Reflections on Workplace Compassion and Job Performance

Abstract

Workplace compassion is one of the cornerstone remedies to employees’ suffering. Compassionate acts will directly affect the job performance of employees. This research study looks at the analysing relationship between workplace compassion and job performance, namely, task performance and contextual performance. Workplace compassion, task performance and contextual performance were explored from a previous literature perspective and were tested and analysed statistically. Self-administered questionnaires were distributed among teachers and co-teachers employed in international nurseries in Cairo and Giza governorates located in Egypt. Results revealed a positive relationship between workplace compassion and job performance (task and contextual constructs). Discussion of the results along with managerial implications and recommendations were addressed based on the research findings.

Keywords

Workplace compassion job performance task performance contextual performance

Introduction

People often carry pains from their personal lives to work. In this respect, organizations can be transformed into second homes through sharing compassion and compassionate gestures. The origins of the word ‘compassion’ goes back to the Latin word ‘passio’, which means ‘to suffer’, joined with the Latin prefix ‘com’ that means ‘together’. In this respect, compassion is ‘suffering together’. Compassion has long roots in medicine, religion and anthropology. It has been relatively short in organizational behaviour (Frost et al., 2006). Due to the changing pace of life, employees experience suffering inside and outside the organizations. Suffering inside the workplace is a consequence of work-related problems that are becoming the biggest paradox affecting the workplace performance. Life–pace and ongoing change trends have affected individuals working patterns which increased the need for compassionate acts in the workplace. In the context of the current literature; there is a scarcity of academic and empirical research on workplace compassion (Atkins & Parker, 2011; Catarino, Gilbert, McEwan & Baiao, 2014). Organizations must be alert to all the compassion-related matters as it reflects directly on the job performance and consequently organizational overall performance.

Workplace Compassion

Suffering is an evitable part of organizational life. Organizations are operated by employees who react, interact and share with each other’s their personal life events all the way. Reich (1989) addressed suffering as a complex aspect that is derived from many sources inside and outside the organization. Suffering can be triggered by events inside the workplace, such as inappropriate organizational policies and procedures, bad treatment by the superiors, and inability to get harmony with workmates (Frost, 2003; Hogh, Hoel & Carneiro, 2011). Suffering could lead to absenteeism, and lower performance levels, burnout and dissatisfaction that will result in increased financial costs (Wagner & Harder, 2011).

Compassion at the workplace is the remedy to employees’ suffering as it will help in fostering an environment of positive emotions. Compassion is viewed as the self-willingness to feel others and behave in favour of reducing their suffering (Blum, 1980). Self-compassion psychology was identified by Neff in 2003, as the integration of self-kindness, common humanity and cognitive pleasure, while (Yarnell & Neff, 2013) defined self-compassion as how an individual can possess the act of offering support to self and others. Compassion plays a vital role in the organizational atmosphere by attending to the pain of employees at work (Dutton, Lilius & Kanov, 2007; Dutton, Worline, Frost & Lilius, 2006; Frost et al., 2006). The researcher defines compassion as the willingness to share with others empathetic practices with the hope to lessen and eliminate their hard feelings of pain. Scholars agreed that compassion is an integrative process involving both mental and behavioural context, which encompass sympathy and consciousness towards the suffering of others and providing care in a symbolic as well as a behavioural approach (Dutton et al., 2007; Frost et al., 2006). Workplace compassion is a multi-dimensional relational process encompassing three main constructs, namely, noticing, sharing and behaving (Clark, 1997; Davis, 1983). Noticing is the ability to identify the person who is suffering. This may also be through the sufferer as he/she calls for the attention of others (Frost, 2003). Sharing and feeling compassion require going through pain and a level of suffering that will connect the sufferer with others (Clark, 1997). Empathy is the context of the sharing process as one gets to appreciate the pains of others and demonstrates the willingness to support. Behaving and responding is the action that one pursues towards reducing the pains of the sufferer (Reich, 1989; Von Dietze & Orb, 2000). Compassion can be expressed in a variety of forms, such as offering verbal support, empathetic listening, offering monetary and spiritual support, flexibility to those who need it, gestures of emotional support (House, 1981), pro-social behaviour (Brief & Motowildo, 1986), organization citizenship behaviour acts (Smith, Organ & Near, 1983) and caregiving among co-workers (Kahn, 1993). The literature identified two forms of workplace compassion; dyadic compassion that happens when one person notices the pain of another and hence empathy is generated (Lilius et al., 2008; Margolis & Molinsky, 2008) and collective compassion where the individual pain and suffering becomes shared efforts and collectively people join together to reduce the felt suffering (Dutton et al., 2006). Employees who are exposed to empathetic practices and support as a part of adopting workplace compassion are more likely to hold positive moods and emotions, gratitude and inspiration, higher affective commitment (Lilius et al., 2008), better quality of life, reduced inter-personal conflict and accordingly improved organizational outcomes (Lilius et al., 2011). Goetz, Keltner and Simon-Thomas (2010) expressed that employees who experience compassion will tend to engage in supportive behaviour in the workplace.

