Self-Compassion,Performance,and Burnout: Surfacing an Unknown Work Construct

Abstract

Research on self-compassion across various disciplines has consistently demonstrated numerous self-regulatory benefits associated with the construct. Despite the increasing interest, theory-driven research on self-compassion in the workplace has only begun to emerge recently. In the present research, we introduce the construct of work self-compassion (WSC). Building on Neff’s definition of self-compassion, we submit that WSC is comprised of work self-kindness, common work challenges, and work-specific mindfulness. Across two studies, we develop a scale to measure WSC and test its place within the larger nomological network of organizational constructs. Specifically, by integrating COR theory with prior research on self-compassion, in Study 1, we test the incremental validity of WSC beyond general self-compassion in predicting job performance. In Study 2, we further demonstrate that WSC is an important mediating mechanism that bridges the association between honesty-humility, namely the H-factor, and job performance and burnout, respectively. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of our findings and conclude with limitations and future research directions.

Keywords

self-regulation burnout emotions

In today’s ever-changing business environment, employees are exposed to various day-to-day challenges. For example, a recent report from Gallup (2022) indicated that employees around the globe have experienced all-time high stress level, with approximately 44% among 68,000 respondents experiencing high daily stress at work. Despite the increasingly uncertain nature of modern jobs, employees are nonetheless encouraged to, and are further expected to, carry out their optimal job performance. We contend that these conditions are not a prescription for enhanced performance and well-being, but rather a recipe for burnout and hampered performance, which ultimately has negative implications for organizations in the form of impaired employee commitment, turnover, and organizational performance (eg Ostroff, 1992; Taris & Schreurs, 2009). To combat this issue, it is timelier than ever before for organizational scholars to explore the inward-facing, rather than outward-facing, antecedents of employee job performance and psychological well-being. Indeed, in the midst of turbulence, some employees seem to have better positioned themselves against burnout and thrive by exhibiting high quality performance. Therefore, our driving research question is: What person-driven factor helps employees navigate their path to optimal functioning at work?

Building on Conservation of Resources theory (COR; Hobfoll, 1989, 2001), we posit that self-compassion is an important resource that enables desirable work outcomes. Drawn from Buddhist traditions, self-compassion broadly entails (a) being kind and understanding, rather than being judgmental, towards one’s own suffering, (b) acknowledging that pain and failures are part of a larger human experience, and c) being mindful, rather than over-identifying, about the painful feelings one experiences (Barnard & Curry, 2011; Neff, 2003a). While the construct has been widely examined in broader positive psychology space, to date, self-compassion research in organizational literature remains relatively scant (Schabram & Heng, 2022). Furthermore, initial evidence of self-compassion in the workplace has primarily focused on attitudes and well-being domains (eg Babenko, Mosewich, Lee, & Koppula, 2019; Schabram & Heng, 2022; Shepherd & Cardon, 2009; van der Meulen, Valentin, Bogels, & de Bruin, 2021), with its effects on performance remaining underexplored (exception: Reizer, 2019). Therefore, in the current research, we seek to examine the effects of self-compassion on job performance, in addition to burnout.

By integrating extant research on self-compassion and Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, we propose that self-compassion is a competitive personal resource that fuels performance and buffers against burnout. Specifically, self-compassion is a restorative approach to enhancing one’s self-regulatory and coping capacity, as well as to combating against depletion (Allen & Leary, 2010; Leary, Tate, Adams, Allen, & Hancock, 2007; Terry & Leary, 2011). For example, Allen and Leary (2010) theorized self-compassion as a cognitive coping resource, such that self-compassionate individuals engage in cognitive restructuring to “construe negative events in less dire terms.” (p. 109). Applied to the workplace, self-compassion is likely to protect employees against small and big work-related challenges, such as project failures, and drive their motivation to learn from the failure rather than to ponder upon it (Shepherd & Cardon, 2009).

Further building on one of the core tenets of COR theory, which suggests that resources travel in packs rather than individually (ie resource caravans; Hobfoll, Halbesleben, Neveu, & Westman, 2018, p. 106), we contend that self-compassion and honesty-humility, namely the H-factor, operate in a cumulative manner. Conceptually, some of the key strengths of individuals high in H-factor are that they remain truthful, fair, and impartial towards others (Ashton, Lee, & de Vries, 2014). We posit that the tendency to be truthful and fair towards others and oneself operate collectively, and the chain-like association between H-factor and self-compassion, in turn, prevents employees against depletion and fosters job performance.

We test our hypotheses across two studies. In Study 1, we refine self-compassion for organizational research and develop a short, work-specific scale to measure Work Self-Compassion (WSC). Drawing from theories suggesting that context-specific measures show superior predictive validity than non-contextualized measures (eg Allport, 1961; Schmit, Ryan, Stierwalt, & Powell, 1995), we validate the new WSC scale and test its incremental validity beyond self-compassion in predicting job performance. In Study 2, we further expand our research model and test the indirect association between H-factor and work outcomes, via WSC. Findings from our studies consistently indicate that WSC offers practical utility for predicting job performance and burnout.

