Determining job satisfaction through the personal growth experience: the detrimental effects of supervisors who un-dignify the workplace

Cañas, Ricardo Martínez; Gomís, Alexis Jacobo Bañón; Silva, Graça; Opute, John Article Determining job satisfaction through the personal growth experience: the detrimental effects of supervisors who undignify the workplace Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Cañas, Ricardo Martínez; Gomís, Alexis Jacobo Bañón; Silva, Graça; Opute, John (2024) : Determining job satisfaction through the personal growth experience: the detrimental effects of supervisors who un-dignify the workplace, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 1-20, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2429014 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/326691 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/ Cogent Business & Management ISSN: 2331-1975 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 Determining job satisfaction through the personal growth experience: the detrimental effects of supervisors who un-dignify the workplace Ricardo Martínez Cañas, Alexis Jacobo Bañón Gomís, Graça Silva & John Opute To cite this article: Ricardo Martínez Cañas, Alexis Jacobo Bañón Gomís, Graça Silva & John Opute (2024) Determining job satisfaction through the personal growth experience: the detrimental effects of supervisors who un-dignify the workplace, Cogent Business & Management, 11:1, 2429014, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2429014 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2429014 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group View supplementary material Published online: 19 Nov 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 923 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 Cogent Business & ManageMent 2024, VoL. 11, no. 1, 2429014 Determining job satisfaction through the personal growth experience: the detrimental effects of supervisors who un-dignify the workplace Ricardo Martínez Cañasa , Alexis Jacobo Bañón Gomísb , Graça Silvac and John Oputed aBusiness Management Department, university of Castilla-La Mancha, Cuenca, spain; bBusiness Management Department, technical university of Valencia, Valencia, spain; cManagement Department, Lisbon school of economics & Management, Lisbon, Portugal; dManagement Department, London south Bank university, London, united Kingdom ABSTRACT In today’s competitive labor market, offering employees the highest general satisfaction experience with their jobs appears to be an important ingredient in retaining human capital. Numerous antecedents of this outcome have been disguised over the years, with ethical elements being nominated as influential. However, the role of human dignity in this process has been vaguely explored, and its examination could offer a new and clearer understanding of this relationship. Human dignity, which is more feasible to feel with work and in workplaces, has to do with a sense of self-worth, self-respect, and a fully realized life, which should increase employees’ feelings of good personal growth, and thereby, their general job satisfaction. Given that personal growth satisfaction might play an important role in fostering employees’ general job satisfaction, this study investigated how the presence of supervisors who undignify the workplace is detrimental to personal growth satisfaction before negatively affecting employees’ general job satisfaction. The results of a sample of 151 employees from a diverse set of Spanish industries revealed that personal growth satisfaction partially mediates the negative impact of undignifying supervisors on their employees’ general job satisfaction. Thus, novel information concerning the critical elements of human dignity and personal growth satisfaction is needed to spread general job satisfaction in the workplace. 1. Introduction In the last few decades, research on ethical leadership has grown, emphasizing its positive impact on human relationships in organizations (Qing etal., 2020). Consequently, the role of positive interactions with supervisors has been supported since Hawthorne’s studies (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). One important job outcome that has been thoroughly studied under this perspective is job satisfaction which has been revealed as a direct consequence of interacting with supervisors who behave ethically in the immediate workplace (Ruiz‐Palomino et al., 2011; Neubert et al., 2013; Bahadori et al., 2021). However, the influential elements that contribute to overall job satisfaction perceptions are less explored (Banks et al., 2021). For example, human dignity is an important element. In 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations (Davila-Gomez & Crowther, 2012; United Nations, 1948). Human dignity, which is intrinsically tied to human existence from the perspective of involving an end in itself, and not a means (Bolton, 2006)-, is defined as human rights that relate to humans’ feelings of self-worth, self-respect (Barak, 2015), self-esteem, honor, dignified status, and autonomy (Bolton, 2006, 2007). This concept explains how perceptions of job satisfaction in the workplace have been developed. In fact, it is the workplace and the work, integral parts of what people are, and thus principal sources of human dignity (Hodson, 1996, 2001; Bolton, 2006, 2007; Khandelwal, 2003), as reflected in the United Nations’ (UN) interests in © 2024 the author(s). Published by informa uK Limited, trading as taylor & Francis group CONTACT Ricardo Martínez Cañas Ricardo.Mar[email protected] av. alfares 44, social sciences Faculty, universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 16071, Cuenca, spain. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2429014 this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. the terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 5 March 2024 Revised 10 September 2024 Accepted 8 November 2024 KEYWORDS Supervisor undignifying behavior; human dignity; personal growth satisfaction; general job satisfaction; work behavior SUBJECTS Stress and Emotion in the Workplace; Work Motivation; Personnel Selection, Assessment, and Human Resource Management; Leadership; Introductory Work/ Organizational Psychology MANAGEMENT | RESEARCH ARTICLE 2 R. MARTÍNEZ CAÑAS ETAL. preserving this issue in the workplace (i.e. International Labour Organization, hereafter ILO), or in promoting decent work (e.g. fair treatment, decent hours workplace relations) (United Nations, 2015). Unethical supervisors who exhibit undignifying behaviors in the workplace can significantly harm employees’ personal dignity. Recent research suggests that this negative impact extends to job satisfaction levels (Zheng et al., 2021). When supervisors undermine dignity, employees may experience decreased self-worth and self-esteem, leading to negative job assessments (Xiong et al., 2021). Personal growth satisfaction, which involves feelings of continued development and self-realization, may play a crucial role in mediating this relationship (Tu et al., 2017). Despite the importance given by Hackman and Oldham (1976,1980) longer than 40 years ago to personal growth