irmer, 2011). Among 239 employees, 124 (51.9%) were male and 115 (48.1%) were female. The average age of employees was 32.2 (SD = 7.63), 97 (42%) employees were single, 141 (59%) were married. Majority of employees i.e. 137 (57.3%) has an equivalent master’s degree. Average tenure of employees was 6.77 years. 46 (19.2%) employees were designated at lecturer position, while 12 (2.5%) were assistant professor. About 11(4.6%) were operation managers, 10 (4.2%) were relationship manager, and 9 (3.8%) were branch managers. 3.2. Measures 3.2.1. Civility Civility was measured by the 4-item scale developed by Porath and Erez (2009). Items were scored on 5-point Likert scale ranging from (strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5). A sample items from the scale is “Does this person treat you with respect”and “Does this person treat you with dignity?”. The reliability of scale was 0.84. 3.2.2. Prosocial motivation Prosocial motivation was measured by the 5-item scale of Grant and Sumanth (2009). Items were anchored on 5-point Likert scale ranging from (strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5). A sample item from the scale “I get energized by working on tasks that have potential to benefit others”. The reliability of scale was 0.86. Abid et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1493712 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1493712 Page 7 of 19 3.2.3. Thriving at work To measure thriving at work, 10-item scale of Porath et al. (2012) was used. This scale includes five items for learning and five items for vitality. Items were scored on 5-point Likert scale ranging from (strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5). A sample item for learning is “Icontinuetolearnmore and more as time goes by”and for vitality “I feel alive and vital”. The reliability of scale was 0.70. 3.2.4. Work engagement Work engagement was measured by the scale of Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, and Bakker (2002). It consists of six items of vigor, five items for dedication, and six items of absorption, but in this study, work engagement had taken as composite variable. Employees indicated the extent of agreement with each the item of work engagement on 5-point Likert scale ranging from (strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5). A sample item of scale includes “At work, I feel full of energy”. The reliability of scale was 0.85. 3.3. Control variables Demographic information was collected along with the data on study variables in this study. However, these variables were not assimilated in the conceptual framework, but these were taken as control variables as they could have confounded the results. For example, age affects vitality of employees because older people feel more exhausted at the workplace than younger ones (Uchino, Berg, Smith, Pearce, & Skinner, 2006). The study of Kanfer and Ackerman (2004) has also shown that increase in age reduces the capacity to learn. Similarly, Purvanova and Muros (2010) in their meta-analysis explain that women tend to feel more fatigued than men. Likewise, employees who have worked for an extended period of time at a workplace are less likely to feel thriving than those who freshly join the organization. Hence, due to the effects that demographic variables have on thriving, we have taken age, gender, education, and tenure as controls. 3.4. Data analysis approcah First, the mean, standard deviation, reliability, correlation were examained by using SPSS 24. Second, multiple fit indices of factor model were evaluated by utilizing the AMOSS 24 before hypotheses testing. Third, PROCESS macros (Hayes & Preacher, 2013) was used to test the hypotheses. Two mediation models were performed because there are two independent variables in hypothetical model (Figure 1). The first simple mediation model has tested the hypotheses (H1–H4) and second mediation model has tested (H5–H7). 4. Findings 4.1. Descriptive analysis Table 1showed a mean, standard deviation, and bivariate correlations of study variables (prosocial motivation, civility, thriving, and work engagement) as well as the control variables (age, education, and tenure). Reliabilities of scales ranged from 0.70 to 0.86. Consistent with our hypothesized H3 H2 H6 H7 H4 H1 H5 P PrPosocial Motivation Civility Thriving at Work Work Engagement Figure 1. Theoretical Model. Abid et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1493712 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1493712 Page 8 of 19 study also revealed that thriving at work intervenes between prosocial motivation and work engagement relationship as well as between civility and work engagement. This research specifies that workplace civility and employees prosocial (helping) ability play a significant role in influencing thriving at work and their engagement towards work. Therefore, the organizations should emphasis on creating a civil and respectful environment as well as on developing prosocial motivation among employees to promote individual thriving and engagement with the work in today’s contemporary challenging times. Funding The authors received no direct funding for this research. Author details Ghulam Abid 1 E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3271-9082 Iqra Sajjad 1 E-mail: [email protected] Natasha Saman Elahi 1 E-mail: [email protected] Saira Farooqi 2 E-mail: [email protected] Asma Nisar 3 E-mail: [email protected] 1 School of Business Administration, National College of Business Administration & Economics, Lahore, Pakistan. 2 School of Business Administration, Kinnaird College for Women, Lahore, Pakistan. 