Our research offers several contributions to the current self-compassion literature. First, while self-compassion research in organizations has rapidly emerged in recent few years, prior studies have relied on measures that reflect self-compassion in broader life domains, rather than in workspace (eg Neff, 2003b). Despite the increasing interest, to our knowledge, there have been few notable attempts to refine self-compassion exhibited at work. Meanwhile, theories suggest that domain-specific traits have greater influence on outcomes within a specific context (Allport, 1961; Wright & Mischel, 1987) and researchers have previously shown that this, indeed, is the case (eg Pathki, Kluemper, Meuser, & McLarty, 2022; Shaffer & Postlethwaite, 2012; Wallace & Chen, 2005). To address this, therefore, we introduce the WSC scale that more effectively captures work-specific self-compassion by making work context more salient to respondents. Further, we clarify self-compassion’s place in the larger organizational nomological network and show that WSC scale has greater utility in predicting job-related outcomes beyond self-compassion scale. Second, we help advance the literature by showing the conceptual and empirical link between H-factor and WSC. Specifically, we do so by expanding the current understanding of H-factor in relation to the ‘self,’ not just related to others, in work contexts. Recently, Dodson and Heng (2022:186) suggested that “identifying the dynamic features of self-compassion becomes a vital next step” and that “processual conceptualization of self-compassion also allows for greater precision in our examination of antecedents.” We argue that we addressed this point by examining the antecedent role of H-factor in predicting WSC. Third, as an extension of our second contribution, we offer initial evidence suggesting that WSC is a key mediating mechanism that explains how H-factor impacts work-related outcomes and present a new research avenue in a relatively underexplored area. Finally, by demonstrating the chain-like association between H-factor and WSC under the COR lens, we expand the understanding of “resource caravan” (Hobfoll, 2001, p. 349), such that inherently other-oriented and self-oriented individual traits can collectively foster positive work-related outcomes.

Theoretical Background

A fundamental premise of COR theory is that individuals strive to gain, protect, and foster resources, where resources refer to tangible and intangible things that are valued by individuals (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al., 2018). Furthermore, an important corollary of COR theory suggests that when individuals are replenished with resources, they are less likely to be vulnerable against challenges and are more likely to attract positive outcomes (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Self-compassion, from a COR standpoint, is a self-regulatory resource that affords numerous benefits for individuals by promoting a conscious process that helps them navigate their behaviors (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007; Vohs & Baumeister, 2004). As briefly stated above, the original model of self-compassion developed by Neff (2003a, 2003b) entails (1) self-kindness, as opposed to self-judgment, (2) common humanity, as opposed to isolation, and (3) self-mindfulness, as opposed to over-identification. Since the initial examination of self-compassion in psychology (Neff, 2003a; 2003b), the construct has received exponentially increasing interest (Dodson & Heng, 2022) by scholars across varying disciplines (see Table 1). In fact, current studies continue to demonstrate strong empirical support for the original self-compassion scale developed by Neff (2003a, 2003b) in multiple contexts, across age-groups, and countries (Neff, Toth-Kiraly et al., 2019). For this reason, the original self-compassion scale developed by Neff (2003a, 2003b) was used as the basis for the workplace self-compassion scale developed in the current investigation. Specifically, self-kindness involves affirming, even after failure, that the self deserves love and happiness by extending oneself empathy and forgiveness regarding various aspects, such as one’s actions, feelings, thoughts, and impulses (Barnard & Curry, 2011; Gilbert & Irons, 2004; Neff, 2003a). Consequently, individuals who are self-kind tend to view their worth as unconditional (Neff, 2003a) and such a pattern is exhibited in a relatively stable manner (Neff & Vonk, 2009). Common humanity stems from the idea that human experience consists of being flawed, and that failures are part of broader human experience, rather than being unique to oneself (Neff, 2003a). As such, individuals who are self-compassionate are likely to overcome the known imperfection rather than being defeated by them. Finally, self-mindfulness involves awareness of, attention to, and acceptance of the present moment (Shapiro, Astin, Bishop, & Cordova, 2005; Shapiro, Brown, & Biegel, 2007; Zhang, Chen, & Shakur, 2020). Self-mindful individuals, therefore, observe and label thoughts and emotions, rather than react to them (Kabat-Zinn, 2003), and can effectively allocate energy to confront the current situation and move forward, rather than to ruminate or avoid the situation (Gilbert & Procter, 2006; Neff & Vonk, 2009; Neff, Hsieh, & Dejitterat, 2005). Taken together, individuals who are resourceful in self-compassion are better positioned to see challenging experiences in a positive light, rather than negative (Allen & Leary, 2010; Lanaj, Jennings, Ashford, & Krishnan, 2022), and “learn from the present without the distractions of judgmental self-evaluations or worries about the past or future” (Barnard & Curry, 2011, p. 290).

Table 1.

Prior Research on Self-Compassion across Various Disciplines.