Job Performance

Performance is a complex and a key construct in management psychology studies (Campbell, 1990; Schmidt & Hunter, 1992). Performance is a function of one’s ability and his/her motivation (Locke, Mento & Katcher, 1978). There are several models and approaches to classify job performance. For the objective of this study, the researcher will rely on the two performance dimensions, namely, task performance and contextual performance. Task or in-role performance is applicable on almost every job as it focuses on all the efforts exerted towards the achievement of organizational goals and objectives (Behrman & Perrault, 1982; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). Task performance is defined as ‘the proficiency with which incumbents perform activities that are formally recognized as part of their jobs; activities that contribute to the organization technical core either directly by implementing as part of its technological process or indirectly by providing it with needed material or services’ (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, p. 73). On the other hand, Murphy (1989) addressed task performance as the employees’ ability to complete all who agreed upon tasks and duties specified on the job description. As such, task performance is tied to a pre-set agreement and identification of job targets and objectives. Contextual or extra-role performance is the performance that focuses on the discretionary and flexible behaviour of employees that directly influence the overall productivity (Mackenzie, Podsakoff & Fetter, 1991). Contextual performance is the actions and steps that employees undertake willingly and are not stated on the job description (Mackenzie et al., 1991). Contextual performance is defined as ‘behaviors that support the organizational, social and psychological environment in which the technical core must function’ (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, p. 73). There are several set of behaviours that demonstrate contextual performance, such as exerting efforts, enhancing and supporting team performance, communication and transparency, cooperation and offering unconditional support (Campbell, 1990; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002).

Research Methodology

The Study Sector

The study sector for this research study is the teachers and the co-teachers working in international nurseries located in Cairo and Giza governorates, Egypt. According to the data available at Central Agency for Mobilization and Statistics, there are 30 international nurseries employing 2,500 teachers and co-teachers. Due to the inability to cover all the population, the researcher relied on a stratified random sample whereby a number of 600 questionnaires were distributed over the email. A number of 500 questionnaires were returned back complete and valid with 83.3 per cent response rate. Throughout the review of previously published secondary data about this sector, it was concluded that both teachers and co-teachers working in international nurseries share a relative high degree of homogeneity in terms of educational linguistic background along with relatively close salaries and compensation packages. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the study. The statistics shows that women represent 100 per cent of the sample as it is rare to find a male teacher in the nurseries in Egypt. All the teachers in this career are less than 40 years old and that teachers are higher in number compared to the co-teachers.

Common Method Bias

Researchers tend to agree that common method variance must be considered in behavioural research studies. The researcher adopted the procedural remedies as identified by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff (2003) through protecting participants’ anonymity, changing the order of questions addressed in the questionnaire, improving item wording, reducing evaluation apprehension through stating that all the responses will be treated in a confidential matter and that there is no right or wrong answer. Reverse scoring was avoided in an attempt to allow the participants to feel more comfortable when filling the questionnaire.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics

Index	Demographic Variables	Frequency	%
1	Gender
	Men	0	0
	Women	500	100
2	Age Groups
	20-	237	47.4
	30-	263	52.6
3	Marital Status
	Single	178	35.6
	Married	276	55.2
	Divorced	46	9.2
4	Position
	Teacher	284	56.8
	Co-Teacher	216	43.2

Source: Author’s own.