satisfaction as an affective outcome of employees, this variable has not been addressed much in literature. However, according to the parameters and rationales, this variable, which is likely to arise when performing a job, could be seriously and negatively affected when employees interact with supervisors who undignify the workplace. Employees are more likely to fail in meeting some important growth needs (i.e. self-esteem and self-actualization), with a direct negative influence on their personal growth satisfaction, which would make employees see their jobs as important barriers to their personal development (Hodson, 2001). Thus, personal growth satisfaction may act as a mediating variable for undignifying supervisors’ negative influence on employees’ general job satisfaction. To help clarify these issues, we use a human dignity framework to help distinguish whether personal growth satisfaction serves as a mediator through which other work context variables (i.e. undignifying supervisor behavior) affect employees’ general job satisfaction. To this end, we first explored the negative direct influence of supervisors’ undignifying behavior on employees’ general job satisfaction. Then, we examine the mediating role of personal growth satisfaction in this relationship, shedding light on the path that undignifying supervisors take before harming employees’ general job satisfaction. Finally, such examinations allow us to elucidate the important role of personal growth satisfaction in determining employees’ general job satisfaction. 2.Theoretical framework Similar objective working conditions in organizations do not necessarily imply analogous job satisfaction of employees. Otherwise, under the umbrella of the MacDonaldization thesis (e.g. Ritzer, 1996, 2004) employees of McDonalds, where similar objective working conditions exist in every shop around the world, would be equally satisfied with their jobs. Rather, it appears that subjective elements might come into the scene, such that our objective understanding of job satisfaction in the workplace should be complemented with one perspective, including what individuals perceive as important to make their lives worthy. In this vein, human dignity, which is an essential core human feature that should be respected at work (Bolton, 2007)- and how it is perceived to be respected at work –a sense of human dignity (Bolton, 2007), might become a crucial determinant in understanding the satisfaction of employees in different aspects of the work. A historical evolution of the concept of dignity shows that initially, dignity was associated with high rank, office, or social status. However, the Stoics introduced a more universal notion of dignity that sets humans apart from the rest of nature. Over time, dignity became a property inherent in all humans, emphasizing our unique qualities. Later, Kant’s universalization significantly influenced the Western tradition’s conceptualization of dignity making it universal (all humans possess it) and restricted only to humans. The above provides a polysemic concept of dignity with various strands of meaning coexisting. Some view dignity as elevated behavior displayed by individuals, while others emphasize its universal aspect. In summary, dignity encompasses both individual behavior and universal human qualities, reflecting our distinct place in the natural order (Rosen, 2012). Dignity can be understood as an element that separates us from animal life, making us human, as something that we possess by virtue of our shared humanity (Sacks, 2002). It serves as an indicator of public health, as a scientific framework for measuring dignity and its social determinants. Similar to happiness or love, dignity is valued by individuals but challenging to define. Based on a sociological perspective, differences in dignity stem from inequalities in social and economic resources, experiences COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 3 of disrespect, threat, and life stress, as well as factors like mastery, mattering, and meaning. Social groups with less power generally report lower levels of dignity, and education plays a crucial role in resource divides (Hitlin & Andersson, 2023). Dignity is influenced by social divisions, material conditions, and institutional safeguards that significantly impact individual well-being and overall quality of life, underscoring the importance of fair treatment and respect in maintaining dignity (Roscigno et al., 2021). Applied to work, dignity is the ability to establish self-worth and self-respect, appreciating the respect of others (Hodson, 2004). This concept is closely associated with issues of respect, worth, esteem, equality, autonomy, and freedom (e.g. Hodson, 2001); connected to the level of autonomy, respect, and recognition workers experience (Dube et al., 2022). Such approaches are human needs described in Maslow’s (1943) motivation theory, whose satisfaction is crucial to attain general well-being, human thriving, and personal development (e.g. Bañón-Gomis & Ruiz-Palomino, 2015; Valcour, 2014). One way to determine the borders of dignity at work is to conceptualize it as a human right (United Nations, 1948) based on the indicators defined by the International Labour Organization (ILO, 2005). While the former appeals to the condition of a human right, the latter characterizes the ‘decent work’ concept (Anker etal., 2003; Bolton, 2006, 2007). In 1999, Juan Somavia, ILO’s Director, described decent work as ‘opportunities for women and men to obtain decent and productive work in conditions of freedom, equity, security, and human dignity’ (ILO, 1999). He offered a comprehensive concept of work and of the workplace that explicitly includes three general dimensions that further subdivide into six sub-dimensions in total: availability of work (opportunities for work), acceptable scope of work (work in conditions of freedom), and quality of employment (productive work, equity in work, security at work, and dignity at work) (Anker et al., 2002). Based on this concept, Bolton (2006, 2007) distinguished two constitutive elements of dignity in the workplace: dignity at work and dignity in work. His approach can be seen as a proposition of a bi-dimensional understanding of -dignity at work, which conceives it as a human right -dignity at work– and as a quality condition to generate decent work–dignity in work–. The former dimension, dignity at work, relies on factors associated with material rewards (i.e. pay, security, gender equity) and is external to the individual. The latter dimension, dignity in work, contemplates a subjective experience conception of dignity (i.e. a form of reward, such as caring as a vocation), the inherent part of the human condition achieved and protected by individual endeavors. This is also associated with human connectedness and social ties and represents an important part of the conception of human dignity conception (Bolton, 2006). Using MacDonald’s as an example, dignity at work would consist of creating objective working conditions in all its shops around the world to reach material conditions affordable to individuals, rather than enacted by them. This includes elements such as