Author	Construct Examined in Relation to SC	Paper Title	Context
Gilbert, Baldwin, Irons, Baccus, & Palmer (2006)	Students’ depression	Self-criticism and self-warmth: An imagery study exploring their relation to depression	Clinical psychology
Krieger, Altenstein, Baettig, Doerig, & Holtforth (2013)	Depression	Self-compassion in depression: Associations with depressive symptoms, rumination, and avoidance in depressed outpatients	Clinical psychology
Adams & Leary (2007)	Eating disorder and weight loss	Promoting self-compassionate attitudes toward eating among restrictive and guilty eaters	Clinical psychology
Ferreira, Pinto-Gouveia, & Duarte (2013)	Eating disorder and weight loss	Self-compassion in the face of shame and body image dissatisfaction: Implications for eating disorders	Clinical psychology
Kelly, Vimalakanthan, & Carter (2014)	Eating disorder and weight loss	Understanding the roles of self-esteem, self-compassion, and fear of self-compassion in eating disorder pathology: An examination of female students and eating disorder patients	Clinical psychology
Galhardo, Cunha, Pinto-Gouveia, & Matos (2013)	Infertility	The mediator role of emotion regulation processes on infertility-related stress	Clinical psychology
Hiraoka et al. (2015)	PTSD	Self-compassion as a protective predictor of PTSD symptom severity among trauma-exposed US. Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans	Clinical psychology
Bluth & Blanton (2014)	Adolescent emotional well-being	Mindfulness and self-compassion: Exploring pathways to adolescent emotional well-being	Psychological well-being
Soysa and Wilcomb (2015)	Stress and anxiety	Mindfulness, self-compassion, self-efficacy, and gender as predictors of depression, anxiety, stress, and well-being	Psychological well-being
Marshall et al. (2015)	Adolescent self-esteem	Reprint of “Self-compassion protects against the negative effects of low self-esteem: A longitudinal study in a large adolescent sample”	Psychological well-being
Neff & McGehee (2010)	Adolescent and young adult resilience	Self-compassion and psychological resilient among adolescents and young adults	Psychological well-being
Crews & Crawford (2015)	Gender identity	Exploring the role of being out on a queer person’s self-compassion	Psychological well-being
Allen, Goldwasser, & Leary (2012)	Older adult well-being	Self-compassion and well-being among older adults	Psychological well-being and aging
Vettese, Dyer, Li, & Wekerle (2011)	Emotional dysregulation	Does self-compassion mitigate the association between childhood maltreatment and later emotion regulation difficulties? A preliminary investigation	Childhood mistreatment
Mantzios & Wilson (2014)	Eating disorder and weight loss	Making concrete construals mindful: A novel approach for developing mindfulness and self-compassion to assist weight loss	Health intervention
Brion, Leary, & Drabkin (2014)	HIV	Self-compassion and reactions to serious illness: The case of HIV	Health
Rose, Webel, Sullivan, Cuca, & Wantland (2014)	HIV	Self-compassion and risk behavior among people living with HIV/AIDS	Health
Imrie & Troop (2012)	Hospice care	A pilot study on the effects and feasibility of compassion-focused expressive writing in day Hospice patient	Health
Wren et al. (2012)	Pain management	Self-compassion in patients with persistent musculoskeletal pain: Relationship of self-compassion to adjustment to persistent pain	Health
Neff & Beretvas (2013)	Attachment style and relationship behavior	The role of self-compassion in romantic relationships	Romantic relationship
Jennings (2015)	Teachers’ well-being and attitudes	Early childhood teachers’ well-being, mindfulness, and self-compassion in relation to classroom quality and attitudes toward challenging students	Education
Hashem & Zeinoun (2020)	Nurses’ well-being	Self-compassion explains less burnout among healthcare professionals	Healthcare
Heffernan, Griffin, McNulty, & Fitzpatrick (2010)	Emotional intelligence	Self-compassion and emotional intelligence in nurses	Healthcare
Prudenzi, Graham, Flaxman, & O’Connor (2022)	Burnout and safe practices	Well-being, burnout, and safe practice among healthcare professionals: Predictive influences of mindfulness, values, and self-compassion	Healthcare
Dev et al. (2018)	Burnout and compassion fatigue	Does self-compassion mitigate the relationship between burnout and barriers to compassion? A cross-sectional quantitative study of 799 nurses	Healthcare
Mantzios & Wilson (2014)	Worry and impulsivity	Exploring the relationship between worry and impulsivity in military recruits: The role of mindfulness and self-compassion as potential mediators	Military
Ferguson, Kowalski, Mack, & Sabiston (2014)	Athletes eudaimonic well-being	Exploring self-compassion and eudaimonic well-being in young women athletes	Sports
Abaci & Arda (2013)	Job satisfaction	Relationship between self-compassion and job satisfaction in white collar workers	Workplace
Lefebvre, Montani, Courcy, & Dagenais-Desmarais (2021)	Employee well-being and social safeness	Self-compassion at work: A key for enhancing well-being and innovation through social safeness at multiple levels	Workplace
Ma, Liu, Bao, & Gu (2022)	Ostracism and psychological strain	How to ward off the threat of workplace ostracism? The merit of self-compassion	Workplace
Reizer (2019)	Job performance, emotional exhaustion, and turnover intention	Bringing self-kindness into the workplace: Exploring the mediating role of self-compassion in the associations between attachment and organizational outcomes	Workplace
Schabram & Heng (2022)	Compassion and burnout	How other-and self-compassion reduce burnout through resource replenishment	Workplace
Barnard & Curry (2012)	Burnout and job satisfaction	The relationship of clergy burnout to self-compassion and other personality dimensions	Religious workplace
Anjum, Liang, Durrani, & Parvez (2020)	Workplace incivility, ostracism, and exhaustion	Workplace mistreatment and emotional exhaustion: The interaction effects of self-compassion	Workplace (private sector)
Di Fabio & Saklofske (2021)	Emotional intelligence and other personality	The relationship of compassion and self-compassion with personality and emotional intelligence	Workplace and personality

Note. The list of studies is not exhaustive.

Given that much effort has been undertaken to validate self-compassion in various disciplines (eg Bluth & Blaton, 2014; Cunha, Xavier, & Castilho, 2016; Leary et al., 2007; Neff & McGehee, 2010), and given its remarkable potential for understanding human behaviors, the relative lack of self-compassion research in organizational contexts is rather alarming. More often, organizational scholars have focused on one of its subdimensions, mindfulness (eg Good et al., 2016) or compassion in organizations (eg Dutton, Workman, & Hardin, 2014; Kanov et al., 2004; Rynes, Bartunek, Dutton, & Margolis, 2012). As a result, most prior organizational research has examined compassion as part of organizational culture and the “caring social network” that activates and mobilizes the expression of compassion by and between colleagues, or managers to their subordinates (Atkins & Parker, 2012; Dutton, Lilius, & Kanov, 2007; Dutton, Frost, Worline, Lilius, & Kanov, 2002). Only recently, organizational scholars examined the role of self-compassion, primarily within the well-being domain (also see Table 1).