Note: Calculated based on the statistical analysis of the data collected by the questionnaires.

Research Measures

The researcher relied on previous published valid and reliable scales developed by scholars. Workplace compassion was measured by three-item scale developed by Lilius et al. (2008) with (α = 0.846). Compassion was viewed from three perspectives: compassion on the job, compassion from supervisors and compassion from co-workers. Task performance and contextual performance were assessed using the scale developed by Goodman and Svyantek (1999). Although, self-reported measures will give an easy indication of individual performance, several studies found that this may lack objective evaluation (DeNisi & Shaw, 1977; Levine, Flory & Ash, 1977). The ability to provide appropriate, self-adequate information about performance depends on several various factors as intelligence (Freund & Kasten, 2012), internal locus of control (Mabe & West, 1982) and self-enhancement bias (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988). On the other hand, Vandenberg, Lance and Taylor (2005) proved that other reports of performance particularly contextual performance also included some level of biasness. Thus, both self and other rating of performance are used as measures of performance indicators. The researcher will rely on self-reported ratings for all the three research constructs.

Research Objectives

Through the review of the previous literature and the analysis of previous research findings the research objectives are posed as:

Analysing the relationship between workplace compassion and task performance.

Analysing the relationship between workplace compassion and contextual performance.

Research Hypotheses

Compassion is central to organizational performance and stability. When it comes to work, performance is one of the master keys of success. It gets to be an on-going urge to improve and increase the efficiency as well as the effectiveness of performance. Feeling emotional pain that is not met by compassion will lead to lower job performance (Devenish-Meares, 2003). Lubin (2008) argued that the lack of compassion will lead to an increased level of suffering and lower job performance. The presence of compassion across the workplace can enhance the personal connections and make the employees more productive (Dutton et al., 2007; Lilius et al., 2008). Compassion shown by workmates can enhance the emotional connections at work and increase employees’ performance (Dutton, Frost, Worline, Lilius & Kanov, 2002; Frost, Dutton, Worline & Wilson, 2000). Engaging and fostering compassion at work creates organizational propensity, increases team cooperation and strengthen critical relational skills and hence provides a sense of improved human interaction and relational outcomes across the board (Dutton et al., 2007). The researcher draws on the framework of Weiss and Cropanzo (1996) which explains that sharing strong emotional events at the workplace will shape monetary actions and create an on-going emotional tone. Building on the above addressed literature results, the research hypotheses were developed as:

Hypothesis Number One: It is expected that there will be a positive relationship between workplace compassion and task performance.

Hypothesis Number Two: It is expected that there will be a positive relationship between workplace compassion and contextual performance.

Validity and Reliability Tests

A pilot study was conducted on a sample of 40 participants. The researcher used inter-consistency coefficient and alpha Cronbach coefficient. Results as presented in Table 2 show that the research constructs scales are reliable and valid and accordingly could be used for the purpose of the research study.

Table 2.

Scales Validity and Reliability

Construct	No. of Items	Alpha Cronbach Coefficient
Workplace Compassion	3	0.955
Task Performance	9	0.946
Contextual Performance	7	0.932

Source: Author’s own.

Note: Calculated based on the statistical analysis of the data collected by the questionnaires.

Statistical Results

Hypothesis Number One: It is expected that there will be a positive relationship between workplace compassion and task performance.

In order to test the first hypothesis, simple regression analysis was used. The following scatter diagram explains the statistical results, whereby the x-axis denotes the workplace compassion and the y-axis denotes task performance.