3 Department of Business Studies, Kinnaird College for Women, Lahore, Pakistan. Citation information Cite this article as: The influence of prosocial motivation and civility on work engagement:The mediating role of thriving at work, Ghulam Abid, Iqra Sajjad, Natasha Saman Elahi, Saira Farooqi & Asma Nisar, Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1493712. References Abid, G., Khan, B., & Hong, M. C. W. 2016, January. Thriving at work: How fairness perception matters for employee’s thriving and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Proceedings,161:11948. Academy of Management doi: 10.5465/ AMBPP.2016.11948. Abid, G., Khan, B., Rafiq, Z., & Ahmed, A. (2015). Workplace incivility: Uncivil activities, antecedents, consequences, and level of incivility. Science International,27(6), 6307–6312. Abid, G., Zahra, I., & Ahmed, A. (2015). Promoting thriving at work and waning turnover intention: A relational perspective. Future Business Journal,2(2), 127–137. doi:10.1016/j.fbj.2016.08.001 Agarwal, U. (2014). Linking justice, trust and innovative work behavior work engagement. Personnel Review, 43(1), 41–73. doi:10.1108/PR-02-2012-0019 Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in organizational setting. New York, NY: Free Press. Anderson, S. E., & Williams, L. J. (1996). Interpersonal, job, and individual factors related to helping processes at work. Journal of Applied Psychology,81(3), 282–296. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.282 Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review,24(3), 452–471. doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2202131 Arieli, S., Grant, A. M., & Sagiv, L. (2014). Convincing yourself to care about others: An intervention for enhancing benevolence values. Journal of Personality,82(1), 15–24. doi:10.1111/jopy.12029 Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology,20(1), 4–28. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2010.485352 Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands– resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology,22(3), 309–328. doi:10.1108/ 02683940710733115 Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology,99(2), 274– 284. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.274 Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress,22(3), 187–200. doi:10.1080/02678370802393649 Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations,61(8), 1139–1160. Basinska, B. A. (2017). Thriving in a multicultural workplace. In M. Rozkwitalska, Ł.Sułkowski, & S. Magala (Eds.), Intercultural interactions in the multicultural workplace (pp. 109–121). Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Belle, N. (2013). Experimental evidence on the relationship between public service motivation and job performance. Public Administration Review,73(1), 143– 153. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02621.x Bimrose, J., & Hearne, L. (2012). Resilience and career adaptability: Qualitative studies of adult career counseling. Journal of Vocational Behavior,81(3), 338–344. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2012.08.002 Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., Jimmieson, N. L., & Irmer, B. E. (2011). Hunted by the past: Effects of poor change management history one employee attitudes and turnover. Group and Organization Management,36(2), 191–222. doi:10.1177/ 1059601110392990 Boyd, R. (2006). The value of civility? Urban Studies,43(5– 6), 863–878. doi:10.1080/00420980600676105 Brown, A. B. (2012). Civility, job satisfaction, and intentions to quit. University of Cincinnati. Campbell,D.T.,&Fiske,D.W.(1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multi traitmulti method matrix. Psychological Bulletin,56(2), 81–105. Carmeli, A., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2009). Trust, connectivity, and thriving: Implications for innovative behaviors at work. The Journal of Creative Behavior,43(3), 169– 191. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)2162-6057 Carmeli, A., & Tischler, A. (2004). The relationships between intangible organizational elements and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal,25(13), 1257–1278. doi:10.1002/smj.428 Abid et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1493712 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1493712 Page 15 of 19 Carver, C. S. (1998). Resilience and thriving: Issues, models, and linkages. Journal of Social Issues,54(2), 245– 266. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1998.tb01217.x Christianson, M., Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., & Grant, A. (2005). An empirical examination of thriving at work. Working paper. Center for Positive Organizational Scholarship, Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and met analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology,95(5), 834–848. doi:10.1037/a0019364 De Dreu, C. K., Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,78(5), 889–905. DeDreu, C. K. W., & Nauta, A. (2009). Self-interest and other-orientation in organizational behavior: Implications for job performance, prosocial behavior, and personal initiative. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 913–926. doi:10.1037/a0014494 Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology,86(3), 499–512. Di Fabio, A., Giannini, M., Loscalzo, Y., Palazzeschi, L., Bucci, O., Guazzini, A., & Gori, A. (2016). The challenge of fostering healthy organizations: An empirical study on the role of workplace relational civility in acceptance of change and well-being. Frontiers in Psychology,7, 1748. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01748 Dutton, J. E. (2003). Energize your workplace: How to build high quality connections at work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey –Bass. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly,44(2), 350–383. doi:10.2307/2666999 Eldor, L. (2016). Work engagement: Toward a general theoretical enriching model. Human Resource Development Review,15(3), 317–339. doi:10.1177/ 1534484316655666 Eldor, L. (2017). Looking on the bright side: The positive role of organizational politics in the relationship between employee engagement and performance at work. Applied Psychology,66(2), 233–259. doi:10.1111/apps.12090 Eldor, L., & Harpaz, I. (2016). A process model of employee engagement: Learning climate and its relationship with work performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior,37(2), 213–235. doi:10.1002/job.2037 Eldor, L., & VigodaGadot, E. (2016). The nature of employee engagement: New conceptual and empirical considerations of the employee-organization relationship. International Human Resource Management,28(3), 526–552. doi:10.1080/ 09585192.2016.1180312 Elias, N. 1982.Power & Civility.PantheonCarter,S.L. (1998). Civility: Manners, Morals, and the Etiquette of Democracy. New York, NY:. New York, NY: Basic Books (AZ). Ferriss, A. L. (2002). Studying and measuring civility: A framework, trends and scale. Sociological Inquiry,72 (3), 376–392. doi:10.1111/soin.2002.72.issue-3 Frazier, M. L., & Tupper, C. (2016). Supervisor prosocial motivation, employee thriving, and helping behavior: A trickle-down model of psychological safety. Group & Organization Management,43(4), 561593. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1059601116653911 Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior,2(4), 331–362. doi:10.1002/job.322 Gallup. (2013). In U.S., poor health tied to big losses for all job types. Retrieved 30 May, 2017 from http://www. gallup.com/poll/162344/poor-health-tied-big-lossesjob-types.aspx.Retrieveon . Geldenhuys, M., Laba, K., & Venter, C. M. (2014). Meaningful work, work engagement and organizational commitment. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology,40(1), 01–10. doi:10.4102/sajip. v40i1.1098 George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology,75(6), 698–709. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.75.6.698 Gerbasi, A., Porath, C. L., Parker, A., Spreitzer, G., & Cross, R. (2015). Destructive de-energizing relationships: How thriving buffers their effect on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,100(5), 1423–1433. doi:10.1037/apl0000015 Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review,32(2), 393–417. doi:10.5465/ amr.2007.24351328 Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology,93(1), 48–58. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.93.1.48 Grant, A. M., & Berg, J. M. (2010). Prosocial motivation at work: When, why, and how making a difference makes a difference. In K. Cameron & G. Spreitzer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 28–44). NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press. Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior,28,3–34. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002 Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal,54(1), 73–96. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.59215085 Grant, A. M., Campbell, E. M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D., & Lee, K. (2007). Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,103(1), 53– 67. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.05.004 Grant, A. M., & Sumanth, J. J. (2009). Mission possible? The performance of prosocially motivated employees depends on manager trustworthiness. Journal of Applied Psychology,94(4), 927–944. doi:10.1037/a0014391 Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal,50(2), 327–347. doi:10.5465/ amj.2007.24634438 Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2005). How dentists cope with their job demands and stay engaged: The moderating role of job resources. European Journal of Oral Sciences,113(6), 479–487. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0722.2005.00250.x Hakanen, J. J., Perhoniemi, R., & Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008). Positive gain spirals at work: From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit. Journal of Vocational Behavior,73(1), 78–91. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.01.003 Abid et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1493712 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1493712 Page 16 of 19 Halbesleben, J. R., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M. C. (2009). Too engaged? A conservation of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology,94(6), 1452–1465. doi:10.1037/a0017595 Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2013). Conditional process modeling: Using structural equation modeling to examine contingent causal processes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course,2, 217–264. Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology,6(4), 307–324. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307 Hornung, S., & Rousseau, D. M. (2007). Active on the job proactive in change: How autonomy at work contributes to employee support for organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,43(4), 401–426. doi:10.1177/0021886307307555 Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2015). Making a difference in the teamwork: Linking team prosocial motivation to team processes and effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal,58(4), 1102–1127. doi:10.5465/ amj.2012.1142 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 Jiang, Z. (2016). Emotional intelligence and career decision-making self-efficacy: Mediating roles of goal commitment and professional commitment. Journal of Employment Counseling,53(1), 30–47. doi:10.1002/joec.2016.53.issue-1 Jiang, Z. (2017). Proactive personality and career adaptability: The role of thriving at work. Journal of Vocational Behavior,98,85–97. doi:10.1016/j. jvb.2016.10.003 Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal,33(4), 692–724. Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (2004). Aging, adult development, and work motivation. Academy of Management Review,29(3), 440–458. doi:10.5465/ amr.2004.13670969 Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,43, (2), 207–222. doi:10.2307/3090197 Leiter, M. P., Day, A., Gilin-Oore, D., & Laschinger, H. (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(4), 425–434. doi:10.1037/ a0029540 Leiter, M. P., Laschinger, H. K. S., Day, A., & Oore, D. G. (2011). The impact of civility interventions on employee social behavior, distress, and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology,96(6), 1258–1274. doi:10.1037/a0024442 Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & Young, S. A. (2009). Employee engagement: Tools for analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. London: Blackwell. Malik, M. A. R., Butt, A. N., & Choi, J. N. (2015). Rewards and employee creative performance: Moderating effects of creative self-efficacy, reward importance, and locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behavior,36(1), 59–74. doi:10.1002/job.1943 McKinley, W., Zhao, J., & Rust, K. G. (2000). A sociocognitive interpretation of organizational downsizing. Academy of Management Review,25(1), 227–243. doi:10.5465/amr.2000.2791612 Meyer, D. (2006). Setting the table: The transforming power of hospitality in business. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Miller, J. B., & Stiver, I. P. (1997). The healing connection: How women form relationships in therapy and in life. Boston: Beacon Press. Mushtaq, M., Abid, G., Sarwar, K., & Ahmed, S. (2017). Forging ahead: How to thrive at the modern workplace. Iranian Journal of Management Studies,10(4), 783-818. doi: 10.22059/IJMS.2017.235409.672704 Niessen, C., Sonnentag, S., & Sach, F. (2012). Thriving at work—A diary study. Journal of Organizational Behavior,33(4), 468–487. doi:10.1002/job.763 Nix, G., Ryan, R. M., Manly, J. B., & Deci, E. L. (1999). Revitalization through self-regulation: The effects of autonomous and controlled motivation on happiness and vitality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,35(3), 266–284. doi:10.1006/ jesp.1999.1382 Osatuke, K., Moore, S. C., Ward, C., Dyrenforth, S. R., & Belton, L. (2009). Civility, respect, engagement in the workforce (CREW) nationwide organization development intervention at Veterans Health Administration. The Journal of Applied BehavioralScience,45(3), 384– 410. doi:10.1177/0021886309335067 Parker, S. K., & Griffin, M. A. (2011). Understanding active psychological states: Embedding engagement in a wider nomological net and closer attention to performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,20(1), 60–67. doi:10.1080/ 1359432X.2010.532869 Paterson, T. A., Luthans, F., & Jeung, W. (2014). Thriving at work: Impact of psychological capital and supervisor support. Journal of Organizational Behavior,35(3), 434–446. doi:10.1002/job.1907 Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2000). Assessing and attacking workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics,29(2), 123–137. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(00)00019-X Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2009). The cost of bad behavior-how incivility damages your business and what you can do about it.New York: Portfolio. Peck, M. S. (1993). A world waiting to be born: Civility rediscovered. .New York: Bantam Books. Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology,63, 539–569. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 Porath, C., Spreitzer, G., Gibson, C., & Garnett, F. G. (2012). Thriving at work: Toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. Journal of Organizational Behavior,33(2), 250–275. doi:10.1002/ job.756 Porath, C. L. (2011). Civility. In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 439–448). New York: Oxford University Press. Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2009). Overlooked but not untouched: How rudeness reduces onlookers’performance on routine and creative tasks. Organizational Behavior and HumaDecision Processes, 109(1), 29–44. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.01.003 Porath, C. L., & Gerbasi, A. (2015). Does civility pay? Oragznitional Dynamic,44(4), 281–286. doi:10.1016/j. orgdyn.2015.09.005 Porath, C. L., Spreitzer, G., & Gibson, C. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of thriving across six organizations. Paper presented at the annual Academy of Management meeting, Anaheim, CA. Abid et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1493712 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1493712 Page 17 of 19 Prem, R., Ohly, S., Kubiceki, B., & Korunka, C. (2017). Thriving on challenge stressors? Exploring time pressure and learning demands as antecedents of thriving at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior,38(1), 108–123. doi:10.1002/job.2115 Purvanova, R. K., & Muros, J. P. (2010). Gender differences in burnout: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior,77(2), 168–185. doi:10.1016/j. jvb.2010.04.006 Rehfuss, M., & Di Fabio, A. (2012). Validating the future career autobiography as measure of narrative change. Journal Career Assessment,20(4), 452–462. doi:10.1177/1069072712450005 Reio, T. G., & Ghosh, R. (2009). Antecedents and outcomes of workplace incivility: Implications for human resource development research and practice. Human Resource Development Quarterly,20(3), 237–264. doi:10.1002/hrdq.v20:3 Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,86(6), 1306– 1314. Ryan, R. M., & Bernstein, J. H. (2004). Vitality. In C. Peterson & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York: Oxford University Press. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. Schaufeli, W. (2012). Work engagement: What do we know and where do we go? Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology,14(1), 3–10. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement,66(4), 701–716. doi:10.1177/0013164405282471 Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior,30(7), 893– 917. doi:10.1002/job.v30:7 Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmative analysis approach. Journal of Happiness Studies,3(1), 71–92. doi:10.1023/A:1015630930326 Shan, S. (2016). Thriving at Workplace: Contributing to self-development, career development, and better performance in information organizations. Pakistan Journal of Information Management and Libraries (PJIM&L),17, 109–119. Shao, B., Cardona, P., Ng, I., & Trau, R. N. (2017). Are prosocially motivated employees more committed to their organization? The roles of supervisors’prosocial motivation and perceived corporate social responsibility. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,34(4), 951-974. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal,38(5), 1442–1465. Spreitzer, G. M., Lam, C. F., & Fritz, C. (2010). Engagement and human thriving: Complementary perspectives on energy and connections to work. In A. B. Bakker & M. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 132–146). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Spreitzer, G. M., & Porath, C. (2014). Self-determination as nutriment for thriving: Building an integrative model of human growth at work. In M. Gagné (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory (pp. 245–258). New York: Oxford University Press. Spreitzer, G. M., & Porath, C. (2012). Creating sustainable performance. Harvard Business Review,90(1), 92–99. Spreitzer, G. M., Porath, C. L., & Gibson, C. B. (2012). Toward human sustainability: How to enable more thriving at work. Organizational Dynamics,41(2), 155–162. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.01.009 Spreitzer, G. M., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science,16(5), 537– 549. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0153 Spreitzer, G. M., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Thriving in organizations. In Nelson, D.L & Cooper, C.L. (Eds.), Positive Organizational Behavior (pp. 74-85). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Uchino, B. N., Berg, C. A., Smith, T. W., Pearce, G., & Skinner, M. (2006). Age-related difference in ambulatory blood pressure during daily stress: Evidence for greater blood pressure reactivity with age. Psychology and Aging,21(2), 231–239. doi:10.1037/ 0882-7974.21.2.231 Van den Broeck, A., De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). Not all job demands are equal: Differentiating job hindrances and job challenges in the job demands-resources model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,19(6), 735–759. doi:10.1080/ 13594320903223839 Vigoda-Gadot, E., Eldor, L., & Schohat, L. M. (2013). Engage them to public service: Conceptualization and empirical examination of employee engagement in public administration. American Review of Public Administration,43(5), 518–538. doi:10.1177/ 0275074012450943 Wallace, J. C., Butts, M. M., Johnson, P. D., Stevens, F. G., & Smith, M. B. (2016). A multilevel model of employee innovation: Understanding the effects of regulatory focus, thriving, and employee involvement climate. Journal of Management,42(4), 982–1004. doi:10.1177/0149206313506462 Walsh, B. M., Magley, V. J., Reeves, D. W., Davies-Schrils, K. A., Marmet, M. D., & Gallus, J. A. (2012). Assessing workgroup norms for civility: The development of the civility norms questionnaire-brief. Journal of Business and Psychology,27(4), 407–420. doi:10.1007/s10869011-9251-4 Walumbwa, F. O., Muchiri, M. K., Misati, E., Wu, C., & Meiliani, M. (2017). Inspired to perform: A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of thriving at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 1–13. Zhai, Q., Wang, S., & Weadon, H. (2017). Thriving at work as a mediator of the relationship between workplace support and life satisfaction. Journal of Management & Organization,1–17. doi:10.1017/jmo.2017.62 Abid et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1493712 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1493712 Page 18 of 19 © 2018 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a CreativeCommons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. You are free to: Share —copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt —remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution —You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Cogent Business & Management (ISSN: 2331-1975) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group. Publishing with Cogent OA ensures: •Immediate, universal access to your article on publication •High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online •Download and citation statistics for your article •Rapid online publication •Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards •Retention of full copyright of your article •Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article •Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com Abid et al., Cogent Business & Management (2018), 5: 1493712 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1493712 Page 19 of 19