well-being, rewards, voice, security, and equal opportunity. However, achieving dignity at work in MacDonald’s would include dealing with elements such as autonomy, job satisfaction, meaningful work, respect, and/or learning and development, which can be considered either dignifying or undignifying depending on the person. Overall, the concept of human dignity is formed by two inseparable components. One component includes an ‘objective order of dignity’–dignity at work–focused on material conditions, with which the first five ILO’s sub-dimensions of a decent work should be met. One another important component, which would explain the reason why material conditions are not enough for employees to get job satisfaction, includes a ‘subjective order of dignity’-dignity in workfocused on employees as persons, their perceptions of how they are treated and their inter-relationships with others –with which the remaining sub-dimension of dignity in the workplace should be met- (see Table 1). Accordingly, to foster satisfaction in the workplace, supervisors should be very attentive to the above-described aspects. Supervisors should thus make sure that the ‘objective order of dignity’, i.e. processes and procedures, is being applied into their organizations; therefore, work conditions such as availability of work, the acceptable scope of work and the quality of employment would be improved (see Table 1). Supervisors play a crucial role in ensuring subjective order of dignity. Treating employees fairly with respect to humanity fosters their satisfaction across various life aspects, personal growth, and self-realization. However, supervisors who undermine trust, autonomy, recognition, and respect threaten employees’ sense of dignity, negatively affecting both general job satisfaction and personal growth. 4 R. MARTÍNEZ CAÑAS ETAL. 2.1. The importance of human dignity in the workplace: direct effects of un-dignifiying supervisor behavior on employee’s general job satisfaction and personal growth satisfaction In recent decades, the negative effects of toxic supervisors in the workplace have become a growing body of research (Lipman-Blumen, 2006; Pelletier, 2010, 2012). These supervisors usually characterize themselves to disempower their employees (Singh etal., 2016), break down their employees’ self-esteem, threaten their employees’ personal security, promote a culture of inequity in the workplace, intimidate their employees both physically and psychologically, carry out dishonest behaviors, foster a divisive culture, and fail to listen or act on employee concerns (Pelletier, 2010). Being very egoistical, narcissistic, and Machiavellian (Singh et al., 2016), these individuals also tend to lie to their employees, demean and marginalize some of their people, and do not mind breaching their basic human rights (Lipman-Blumen, 2006), which on the whole becomes them in supervisors who dehumanize the workplace (Tavanti, 2011). Because human interactions in the workplace usually constitute an important influential element on the dignity of people in the workplace (Sturm & Dellert, 2016), human dignity is closely associated with issues of respect, worth, esteem, equality, autonomy, and freedom (Gini, 2001; Hodson, 2001; Sayer, 2005), and is thus seriously harmed in such workplaces, where undignifying and disrespectful supervisors are present (Sturm & Dellert, 2016). Although the relationships that are established between these supervisors and employees appear to be close to meeting some elemental, basic human needs, which people are usually eager to meet (i.e. need for authority, belonging, security, feeling special) (e-gLipman-Blumen, 2006), this does not really happen; they are rather falsely believed to be satisfied. What really happens, however, is that these supervisors, as Machiavellians they are (Singh et al., 2016), exploit and use these needs (they also play to these needs, Pelletier, 2010), to satisfy their own self-interests (e.g. Ruiz-Palomino & Bañón-Gomis, 2017), regardless of whether the employees’ sense of dignity and self-worth is inflicted. Thus, not only are employees not really satisfying these needs, but other higher order, more compelling ones (i.e. self-esteem, self-worth, self-actualization, Maslow, 1943) are rather clearly depressed. Of course, the psychological and organizational well-being of employees who experience supervisors’ behavior is seriously harmed (Pelletier, 2010). According to Plato and Aristotle, human dignity, which is related to pursuing the form of life that produces the highest level of satisfaction and happiness, is compatible with reaching the highest potential in life. Human dignity, thus, from immemorial times, is conceived as an element very linked to satisfaction with different areas of life, which is applied to the workplace scope. Here two basic elements come into scene: general job satisfaction and personal growth satisfaction. Table 1. Dimensions of dignity based on the six dimensions of decent work of the international Labour organisation (iLo). Dimensions of dignity Work conditions Dimensions explanations objective order of dignity availability of work opportunities for work it "refers to the need for all persons (men and women) who want work to be able to find work, since decent work is not possible without work itself." (anker et al., 2002, p. 2) acceptable scope of work Work in conditions of freedom it "underscores the fact that work should be freely chosen and not forced on individuals and that certain forms of work are not acceptable in the 21st century." (anker etal., 2002, p. 2) Quality of employment Productive work it "is essential for workers to have acceptable livelihoods for themselves and their families, as well as to ensure sustainable development and competitiveness of enterprises and countries." (anker etal., 2002, p. 2) equity in work it "represents workers’ need to have fair and equitable treatment and opportunity in work. it encompasses absence of discrimination at work and in access to work and ability to balance work with family life." (anker et al., 2002, p. 2) security at work it "is mindful of the need to help safeguard health, pensions and livelihoods, and to provide adequate financial and other protection in the event of health and other contingencies. it also recognizes workers’ need to limit insecurity associated with the possible loss of work and livelihood." (anker etal., 2002, p. 2) subjective order of dignity Dignity in the workplace it "requires that workers be treated with respect at work, and be able to voice concerns and participate in decision-making about working conditions. an essential ingredient is workers’ freedom to represent their interests collectively." (anker et al., 2002, p. 2) source: adapted from anker et al. (2002) and Bolton (2006, 2007). COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 5 In the presence of supervisors who carry out undignifying behaviors, employees are highly likely to feel injured or robbed of their dignity. When these types of feelings are internalized, and thus translated to their sense of lowered personal value in work, they consequently might lead to a loss of general well-being, and thus lowered job satisfaction