The results of the statistical analysis and as shown in Figure 1 indicate that the mathematical relationship is linear and positive (R² = 89.9 %). The results of the simple regression is presented in Table 3

Based on the above statistical results, the first hypothesis is accepted

Hypothesis Number Two: It is expected that there will be a positive relationship between workplace compassion and contextual performance.

Figure 1.

Source: Author’s own.

Simple regression analysis was administered to test the relationship between workplace compassion and contextual performance. Results are plotted on scatter diagram (2) whereby the x-axis represents workplace compassion and the y-axis represents contextual performance.

Table 3.

Parameters Tests for the First Hypothesis

Estimated Parameters and Tests	Results
Estimated Parameters	Y1t = 0.672 + 0.760*1
T-Test	(13.534) (66.147)
Regression Test	F-ratio = 4375.48**, degree of freedom = (1,498), R² = 89.8%, S.E = 0.279

Source: Author’s own.

Notes: • Calculated based on the statistical analysis of the data collected by the questionnaires.

• **: denotes 0.01 level of significance.

Results as presented in Figure 2 indicate a positive relationship between workplace compassion and contextual performance (R² = 87 %). Simple regression analysis is shown in Table 4

Figure 2.

Source: Author’s own.

Accordingly, the second hypothesis is accepted

Discussion

This research study looked at workplace compassion as one of the key factors that would directly affect the individual job performance of employees. Previous literature studies were explored and the research hypotheses were posed accordingly. Questionnaires were administered among teachers and co-teachers working in international nurseries in Cairo and Giza governorates, Egypt. Workplace compassion was assessed from three perspectives, and job performance construct was measured on two dimensions (task performance and contextual performance).

Table 4.

Parameters Test for the Second Hypothesis

Estimated Parameters and Tests	Results
Estimated Parameters	Y2t = 0.737 + 0.743*2
T-Test	(13.255) (57.800)
Regression Test	F-ratio = 3340.835**, degree of freedom = (1,498), R² = 87%, S.E = 0.312

Source: Author’s own.

Notes: • Calculated based on the statistical analysis of the data collected by the questionnaires.

• **: denotes 0.01 level of significance.

The statistical analysis showed a positive relationship between workplace compassion and job performance. Results indicated that workplace compassion had a higher effect on task performance than contextual performance. The descriptive statistics of the selected sample show that all the respondents were females, as almost the case among the entire teaching career in nurseries and pre-schools in Egypt.

The research results agree with previous scholars (Devenish-Meares, 2003; Dutton et al., 2007; Lilius et al., 2008; Lubin, 2008) who concluded that workplace compassion will increase job performance. The results are attributed to the nature of the job itself. Teachers who are held responsible for young children must adhere to the execution of all the specified tasks assigned to them in order to avoid any risks with the children. Follow up sheets on task performance and schedules are always present and followed meticulously. As such it helps in raising the chances of adopting all the specified task performance aspects tied to the job. Teachers remain responsible for supervising the children and their performance and hence the tasks assigned to them remain on top of all other priorities. Contextual performance also reported a high level, though below the task performance. This is explained by the emotional bond within the teacher–child context. Teaching involves showing care towards young children and in most of the situations, teachers work hard towards the extra step of relations with children. They try to maintain an on-going connection through practicing all the care-giving acts. Contextual performance is not listed, identified or monitored by the management in these nurseries and this may be one of the key reasons of being lower than the task performance. Nevertheless, passion remains the context of teaching and the catalyst towards improved relations and the core facilitator of achieving high levels of contextual performance.

The research results contribute to the existing literature through exploring workplace compassion in relation to individual performance directly and through an in-depth analysis on task and contextual performance dimensions. On the other hand, most of the previous studies tied to workplace compassion were administered on the nursing sector in the Western countries. Up to the knowledge of the researcher, the selected sector of this study is new especially in the Eastern domain. The findings of research corroborate the idea of developing practices that will promote employees’ well-being with the attempt of improving job performance. Managers should be considering their employees as the most valuable intellectual asset who needs to be taken care of. Some proposed recommendations on fostering workplace compassion are addressed as:

Organizations should enhance the development of an emotionally supportive culture through offering authentic provision to employees.