Nonetheless, initial evidence warrants a critical need to further investigate what it means to be self-compassionate at work, particularly given prevalent, and sometimes unavoidable, challenges that employees (Babenko et al., 2019; Shepherd & Cardon, 2009; van der Meulen et al., 2021) and leaders (Lanaj et al., 2022) experience (for a review, see Dodson & Heng, 2022). This offers an opportunity of research concerning 1) the conceptualization of self-compassion in the workplace and 2) potentially surfacing other relevant variables that might collectively contribute to important work-related outcomes, such as job performance and burnout, alongside work-specific self-compassion. To this end, we conduct two studies. In Study 1, we examine how work self-compassion (WSC) relates to general self-compassion and test its incremental validity beyond self-compassion in predicting job performance. In Study 2, we examine how WSC fits into the larger nomological network by testing the mediating properties of WSC between H-factor and job performance, and H-factor and burnout, respectively.

Study 1: Work Self-Compassion and Job Performance

The conditional model of dispositions suggests that traits are situation-dependent, such that the effects of traits may be more pronounced in some environmental contexts than others (Wright & Mischel, 1987). Indeed, researchers have previously discussed that domain-specific trait measurements tend to show greater influence over life-domain measurements (Allport, 1961; 1966; Schmit et al., 1995), and such an effect has been empirically and meta-analytically shown by several scholars (eg Bing, Whanger, Davison, & VanHook, 2004; Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996; Chen, Goddard, & Casper, 2004; Pathki et al., 2022; Shaffer & Postlethwaite, 2012; Thatcher, Wright, Sun, Zagenczyk, & Klein, 2018; Wallace & Chen, 2005).

Applied to the current study, we posit that WSC will show greater predictive validity beyond non-contextualized self-compassion measurement. For example, employees who are typically self-compassionate in the workplace may not exhibit self-compassionate tendencies at home to the same extent. Conversely, organizational conditions may trigger employees to be less self-compassionate at work. For example, workplace has many unique factors that challenge employees in which they are demanded to manage professional successes, failures, and frustrations (Kyeong, 2013). Given that trait measurements can be susceptible to cultural factors, such as demand characteristics (Heller, Watson, Komar, Min, & Perunovic, 2007), employees may become less self-compassionate due to organizational norms associated with hard work (eg not taking vacations and suppressing mental well-being concerns). Under such an organizational culture, employees may refrain from having self-compassionate thoughts and feelings to avoid being labeled as a problem employee who is deviant from the norm, while they may also rely on self-compassion as a personal resource to cope against these demands. Therefore, while we acknowledge that individuals who are in the habit of practicing self-compassion in their personal lives are naturally predisposed to be self-compassionate at work, we posit that a domain-specific measure is required to understand the effects of self-compassion in organizations more precisely.

WSC is a manifestation and expression of self-compassion in the workplace. Mirroring self-compassion, WSC is comprised of three components: (a) work self-kindness (WSK), (b) common work challenges (CWC), and (c) work-specific mindfulness (WM). WSK is defined as handing oneself kindness when one faces work challenges, such as failing to meet goals and expectations. As such, employees high in WSK tend to extend oneself unconditional empathy regarding their own feelings, thoughts, and impulses. CWC pertains to acknowledging that the currently experienced work-induced pain is a common phenomenon observed across numerous employees, not just the self, thus employees high in CWC tend to be tolerant towards one’s work-related shortcomings. Finally, WM refers to observing, but not necessarily reacting to, thoughts and emotions experienced upon failing to execute desirable levels of performance at work. Considering the theoretical and construct domain overlap between self-compassion and WSC, we expect that the two are highly and positively related. Thus,

Hypothesis 1

WSC is positively related to self-compassion.

From a COR standpoint, WSC is a relatively reliable resource that facilitates employees’ future gains. We posit that WSC enables enhanced job performance. As briefly stated above, most prior self-compassion research in organizational contexts have primarily focused on employee well-being and attitude domains (eg Barnard & Curry, 2012; Gerber & Anaki, 2021; Prudenzi et al., 2021; Schbram & Heng, 2022; Vaillancourt & Wasylkiw, 2020). Nonetheless, initial empirical evidence suggests a positive link between self-compassion and job performance. Most notably, in a study of service-sector employees, Reizer (2019) demonstrated that self-compassion is positively associated with performance and citizenship behavior. Other findings further provide ancillary support for this relationship. For example, in occupational contexts, self-compassion was positively related to work engagement (Babenko et al., 2019) and innovation (Lefebvre, Montani, Courcy, & Dagenais-Desmarais, 2021), which are often examined as significant predictors of performance outcomes.

Evidence associated with self-regulation provides further support. For example, researchers have discussed that when employees experience significant challenges at work, such as project failures, they are more likely to learn from the bitter experience and advance from the current state as they are compassionate towards themselves (Shepherd & Cardon, 2009). More broadly, Neff and Knox (2017) noted that self-compassion promotes individuals’ tendencies to “find hope and inner strength when faced with the difficulties of life,” (p. 2) which helps them overcome fear of failure. Empirical findings from educational contexts lend further support for the self-regulatory benefits of practicing self-compassion, in terms of motivation (eg Breines & Chen, 2012; Chamberlain & Haaga, 2001; Neff et al., 2005) and protection against demands (eg Leary et al., 2007).