feelings. Based on Locke (1976), general job satisfaction can be defined ‘as a pleasure or positive emotional and subjective state resulting from and appraisal of one’s job or job experiences’ (p.1300), and that has to do with attitudes, feelings and beliefs towards one’s job (Bañón-Gomis & Ruiz-Palomino, 2015). Importantly, general job satisfaction is indicative of the degree to which anyone is satisfied and happy with their job (Hackman & Oldham, 1974). It is no surprise then that in the presence of this undignifying supervisor–one important element determining job satisfaction perceptions (Zhu, 2012; Bañón-Gomis & Ruiz-Palomino, 2015)-, employees who feel stripped of their dignity rarely feel well. Furthermore, when the workplace is dehumanizing, employees feel dissatisfied with their work (Sayer, 2007). Indeed, when employees are the object of behaviors that harm human needs, such as respect, truth, friendship, security, equal opportunity, or justice, they are less likely to feel their lives as happy, good, meaningful, or happy (Wong, 2012). Rather, their sense of dignity in the workplace is harmed, involving direct negative implications in terms of attitudes and feelings towards one’s job. Some recent studies have confirmed the important role that human dignity plays in contributing to job satisfaction perceptions. Sturm and Dellert (2016) found that when employees feel a strong sense of dignity in work, they are more likely to be satisfied with their work. Accordingly, we propose the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1. Supervisor’s un-dignifying behavior relates negatively to employees’ general job satisfaction. It is generally recognized that human beings value themselves to a great extent. They value their own human growth and development, need to affirm their sense of worth, and, importantly, need to develop their potential as maximally as possible (Hodson, 2001). In other words, human beings have ‘the tendency to become more and more what they are, to become everything that they are capable of becoming, such that a musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately happy…what a man can be, he must be’ (i.e. self-actualization, Maslow, 1943, p. 382). However, when individuals face supervisors who carry out undignifying behaviors such as verbal abuse, humiliation, or disrespectful treatment, human dignity would be seriously harmed (Hodson, 2001), and the possibility of realizing one’s human potential, very connected with meeting human growth needs (i.e. self-actualization, Alderfer, 1969), would also be undermined. This is very likely to occur because in the presence of this type of (un-dignifying) supervisor, who would awake the worst of human kind (Pelletier, 2010), the social and material conditions for employees to flourish, the highest aspiration of human beings, would be totally lacking (e.g. Ciulla, 2004). Thus, because supervisors’ undignifying behavior in the workplace constitutes a serious threat to preserving the human dignity of employees, they are highly unlikely to have a sense of human growth and development for doing their work (e.g. Bandura, 1995). In this context, jobs, rather than being a natural expansion of human abilities and interests, which allows employees to fulfill themselves, would not let employees be independent, feel a sense of power, be in control of their destinies, and have a purpose in life (Hodson, 2001). As such, employees are likely to be less satisfied with these (growth-type) needs, and thus will reflect less satisfaction with their personal growth when doing their work. Formally, we propose: Hypothesis 2. Supervisor’s un-dignifying behavior relates negatively to employee personal growth satisfaction. 2.2. Understanding Employee General Job Satisfaction: the mediating role of personal growth Satisfaction When human needs are satisfied owing to work and the workplace, general job satisfaction is likely to emerge. However, needs that are commonly satisfied externally, on which other externals (i.e. supervisors and the organizational climate) play an important role in their satisfaction process, are suitable candidates to call for the satisfaction of other needs (i.e. similar nature or higher) to achieve well-being and happiness in life that do not end ever. However, under the umbrella of ancient Greek understanding (i.e. Brink, 1999), attaining happiness, a human good that is an end good, not a means to achieve other 6 R. MARTÍNEZ CAÑAS ETAL. goods (or satisfy other needs), requires important personal efforts by the actors who aspire to it. This suggests that more than providing rapid satisfaction of physiological and security needs, as undignifying supervisors might make employees believe in some occasions (e.g. Lipman-Blumen, 2006), it is principal to offer work with the necessary possibilities for employees to expand and develop their own abilities and realize their own potential in life. Thus, offering them a work that, by taking an active part in it, allows them to fulfill, develop both physically and cognitively, and, importantly, grow as human beings. These are good elements of life, but not easy; however, with them, employees are likely to reflect more positive and permanent attitudes towards their jobs. The amount of personal growth offered at work is usually considered an important aspect to be assessed in jobs (Spector, 1997; Hackman & Oldham, 1975) as a separate facet of the job satisfaction of employees (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). The extent to which it is satisfied is considered an important dimension of well-being (Straume & Vittersø, 2015) as also a good element of life associated with Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia (Ryff & Singer, 1998), which, as different surveys on professionals show (i.e. Bayt.com survey, 2015), is likely to determine the extent to which employees reflect high levels of satisfaction (with their jobs). For example, Straume and Vittersø, (2015) found in their study that people who are satisfied with their personal growth also show high levels of satisfaction in general. In addition, several other studies have shown the important role that satisfaction with growth and development opportunities plays in enhancing work attitudes (i.e. job satisfaction) (Landeweerd & Boumans, 1994). Accordingly, we hypothesize as follows: Hypothesis 3. Personal growth satisfaction relates positively to employees’ general job satisfaction. With this latter hypothesis in mind and the rationales described earlier, suggesting decreased personal growth satisfaction in the presence of undignifying supervisors, leads to the proposal that personal growth satisfaction could mediate the relationship between supervisors’ undignifying behavior and general job satisfaction. The findings of Straume and Vittersø, (2015) suggest that personal growth satisfaction might influence other constructs (i.e. subjective health) through general satisfaction measures (i.e. life satisfaction) that appear to support its mediating role in the earlier relationship. However, this mediation is thought to be partial, as undignifying supervisors appear to reduce employees’ general job satisfaction. Having to deal with these types of supervisors might directly impair employees’ personal and occupational well-being (Pelletier, 2010) and, thus, their levels of job satisfaction. Thus, we propose: Hypothesis 4. Personal Growth Satisfaction mediates the negative relationship of Supervisor’s Un-dignifying behavior with General Job Satisfaction. 