Managers and supervisors should role-model the compassionate behaviours (respect, trust and courtesy).

Scheduling staff meetings to regularly investigate issues that may lead to conflict and stress.

Management should try to encourage a positive attitude towards their employees.

Organizations may regularly adopt measures, such as Professional Quality of life scale (Stamm, 2005) to be updated on the need for care and support.

Promoting the acts of compassion through positive reinforcement and recognition of employees.

Adopting empathetic listening is a technique which can help to manage and avoid disruptive and assaultive behaviours.

Research Limitation and Future Studies

This research investigated the relationship between workplace compassion and job performance. Due to the financial costs limitations, the research was only adopted on Cairo and Giza governorates in Egypt. It is recommended that future research should consider other governorates in Egypt as well as other sectors in order to be able to generalize the results. Future studies could also consider workplace compassion with other job performance indicators as well as corporate organizational and financial performance indicators.

References

Atkins

& Parker

(2011). Understanding individual compassion in organizations: The role of appraisals and psychological flexibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 524–546. DOI: 10.5465/amr.10.0490.

Behrman

D. N.

& Perreault

W. D.

(1982). Measuring the performance of industrial salespersons. Journal of Business Research, 10(3), 355–370.

Blum

(1980). Compassion. In Rorty

A. O.

(Ed.), Explaining emotions (pp. 507–517). Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Borman

W. C.

& Motowidlo

S. J.

(1993). Expanding the criterion domain to includeelements of contextual performance. In Schmitt

& Borman

W. C.

(Eds), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brief

A. P.

& Motowidlo

S. J.

(1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710–725.

Campbell

J. P.

(1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In Dunnette

& Hough

L. M.

(Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 687–731). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Catarino

Gilbert

McEwan

& Baião

(2014). Compassion motivations: Distinguishing submissive compassion from genuine compassion and its association with shame, submissive behavior, depression, anxiety and stress. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 33(5), 399.

Clark

(1997). Misery and company: Sympathy in everyday life. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Davis

M. H.

(1983). The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and helping: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality, 51(2), 167–184.

10.

DeNisi

A. S.

& Shaw

J. B.

(1977). Investigation of the uses of self-reports of abilities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(5), 641–644.

11.

Devenish-Meares

(2003). A strategic analysis of the performance of the telephone banking channel (Doctoral dissertation). Queensland: University of Southern Queensland.

12.

Dutton

Lilius

J. M.

& Kanov

(2007). The transformative potential of compassion at work. In Piderit

S. K.

Roland

E. F.

& Cooperrider

D. L.

(eds), Handbook of transformative cooperation: New designs and dynamics (pp. 107–124). California: Stanford Business Book, Stanford Business press.

13.

Dutton

Worline

Frost

& Lilius

(2006). Explaining compassion organizing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(1), 59–96.

14.

Dutton

J. E.

Frost

P. J.

Worline

M. C.

Lilius

J. M.

& Kanov

J. M.

(2002). Leading in times of trauma. Harvard Business Review, 80(1), 54–61.

15.

Freund

& Kasten

(2012). How smart do you think you are? A meta-analysis on the validity of self-estimates of cognitive ability. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 296–321.

16.

Frost

(2003). Toxic emotions at work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

17.

Frost

P. J.

Dutton

J. E.

Maitlis

Lilius

J. M.

Kanov

J. M.

& Worline

M. C.

(2006). Seeing organizations differently: Three lenses on compassion. In Clegg

S. R.

Hardy

Lawrence

T. B.

& Nord

W. R.

(eds), The SAGE handbook of organization studies (Vol. 2, pp. 843–866). SAGE publications.

18.

Frost

P. J.

Dutton

J. E.

Worline

M. C.

& Wilson

(2000). Narratives of compassion in organizations. In Fineman

(Ed.), Emotion in organizations, (pp. 25–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

19.

Goetz

J. L.

Keltner

& Simon-Thomas

(2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 351.