Another stream of researchers (eg Barnard & Curry, 2011; Lefebvre, Montani, & Francois-Courcy, 2020) theorized a positive link between self-compassion and resilience, which is commonly described as the capacity to “bounce back” from hardships, suggesting that self-compassionate individuals tend to have “resilient self-appraisals allowing for a more accurate rating of their abilities” (Barnard & Curry, 2011, p. 297). Supporting this, self-compassionate workers in healthcare contexts exhibited improved resilience (eg Kemper, Mo, & Khayat, 2015; Franco & Christie, 2021). Put together, self-compassion preserves individuals’ cognitive resources through improved self-regulation, which may promote emotional (eg Breen, Kashdan, Lenser, & Fincham, 2010; Neff, Rude, & Kirkpatrick, 2007; Neff & Germer, 2017), attitudinal (eg Hefferman, Griffin, McNulty, & Fitzpatrick, 2010), adaptive (eg Barnarad & Curry, 2011; Kelly, Zuroff, Foa, & Gilbert, 2010), and cognitive (eg Barnard & Curry, 2011; Lefebvre et al., 2020; Shepherd & Cardon, 2009) benefits. Therefore, we posit that WSC is an important nutriment for enhanced job performance. Employees who practice WSC are better positioned to take a balanced approach to work stressors, such that they respond positively to work setbacks and move forward, rather than being stagnated. Thus, we predict the following:

Hypothesis 2

WSC is positively associated with job performance.

Building on theories (eg Allport, 1961; Wright & Mischel, 1987) and evidence (eg Bing et al., 2004; Schmit et al., 1995; Shaffer & Postlethwaite, 2012) suggesting greater validity of context-specific trait measures, as opposed to non-contextualized measures, we narrow the bandwidth of self-compassion to be specific to the workplace. Specifically, we predict that WSC will have an incremental validity in predicting performance beyond self-compassion. Thus,

Hypothesis 3

WSC explains additional variance in job performance beyond general self-compassion.

Method

Sample and Procedure

We collected data from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). MTurk is a widely used data collection platform that enables organizational researchers to access participants from diverse backgrounds (Buhrmester, Talaifer, & Gosling, 2018). Recent findings suggest that MTurk participants are reasonably equivalent to participants recruited via traditional methods (Paolacci & Chandler, 2014), and MTurk data is valid and reliable (Sheehan, 2018).

A final sample of 461 participants self-reported their self-compassion, WSC, and job performance. We also measured control variables that are known to influence job performance: gender, age, race, job status, and job function. Ages ranged from 19 to 75 with the mean age of 38 (SD = 12.20). Approximately 59% were female. Majority of participants were Caucasian (77%), and the rest were in the following order: Hispanic (6%), African American (10%), Asian (5%), Native American (1%), and other (1%). Most of the participants were employed on a full-time basis (76%), followed by part-time (21%) and unemployed (3%). For those participants who were employed, job functions broadly varied, including: Services, Sales, Information Technology, General Administrative, Executive/Upper Management, Research and Development, Engineering, Human Resources, Accounting/Finance, and Operations.

Measures

Self-Compassion

Self-Compassion was measured using Neff’s (2003b) 26-item Self-Compassion Scale. Using a 5-point Likert type scale (1 = almost never to 5 = almost always), participants were asked to indicate how often they behaved in the manner stated in the question. An example item is: When I’m feeling down, I tend to obsess and fixate on everything that’s wrong.

Work Self-Compassion

As noted earlier, we created and validated a measure that captures work-specific self-compassion. Researchers have previously documented the conceptual and empirical distinctions between self-compassion and other self-relevant constructs, such as self-esteem (eg Barnard & Curry, 2011; Neff & Vonk, 2009; Zhang et al., 2020), mindfulness (Neff & Dahm, 2015; van der Meulen et al., 2021), basic psychological need satisfaction (Neff, 2003b), and self-forgiveness (Dodson & Heng, 2022). Therefore, we proceeded with item generation for the new WSC scale.

We wrote items that were designed to tap into the content domain of self-compassion using work as a referent and context. By following Hinkin’s (1998) recommendations of item validation, 10 items per sub-domain of self-compassion (ie 30 initial items) were identified as the most appropriate. Prior to data collection, we asked eight subject matter experts (all PhDs in Management) to sort our list of 30 items into one of four content-defined categories: (a) work self-kindness (WSK), (b) common work challenges (CWC), (c) work-specific mindfulness (WM), or (d) not applicable. We elected to drop an item if less than 70% of SMEs sorted an item inappropriately with the content definition. All items passed the 70% threshold and were retained for further analyses in the primary study. We adopted Neff, Whittaker, and Karl’s (2017) approach and examined WSC as a total score, rather than sub-scales. Participants were asked to rate their WSC on a 5-point scale (1 = almost never to 5 = almost always). Upon data collection, we examined the factor structure and item loadings to further refine our items and begin to assess the measure’s validity. Final items area available in Table 2.

Table 2.

Standardized loadings from Work Self-Compassion Scale.