3. Methods 3.1. Ethical validity The ethical validity of this research is described as follows. First, we prepared a detailed report of the research project, including its purpose, methodology, potential risks and benefits, and other relevant details. This report was then submitted to the Ethics Committee of the University of Castilla-La Mancha in Spain (REG. 2023/PI00123). The committee thoroughly reviewed the project and determined that it was ethically sound, providing a favorable response and allowing the research to proceed. Following the approved ethical guidelines, informed oral consent was obtained from all participants. The Declaration of Helsinki outlines ethical principles for research involving human subjects. According to the declaration, informed consent is a fundamental requirement. While it primarily emphasizes written consent, it acknowledges that oral consent can be appropriate in certain circumstances, provided that the conditions of full explanation, voluntary participation, documentation of the process, and compliance with legal and ethical standards are met to ensure the protection of participants’ rights and well-being. Therefore, the process of obtaining oral consent in this research involved several key steps to ensure that participants were fully informed and voluntarily agreed to participate. First, we provided detailed and understandable information about the study, including its purpose, procedures, how reply to surveys, risks, and benefits, during a meeting in every company. Second, all participants were given the COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 7 opportunity to ask questions and discuss any concerns they might have. Third, all participants verbally agreed to participate in the study, free from any coercion or undue influence. The entire process was documented by taking detailed notes about the consent discussion. Oral consent is ethical for several reasons. It respects the participant’s right to make an informed decision about their involvement in the research. It considers cultural sensitivity, as signing documents may be viewed with suspicion and oral consent can be more culturally appropriate in some service firms’ contexts. This type of consent is more accessible for participants with issues or disabilities that make reading and signing documents difficult. Additionally, it can help protect participants’ anonymity and reduce the risk of stigma or harm. 3.2. Sample and procedure The survey was pretested at several meetings with academics, employees, and human resource managers working in the same industries surveyed in our study. Once changes to the wording of some items were made, and no further revisions were perceived to be necessary, the survey was handed out directly to various blue-, white-, and pink-collar employees of different businesses operating in the manufacturing and services industries (public, social, retail, and financial services). Both industries were selected because of their different working conditions (level of compensation; working environment) and job characteristics (e.g. job autonomy and skill variety), which are suggested to have a distinct impact on the final dependent variable in our study, that is, the level of general satisfaction with the job (Kahya, 2007; Krueger & Schkade, 2008). After obtaining consent from the general manager of each company, 480 questionnaires were distributed directly to employees. An acceptable response rate of 31.5% for the field of study was obtained, which means that 151 useable surveys were received in the end. As we designed the study in a cross-sectional manner and used self-reporting measures, common method bias (CMB), evaluation apprehension, and social desirability biases could have affected our research (Conway & Lance, 2010). However, the questionnaire design followed Podsakoff et al. (2003) and Conway and Lance (2010) suggestions to mitigate these issues. For example, prior to responding to the questionnaire, honesty and frankness were strongly appreciated and individual and corporate anonymity were strongly guaranteed. To specifically mitigate CMB (Podsakoff et al., 2003), the questionnaire was designed as follows: a) to make predictors and criterion variables appear unrelated and part of different general topic areas; b) to include various contextual variables in the questionnaire to serve as distracters; and c) to show simple, specific, and concise items. To test for non-response bias, we assumed that late respondents were more similar to non-respondents than early ones (Armstrong & Overton, 1977). Accordingly, the first and last quartiles of the submissions received were compared using independent sample t-tests for the study variables. Because no significant differences were revealed, non-response bias did not appear to be a major problem in this study. While the average age of our respondents was 34 years, which makes the sample relatively young, the age of respondents ranged from 21 to 63 years. Most of these respondents worked in low and middle job positions (37% and 60%, respectively) and in companies operating in services-related areas (68%), either in the private or the public industry. 3.2.1. Measures To measure our latent constructs, we needed to choose between reflective and formative indicators (Henseler et al., 2009). Reflective measurements are highly correlated indicators, likely caused by the targeted latent construct, whereas formative measures feature indicators that determine the construct without necessarily being highly correlated. In our survey, all measures were reflective (see Table 3 for the full list of the items of each reflective construct). 3.2.1.1. Supervisor undignifying behavior.A selection of 10 items adopted from Leader’s Integrity Craig and Gustafson (1998) original 31-item scale was used. These items consisted of a set of 10 disrespectful and harmful behaviors very oriented to harm the sense of employees’ human dignity and encompassed most of the eight toxic leadership dimensions conceptualized in previous literature (i.e. attacks to self-esteem, lacks of integrity, threats to security, ignoring employees’ concerns, abusive behaviors, 14 R. MARTÍNEZ CAÑAS ETAL. through personal growth satisfaction. Another crucial variable to consider is employees’ moral virtuousness, which positively contributes to their sense of human dignity regardless of the context. According to Hodson (2001), employees play an active role in earning dignity. Future research could explore the impact of employees’ moral virtuousness on their personal growth and general job satisfaction, offering novel insights. Acknowledgement Researchers hereby appreciate comments from several conferences where a draft of this paper was presented. They also appreciate visits and exchanges developed among authors in Lisbon School of Economics & Management (ISEG) at Universidade de Lisboa, Social Sciences Faculty of Cuenca (University of Castilla-La Mancha), Politechnic University of Valencia and London South Bank University. Author contribution The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study conception and design: Ph.D. Ricardo Martínez-Cañas, Ph.D. Alexis Bañón-Gomís, Ph.D. John Opute and Ph.D. Graca Silva. Data collection: Ph.D. Ricardo Martínez-Cañas, Ph.D. Alexis Bañón-Gomís, Data analysis and interpretation: Ph.D. Ricardo Martínez-Cañas, Ph.D. Alexis Bañón-Gomís, Ph.D. John Opute and Ph.D. Graca Silva: Data manuscript and preparation: Ph.D. Ricardo Martínez-Cañas, Ph.D. Alexis Bañón-Gomís, Ph.D. John Opute and Ph.D. Graca Silva. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of manuscript. Ethical approval All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Informed consent Informed oral consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study. Job satisfaction survey Below we will ask you several questions related to your work, designed to obtain your perceptions and reactions to it. Please answer as honestly and frankly as possible. There are not good or bad responses. Responses are completely anonymous and confidential and will not be provided to your superiors either individually or collectively. Age: Sector: Please rate from 0 to 5 your social benefits (from 0 to 5). • Pension Plan: • Study grant: • Meal tickets: • Company Car: • Products/services: The following statements are referred to your immediate superior/boss. You should consider your immediate superior as the person who, in your opinion, has the most control over his daily work activities. Please rate from 1 to 5 to what extent the following statements describe your immediate superior (completely agree [5] or [1] complete disagree). He or She: COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 15 would blame me for his/her own mistake 1 2 3 4 5 would treat me better if i belonged to a different ethnic group 1 2 3 4 5 would risk me to get back at someone else 1 2 3 4 5 would use my performance appraisal to criticize me as a person 1 2 3 4 5 would lie to me 1 2 3 4 5 makes fun of my mistakes instead of coaching me as to how to do my job better 1 2 3 4 5 would deliberately distort what i say 1 2 3 4 5 deliberately makes employees angry at each other 1 2 3 4 5 is a hypocrite 1 2 3 4 5 enjoys turning down my requests 1 2 3 4 5 With regard your Personal Growth Satisfaction, please rate from 1 to 5 your degree of satisfaction (totally dissatisfied [1]) and totally satisfied [5]): the amount of personal growth and development i get in doing my job 12345 the feeling of worthwhile accomplishment i get from doing my job 12345 the amount of independent thought and action i can exercise in my job 12345 the amount of challenge in my job 12345 With regard of your General Job Satisfaction, please rate from 1 to 5 the following statements (completely dissatisfied [1]) and completely satisfied [5]): generally speaking, i am very satisfied with this job 1 2 3 4 5 i seldom think of quitting this job 1 2 3 4 5 i’m generally satisfied with the kind of work i do in this job 1 2 3 4 5 Funding This work was funded and supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation with the Project PID2020-117398GB-I00: MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033. About the authors Ricardo Martínez Cañas, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Area of Business Organization at the University of Castilla-La Mancha (Spain). He has been a visiting Scholar in Lisbon School of Economics & Management (Portugal), Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (UK), Catholic School of Eichstät Ingolstadt (Germany) and. His research interests span various areas, including social capital, business ethics, leadership, human resources, entrepreneurship, and value co-creation. His research has appeared in Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Management Journal, International Journal of Human Resource Management, European Management Review amongst others. Alexis Jacobo Bañón Gomís, Ph.D., is a part-time researcher and academic. He holds a position at Polytechnic University of Valencia (Spain) and has made significant contributions to the field of business ethics, organizational behavior, trust and organizational commitment. Dr. Bañón-Gomis is particularly known for his work on ethical dimensions within business activities. His research has been published in Business Ethics: A European Review, Universia Business Review, European Management Journal, European Management Review among others. Graça Silva, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Lisbon School of Economics & Management (ISEG) at Universidade de Lisboa (Portugal). She earned her PhD in Industrial Engineering, majoring in quality management, from Faculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia (FCT-UNL). Her research primarily focusses on Quality Management, Innovation Management, Human Resources and Sustainability. Her research has appeared in International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Business Strategy and the Environment, Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Business Research and Journal of International Marketing, amongst others. John Opute, Ph.D. is a Senior Lecturer in Human Resources Management at London South Bank University. He joined LSBU in 2009 and currently holds the position of Associate Professor of International HRM. Additionally, he serves as the Course Director for the MSc International HRM program within the School of Business. Dr. Opute brings over 20 years of industry experience in general and human resources management, having held key HR positions in multinational companies such as Alcan Aluminium Company of Canada and Cincinnati Bell in Ohio State, USA. His research has been published in Personnel Review, the International Journal of Human Resource Management, Employee Relations, and Corporate Communications among others. ORCID Ricardo Martínez Cañas http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4629-5513 16 R. MARTÍNEZ CAÑAS ETAL. Alexis Jacobo Bañón Gomís http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5240-0028 Graça Silva http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5396-395X John Opute http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6719-6701 Data availability statement Data and materials supporting the results or analyses presented in this paper are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author. References Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(2), 142–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(69)90004-X Anker, R., Chernyshev, I., Egger, P., Mehran, F., & Ritter, J. (2002). Measuring decent work with statistical indicators. Working Paper n°2 of the Policy Integration Department Statistical Development and Analysis Group International Labour Office, October, pp. 1–74. Anker, R., Chernyshev, I., Egger, P., Mehran, F., & Ritter, J. (2003). Measuring decent work with statistical indicators. International Labour Review, 142(2), 147–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2003.tb00257.x Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating non response bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377701400320 Atinc, G., Simmering, M. J., & Kroll, M. J. (2012). Control variable use and reporting in macro and micro management research. Organizational Research Methods, 15(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110397773 Bahadori, M., Teymourzadeh, E., & Ravangard, R. (2021). Ethical leadership and organizational performance: A systematic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(1), 1–19. 4. Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In Bandura, A. (Ed.). Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1–45). Cambridge University Press. Banks, G. C., McCauley, K. D., Gardner, W. L., & Guler, C. E. (2021). Ethical leadership: Exploring bottom-line mentality and trust perceptions of employees on middle-level managers. Current Psychology, 42(16), 16602–16617. Bañón-Gomis, A., & Ruiz-Palomino, P. (2015). A new approach to understanding the dynamics of job satisfaction. In Osbourne, R. (Ed.), Job satisfaction: determinants, workplace implications and impacts on psychological well-being (pp. 59–72). Nova Science Publishers. Barak, A. (2015). Human dignity. The constitutional value and the constitutional right. Cambridge University Press. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 Bayt.com survey. (2015). The Bayt.com Middle East and North Africa Salary Survey 2015. http://www.bayt.com/en/ research-report-25290/ Becker, J. M., Proksch, D., & Ringle, C. M. (2022). Revisiting Gaussian copulas to handle endogenous regressors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50(1), 46–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-021-00805 Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, ”, 107(2), 238–246. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 Bolton, S. C. (2006). Dimensions, divisions and denials of dignity: the case of the UK knowledge economy [Paper presentation]. 24th international labour process conference (pp. 1–19). Bolton, S. C. (2007). Dimensions of dignity at work., Elsevier. Brink, D. O. (1999). Eudaimonism, love and friendship, and political community. In Dolan, H. (Ed.) Social philosophical and policy (pp.252–290). Bowling Green State University. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equations modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Lawrence Erlbaum. Blunch, N. J. (2016). Introduction to structural equation modeling. Using IBM SPSS statistics and EQS. Sage Publications. Ciulla, J. B. (2004). Ethics and leadership effectiveness. In J. Antonakis, A.T. Cianciolo R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership. Sage Publications. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.), Erlbaum. Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869010-9181-6 Craig, S. B., & Gustafson, S. B. (1998). Perceived leader integrity scale: An instrument for assessing employee perceptions of leader integrity. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(2), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(98)90001-7 Davila-Gomez, A. M., & Crowther, D. (2012). Human dignity and managerial responsibility. Gower Publishing Limited. Dube, A., Naidu, S., & Reich, A. D. (2022). Power and dignity in the low-wage labor market: Theory and evidence from Wal-Mart workers. (No. w30441). National Bureau of Economic Research. Falk, R. F., & Miller N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. The University of Akron Press. COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 17 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313 Fowers, B. J., Mollica, C. O., & Procacci, E. N. (2010). Constitutive and instrumental goal orientations and their relations with eudaimonic and hedonic well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(2), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439761003630045 Gamero, C. (2003). Análisis económico de la satisfacción laboral. Tesis doctoral. Universidad de Málaga. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales. Gini, A. (2001). My job, my self. work and the creation of the modern individual. Routledge. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1974). The job diagnostic survey: An instrument for the diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects. Department of Administrative. Yale University. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076546 Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7 Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Job Redesign. Addison-Wesley. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. U. (2024). Advanced issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny. “Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360 Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modelling in international marketing. In R. R. Sinkovics & P. N. Ghauri (Eds.), New challenges to international marketing: Advances in international marketing (Vol. 20, pp. 277–319). Emerald JAI Press. Hitlin, S., & Andersson, M. A. (2023). The science of dignity: Measuring personhood and well-being in the United States. Oxford University Press. Hodson, R. (1996). Dignity in the Workplace under Participative Management, Alienation and Freedom Revisited. American Sociological Review, 61(5), 719–738. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096450 Hodson, R. (2001). Human dignity at work. Cambridge University Press. Hodson, R. (2004). Dignity at work. Contexts, 3(4), 16–21. Hu, L. T., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 ILO. (1999 Decent work: Report of the director general [Paper presentation]. International Labour Conference, 87th Session. ILO. (2005). Decent work: the heart of social progress. International Labour Organization. www.ilo.org/public/english/decent.htm Kahya, E. (2007). The effects of job characteristics and working conditions on job performance. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37(6), 515–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2007.02.006 Khandelwal, P. (2003). Job Satisfaction. In Saiyadain, M. S. (Ed.), Organizational behavior. Tata McGraw Hill. Krueger, A. B., & Schkade, D. (2008). Sorting in the labor market. Do gregarious workers flock to interactive jobs? Journal of Human Resources, 43(4), 859–883. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.43.4.859 Landeweerd, J. A., & Boumans, N. P. G. (1994). The effect of work dimensions and need for autonomy on nurses’ work satisfaction and health. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(3), 207–217. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1994.tb00563.x Lipman-Blumen, J. (2006). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians – And how we can survive them. Oxford University Press. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Rand McNally. MacKinnon, D. P., Coxe, S., & Baraldi, A. N. (2012). Guidelines for the investigation of mediating variables in business research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9248-z Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/ h0054346 Mueller, J. (1996). Statistical methodology: I. Incorporating the prevalence of disease into the sample size calculation for sensitivity and specificity. Academic Emergency Medicine, 3(9), 895–900. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.1996.tb03538.x Neubert, M. J., Wu, C., & Roberts, J. A. (2013). The influence of ethical leadership and regulatory focus on employee outcomes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(2), 269–296. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201323217 Park, S., & Gupta, S. (2012). Handling endogenous regressors by joint estimation using copulas. Marketing Science, 31(4), 567–586. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1120.0718 Pelletier, P. S. (2010). Leader toxicity. An empirical investigation of toxic behavior and rhetoric. Leadership, 6(4), 373– 389. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715010379308 Pelletier, P. S. (2012). Perceptions of and reactions to leader toxicity: Do leader–follower relationships and identification with victim matter? The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 412–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.011 Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 18 R. MARTÍNEZ CAÑAS ETAL. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.3.879 Qing, M., Asif, M., Hussain, A., & Jameel, A. (2020). Exploring the impact of ethical leadership on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in public sector organizations: the mediating role of psychological empowerment. Review of Managerial Science, 14(6), 1405–1432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-019-00340-9 Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2024). SmartPLS 4. SmartPLS. https://www.smartpls.com Ritzer, G. (1996). The McDonaldization of society: An investigation into the changing character of contemporary social life. Pine Forge Press. Ritzer, G. (2004). The McDonaldization of society. Pine Forge Press. Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker: An account of a research program conducted by the Western Electric Company. Harvard University Press. Roscigno, V. J., Yavorsky, J. E., & Quadlin, N. (2021). Gendered dignity at work. American Journal of Sociology, 127(2), 562–620. https://doi.org/10.1086/717448 Rosen, M. (2012). Dignity: Its history and meaning. Harvard University Press. Ruiz‐Palomino, P., Ruiz‐Amaya, C., & Knörr, H. (2011). Employee organizational citizenship behaviour: The direct and indirect impact of ethical leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de L’Administration, 28(3), 244–258. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.221 Ruiz-Palomino, P., Bañón-Gomis, A., & Martínez-Cañas, R. (2015). Understanding general job satisfaction: direct and interacting effects of harmfull leadership and internal work motivation on personal growth satisfaction [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of XXIII EBEN Conference Spain, Spain, Pablo Olavide University of Sevilla. Ruiz-Palomino, P., & Bañón-Gomis, A. (2017). The negative impact of chameleon-inducing personalities on employees’ ethical work intentions: The mediating role of Machiavellianism. European Management Journal, 35(1), 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.02.010 Ryff, C., & Singer, B. (1998). The contours of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9(1), 1–28. https://doi. org/10.1207/s15327965pli0901_1 Sacks, J. (2002). The dignity of difference. Continuum Books. Satorra, A. (2003). Power of Chi square goodness of fit test in structural equation models: The case of non-normal data. In Yanai, H., Okada, A., Shigemasu, K., Kano, Y. and Meulman, J.J. (Eds.), New developments of psychometrics (pp. 57–68), Springer-Verlag. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296192 Sayer, A. (2005). The moral significance of class. Cambridge Universtity Press. Sayer, A. (2007). Dignity at work: Broadening the agenda. Organization, 14(4), 565–581. https://doi. org/10.1177/1350508407078053 Singh, P., Bhandarker, A., & Rai, S. (2016). The leadership oddysey: From darkness to light. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications. Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences. Sage Publications. Straume, L. V., & Vittersø, J. (2015). Well-being at work: Some differences between life satisfaction and personal growth as predictors of subjective health and sick-leave. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(1), 149–168. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10902-014-9502-y Sturm, B. A., & Dellert, J. C. (2016). Exploring nurses’ personal dignity, global self-esteem and wrk satisfaction. Nursing Ethics, 23(4), 384–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733014567024 Tavanti, M. (2011). Managing toxic leaders: Dysfunctional patterns in organizational leadership and how to deal with them. Human Resource Management, 6, 127–136. Tippins, M. J., & Sohi, R. S. (2003). IT competency and firm performance: Is organizational learning a missing link? Strategic Management Journal, 24(8), 745–761. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.337 Tu, Y., Lu, X., & Yu, Y. (2017). Supervisors’ Ethical Leadership and Employee Job Satisfaction: A Social Cognitive Perspective. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(1), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9725-1 Ullman, J. B. (2001). Structural equation modeling. In B. G. Tabachnick L. S. Fidell (Eds.), Using multivariate statistics (4th ed., pp. 653–771). Allyn & Bacon. Ullman, J. B. (2006). Structural equation modeling: reviewing the basics and moving forward. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_03 Ullman, J. B., & Bentler, P. M. (2003). Structural equation modeling. In Weiner, I. B., Kline, R. B. (Eds.), Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd Ed.). The Guilford Press. United Nations. (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. General Assembly of the United Nations. http:// www.un.org/es/universal-declaration-human-rights/ United Nations. (2015). 70th General Assembly, September 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld Valcour, M. (2014). The power of dignity in the workplace. Harvard Business Review, April. https://hbr.org/2014/04/ the-power-of-dignity-in-the-workplace/ Veldsman, T. H. (2014). The Growing Cancer Endangering Organisations: Toxicity. Human Capital Review, March. http:// www.humancapitalreview.org COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 19 Wong, P. T. P. (2012). The human quest for meaning. Theories, research and applications. Taylor and Francis. Xiong, G., Huang, H., Ma, Y., Liang, C., & Wang, H. (2021). Abusive supervision and unethical pro-organizational behavior: The mediating role of status challenge and the moderating role of leader–member exchange. Sage Open, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211033560 Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257 Zheng, F., Khan, N. A., & Khan, M. W. A. (2021). Unethical Leadership and Employee Extra-Role Behavior in Information Technology Sector: A Moderated Mediation Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 708016. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2021.708016 Zhu, Y. (2012). A Review of Job Satisfaction. Asian Social Science, 9(1), 293–298. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n1p293