20.

Goodman

S. A.

& Svyantek

D. J.

(1999). Person–organization fit and contextual performance: Do shared values matter. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55(2), 254–275.

21.

Harris

M. M.

& Schaubroeck

(1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 43–62.

22.

Hogh

Hoel

& Carneiro

I. G.

(2011). Bullying and employee turnover among healthcare workers: A three-wave prospective study. Journal of Nursing Management, 19(6), 742–751.

23.

House

J. S.

(1981). Work stress and social support. Michigan: University of Michigan.

24.

Kahn

W. A.

(1993). Caring for the caregivers: Patterns of organizational caregiving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 539–563.

25.

Levine

E. L.

Flory

& Ash

R. A.

(1977). Self-assessment in personnel selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4), 428.

26.

Lilius

J. M.

Kanov

Dutton

Worline

M. C.

& Maitlis

(2011). Compassion revealed: What we know about compassion at work (and where we need to know more). Ann Arbor, 1001, 48109. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734610.013.0021

27.

Lilius

J. M.

Worline

M. C.

Maitlis

Kanov

Dutton

J. E.

& Frost

(2008). The contours and consequences of compassion at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 193–218.

28.

Locke

E. A.

Mento

A. J.

& Katcher

B. L.

(1978). The interaction of ability and motivation in performance: An exploration of the meaning of moderators. Personnel Psychology, 31(2), 269–280.

29.

Lubin

D. L.

(2008). Mental distress from work is not always compensable. Retrieved 30 September 2012, from http://www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com/mental-distress-workplace

30.

Mabe

P. A.

& West

S. G.

(1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of applied Psychology, 67(3), 280.

31.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

P. M.

& Fetter

(1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons’ performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(1), 123–150.

32.

Margolis

J. D.

& Molinsky

(2008). Navigating the bind of necessary evils: Psychological engagement and the production of interpersonally sensitive behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5), 847–872.

33.

Motowidlo

S. J.

& Van Scotter

J. R.

(1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475–480.

34.

Murphy

K. R.

(1989). Is the relationship between cognitive ability and job performance stable over time? Human Performance, 2(3), 183–200.

35.

Neff

K. D.

(2003). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2(2), 85–102.

36.

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. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.

37.

Reich

W. T.

(1989). Speaking of suffering: A moral account of compassion. Soundings, 72(1), 83–108.

38.

Rotundo

& Sackett

P. R.

(2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, a counterproductive performance to global aspects of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 66–80.

39.

Schmidt

F. L.

& Hunter

J. E.

(1992). Development of a causal model of processes determining job performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 89–92.

40.

Smith

C. A.

Organ

D. W.

& Near

J. P.

(1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653.

41.

Stamm

B. H.

(2005). The ProQOL manual: The professional quality of life scale: Compassion satisfaction, burnout & compassion fatigue/secondary trauma scales. Baltimore, MD: Sidran Press.

42.

Vandenberg

R. J.

Lance

C. E.

& Taylor

S. C.

(2005). A latent variable approach to rating source equivalence: Who should provide ratings on organizational citizenship behavior dimensions. In Turnipseed

David L

(ed.), Handbook of organizational citizenship behavior: A review of ‘good solder’ activity in organizations (pp. 109–141). US: Nova science.

43.

Von Dietze

& Orb

(2000). Compassionate care: A moral dimension of nursing. Nursing Inquiry, 7(3), 166–174.

44.

Wagner

S. L.

& Harder

H. G.

(2011). Occupational stress and mental illness: An overview for disability managers. In Geiser

& Harder

(Eds), Disability management and workplace integration (pp. 215–230). Burlington, VT: Gower.

45.

Weiss

H. M.

& Cropanzano

(1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Staw

Barry M.

& Cummings

L. L.

(eds), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

46.

Yarnell

L. M.

& Neff

K. D.

(2013). Self-compassion, interpersonal conflict resolutions, and well-being. Self and Identity, 12(2), 146–159.