Items	WSK	CWC	WM
I accept my worth and value as a worker in my workplace whole heartedly even when I fail to execute appropriate behaviors, actions or task while at work	.79/.71
I am warm and patient with my feelings, thoughts and impulses when I fail at work	.83/.83
When I am going through a hard time at work, I am kind and accepting of myself	.87/.84
I am tolerant of my shortcomings in work skills and competencies because I understand I am not alone		.79/.74
When I am having a difficult time at work, I understand that other workers are probably going through the same or similar things		.64/.64
When I am going through a hard time at work, I accept it as just part of work life		.67/.52
I accept my work-related failures with balance and calmness			.81/.67
I am composed and balanced when I fail at something important at work			.89/.79
When my boss criticizes my work, I keep it in perspective			.72/.63
I am calm and balanced when I am going through a difficult time at work			.88/.82
Second order loadings	.95/.99	.89/.61	.87/.76
Fit indices by study:
- study 1: χ² = 132.85 (df = 32; p < .05), RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.04, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.95
- study 2: χ² = 147.10 (df = 32; p < .05), RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.04, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.94

Job Performance

Job performance was measured using 3-items from Welbourne, Johnson, & Erez’s (1998) task performance measure. Participants provided ratings they believed their supervisors would provide them regarding quantity, quality, and accuracy of work using a 5-point Likert type scale (1 = needs much improvement to 5 = excellent).

Results

Prior to testing our hypotheses, we verified the validity of the WSC measure and reduced its length to create a more parsimonious measure. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the 30 items written by the authors using MPlus, because we had strong theory driving our development and structure of WSC. The initial CFA that was conducted on the 30-item WSC was a 3-factor model with a single higher order factor of self-compassion. This model had poor fit. Examination of the modification indices and the factor loadings suggested that we could reduce our scale substantially to gain a valid and parsimonious scale. Consequently, we reduced our scale to 10 items, 3 for WSK, 3 for CWC, and 4 for WM. Using the shortened scale, the model was retested. As shown in Table 2, all standardized factor loadings were above .60 and the fit of the model was acceptable. These results support the notion that the construct of WSC consists of WSK, WM, CWC (ie first order factors) and all comprise a higher factor of WSC (ie second order factor). In addition, the internal consistency of each dimension and overall construct exceeded .70. Mirroring Neff’s (2003b) original conceptualization and operationalization of general self-compassion construct, the current measure indicated a higher order construct of WSC.

Table 3 shows means, standard deviations, and correlations for all the variables used in this study. These findings offer preliminary support for Hypotheses 1 and 2. Specifically, self-compassion was positively correlated with WSC (r = 0.79, p < .05) and job performance (r = 0.30, p < .05), respectively. Using hierarchical regression, supporting Hypothesis 3, we further found that WSC accounted for additional 15% of variance in job performance after controlling for self-compassion (

∆

R² = .15, F = 11.01, p < .05; see Table 4).

Table 3.

Means, SDs, and Correlations for all variables in Study 1.

Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Work self-compassion	3.52	.86	.92
2. Self-compassion	3.25	.82	.79	.95
3. Job performance	4.19	.65	.30	.20	.84
4. Gender	1.59	.49	.09	.06	.16	--
5. Age	38.19	12.22	.01	.08	.15	.05	--
6. Race	2.99	.71	.08	.05	.06	.10	.02	--
7. Work status	1.27	.51	.02	−.01	−.04	.07	.17	−.01	--
8. Job function	4.42	2.23	.02	.04	−.01	.01	.01	−.04	−.15	--

Note. Correlations .09 or greater are significant at the .05 level; n = 461. Reliability estimates are presented on the diagonal.

Table 4.

Hierarchical regression predicting job performance in Study 1.

Predictor	β	SE	t	R ²	ΔR²	F
Step 1:
Gender	.16*	.06	3.37
Age	.15*	.01	3.26
Ethnicity	.04	.04	.80
Work status	−.08	.04	−1.73
Job function	−.02	.01	−.49	.05	--	5.06*
Step 2:
Gender	.15*	.06	3.23
Age	.14*	.01	2.98
Ethnicity	.03	.04	.65
Work status	−.08	.06	−1.65
Job function	−.03	.01	−.62
Self-compassion	.18*	.04	3.92	.08	.03	6.92*
Step 3:
Gender	.13*	.06	2.92
Age	.17*	.01	3.71
Ethnicity	.01	.04	.20
Work status	−.10	.06	−2.11
Job function	−.03	.01	−.68
Self-compassion	−.15*	.06	−2.11
Work self-compassion	.42*	.06	5.71	.15	.07	11.01*

Note. *p < .05. n = 461.

We further conducted dominance analysis (Azen & Budescu, 2003) and found that WSC dominated the prediction of job performance with a relative importance of 77.04%, whereas self-compassion accounted for 22.96%. Together, findings from Study 1 provide initial evidence that WSC is indeed a more effective predictor of job performance than general self-compassion scale.

Study 2: Mediating Role of WSC between H-factor and Work Outcomes

Though Study 1 set the stage for the validity and practicality of WSC, it did not address the question of where WSC might fit within the larger nomological network in predicting job performance. In addition, though recent findings have consistently suggested a positive link between self-compassion and employee well-being, an empirical investigation is required to understand whether such a relational pattern is exhibited for WSC. Therefore, as an extension of Study 1, we designed Study 2 to evaluate how WSC impacts employee job performance and burnout, in conjunction with H-factor.

Often considered the sixth factor of the HEXACO model (Ashton & Lee, 2007), H-factor extends the five-factor model of personality (eg Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1990) in meaningful ways. For example, by broadening the lexical studies from English-only to various other languages, H-factor has repeatedly emerged as a reshuffling of variance from the Big Five (eg Saucier, 2009). Further, recent evidence has consistently indicated its validity beyond the Big Five in predicting several important organizational outcomes (eg Johnson, Rowatt, & Petrini, 2011; Pletzer, Bentvelzen, Oostrom, & de Vries, 2019).

Broadly defined in lexical terms such as being sincere, honest, fair-minded, and unassuming, H-factor encompasses four facets; that is, sincerity, fairness, greed-avoidance, and modesty (Ashton & Lee, 2007). Therefore, an individual who is high in H-factor is likely to acknowledge and appreciate one’s and others’ strengths and weaknesses, seek new information for growth and development, and be open and cooperative in social settings, rather than being entitled or manipulative (Ashton & Lee, 2007). In this way, though H-factor is commonly examined in relation to interpersonal domains (eg Barford, Zhao, & Smillie, 2015; Wang, Dunlop, Parker, Griffin, & Gachunga, 2022), it is both an intrapersonal and social construct. Given the theoretical thrust behind H-factor, it is a robust individual difference that may predispose some individuals to be more self-compassionate at work, which then elicits further benefits including enhanced performance and reduced burnout. Under the premises that COR theory offers, we posit that H-factor is an important precursor of WSC and that the two resources collectively work to enhance positive work-related outcomes.

H-factor → Job Performance and Burnout

In recent decades, H-factor has received an increasing attention as a unique predictor of job performance (eg Johnson et al., 2011; Lee, Berry, & Gonzalez-Mule, 2019; Oh et al., 2014). For example, researchers have conceptually laid out the link between H-factor and individual- and unit-level performance (Owens, Rowatt, & Wilkins, 2011), and organizational performance (Vera & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004), respectively. Relevant to the current study, at the individual level, findings have consistently indicated that H-factor is predictive of contextual performance (Owens, Johnson, & Mitchell, 2013), counterproductive work behavior (CWB) (Marcus, Lee, & Ashton, 2007), and workplace deviance (Pletzer et al., 2019) and delinquency (Johnson et al., 2011; Lee, Ashton, & de Vries, 2005). Meta-analytic findings have further supported the associations between H-factor and core performance constructs (ie task performance, citizenship behavior, and CWB) (Lee et al., 2019), and the incremental validity of H-factor in predicting contextual performance beyond various other individual differences (Oh et al., 2014). While the strengths of these associations varied, evidence consistently suggests that H-factor is an important predictor of job performance.

As opposed to behavioral domains, the link between H-factor and well-being are relatively less explored. Nonetheless, extant literature suggests that honest individuals tend to report increased psychological well-being and are less likely to distort self-views (Colvin, Block, & Funder, 1995; Fredrickson, 2001; Vaillant, 1992). As such, employees who are relatively low, as opposed to high, in H-factor experienced higher exhaustion in response to job demands (Ceschi, Sartori, Dickert, & Costantini, 2016). We expect to replicate these findings as an important first step in developing our research model. Further, we predict that H-factor is negatively associated with burnout, which is defined as “prolonged response to chronic emotional and interpersonal stressors on the job” (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001, p. 397). A strong prosocial orientation associated with H-factor is likely to manifest itself at work and, theoretically, this has been noted as the primary driver for reduced burnout (eg Hilbig & Zettle, 2009; Marcus et al., 2007) and enhanced performance (eg Grant & Wrzesniewski, 2010). In sum, employees high in H-factor are better equipped to recognize their own strengths and weaknesses in broader organizational network and can effectively allocate resources available for them (Deffler, Leary, & Hoyle, 2016; Hobfoll, 1989; Owens, Baker, Sumpter, & Cameron, 2016), which ultimately promotes growth and learning.

Hypothesis 4

H-factor is positively associated with job performance.

Hypothesis 5

H-factor is negatively associated with burnout.

H-factor → WSC

As COR theory suggests, resources often travel in packs rather than operate individually (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Together, the “resource caravan” (Hobfoll et al., 2018, p. 106) fosters future gains. Related to the current study, researchers have recently noted that certain personality traits are likely to precede self-compassionate responses (Dodson & Heng, 2022). Considering that individuals high in H-factor value honesty, fairness, and sincerity, we posit that this typically outward-facing tendency will fuel a subsequent resource that operates in a similar manner but directed towards oneself. In a work environment, specifically, possessing an enduring personality that promotes willingness to have fair perceptions of colleagues is likely to encourage employees to have a fair view of themselves. As such, H-factor functions as a cornerstone to being willing to view oneself accurately, to not distort one’s current situation in a particularly negatively biased way, and to focus on the current state of mind (Exline & Geyer, 2004; Exline & Hill, 2012; Davis et al., 2011). While not extensively examined, some initial empirical evidence supports this view (eg Pyszkowska, 2020; Thurackal, Coveleyn, & Dezutter, 2016). Thus,

Hypothesis 6

H-factor is positively associated with WSC.

WSC → Burnout

In high pressure and service work contexts, such as in a healthcare setting, employees may be at risks of various dysfunctional stress responses including compassion fatigue, which can lead employees to experience physical, cognitive, and emotional exhaustion (Germer & Neff, 2013; Hashem & Zeinoun, 2020; Leiberg, Klimecki, & Singer, 2011). In such situations, being able to acknowledge and forgive oneself buffers against resource-depleting mechanisms (eg compassion fatigue, anxiety, off-tasking, stress; Neff et al., 2007; Thurackal et al., 2016), and allows individuals to preserve more resources to focus on personal growth and learning. Physio-psychologically, self-compassion allows individuals to self-soothe, reduce stress, and be better prepared for what future holds, which results in reduced cortisol levels and increased heart-rate variability (Ma, Liu, Bao, & Gu, 2022; Neff & Germer, 2017; Rockliff, Gilbert, McEwan, Lightman, & Glover, 2008). This buffering effect enhances cognitive resources through improved self-regulation, such as a positive mindset (Neff & Germer, 2017) and resilience (Neff & McGehee, 2010), which are particularly relevant for high-pressure jobs (Alliger, Cerasoli, Tannenbaum, & Vessey, 2015; Harker, Pidgeon, Klaassen, & King, 2016; Kossek & Perrigino, 2016).

Particularly related to burnout, employees who are resourceful with self-compassion are less likely to be vulnerable against emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy (Maslach & Jackson, 1981a; Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). In fact, the elements of burnout seem to be antithetical to the dimensions of WSC, such that “self-kindness” discourages negative evaluations of oneself, “common work challenges” reduces cynicism toward work and colleagues, and “work mindfulness” prevents distancing oneself emotionally and cognitively from work. Such a protective effect of self-compassion has been consistently demonstrated in various occupational contexts (eg Barnard & Curry, 2012; Dev, Fernando III, Lim, & Consedine, 2018; Schabram & Heng, 2022; Vaillancourt & Wasylkiw, 2020), and we anticipate that WSC will help alleviate burnout. Additionally, as hypothesized in Study 1, we expect that WSC is positively predictive of job performance.

Hypothesis 7

WSC is negatively associated with burnout.

H-factor → WSC → Work Outcomes

As stated above, under the premise of COR theory, we posit that a personality that is tailored to seek a balanced understanding in others travel with the tendency to do so towards oneself. Together, these resources are likely to protect employees against burnout and help enhance job performance as those high in H-factor and WSC are better able to reserve their regulatory resources. Provided the theoretical and empirical link between these variables, we posit that H-factor promotes WSC and, in turn, job performance and burnout, respectively.

Hypothesis 8

WSC mediates (a) the positive association between H-factor and job performance and (b) the negative association between H-factor and burnout.

Method

Sample and Procedure

Participants were healthcare professionals solicited from a major safety net medical center. Among 1000 individuals who were initially recruited, 723 participants completed the survey (72.3% response rate). All participants were matched to their immediate supervisor, and we sent an email containing a link to the survey to complete performance evaluation of their employees in terms of their service and citizenship. Upon receipt of supervisors’ completed survey, we further obtained employee performance data (ie competencies and goal attainment) from the organization’s PeopleSoft system. After matching employee and supervisor surveys, we were left with 682 complete data points for analysis.

Majority of the participants were female (84.3%). Approximately 26.8% were in the age group of 30 to 39, followed by 40–49 (24.9%) and 50–59 (22.0%). African American (53.5%) and Caucasian (31.4%) comprised most of the participants’ race. Majority of the participants were employed on a full-time basis (73.4%), followed by part-time (18.8%). In terms of job functions, most participants were nurses (42.7%). Regardless of the job currently held, the majority were individual contributors as opposed to those in leadership or management roles (64.1%). Finally, the largest tenure group were from 0-4 years in the current job (37.5%), followed by 10–14 years (20.5%) and 5–9 years (19.9%).

Measures

H-factor

H-factor was measured using 16 items from the 96 item HEXACO scale from AOE Science, a proprietary measure used in personnel selection. Using a 5-point Likert type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement. An example item is: I am a sincere person to those that I work with.

WSC

WSC was measured using the 10-item WSC scale developed and validated in Study 1. Participants were asked to record their responses using a 5-point Likert type scale (1 = almost never to 5 = almost always).

Burnout

Burnout was measured using the 22-item Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI; Maslach & Jackson, 1981b). Using a 7-point Likert type scale (0 = never to 6 = everyday), participants were asked to rate each statement about personal feelings or attitudes. An example item is: I feel emotionally drained from my work.

Work Performance

Managers (N = 7) were interviewed to determine the most critical role for clinical care workers (ie nurses, physicians, technicians, and nursing assistants) and it was confirmed that employees have three primary performance roles: task performance, citizenship behavior, and customer service. Task performance was measured using the participants’ score in the organization’s annual performance evaluation, which included performance ratings based on competencies and goal attainment on a 5-point Liker type scale (1 = far below expectations to 5 = far exceeds expectations). Citizenship performance was measured using Welborune et al.’s (1998) four items. Participants’ supervisors rated participants’ citizenship performance (1 = needs much improvement to 5 = excellent). Finally, customer service performance was measured using Chen & Klimoski’s (2003) four items. As with citizenship performance, participants’ supervisors were asked to rate participants’ customer service performance (1 = needs much improvement to 5 = excellent). An example item is: The employee interacts professionally with customers/patients. We aggregated three performance measures in our modeling because (1) our SMEs suggested employee performance in this context is a combination of service, citizenship, competencies, and goal achievement, and (2) the very high correlations among our performance variables suggested a single construct.

Control Variables

Because conscientiousness is a well-examined predictor of job performance (eg Barrick & Mount, 1991), we decided to control for it. Conscientiousness was measured using 16 items of the 96 item HEXACO scale from AOE Science (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). We also controlled for race, age, job function, employment status, job level, and gender.

Results

Using the WSC items identified in Study 1, we conducted CFA with our sample from Study 2. Results are presented in Table 2. The fit of the model was again acceptable as were items and second order loadings. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for all variables in Study 2 are presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

Means, SDs, and Correlations for all variables in Study 2.

Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1. Work self-compassion	3.36	.68	.88
2. Honesty-humility	3.65	.42	.22	.72
3. Conscientiousness	4.03	.47	.35	.38	.87
4. OCB	3.31	.75	.21	.15	.11	.84
5. Service performance	3.27	.78	.29	.22	.24	.70	.84
6. Competencies	3.09	.82	.25	.20	.20	.72	.71	--
7. Goal achievement	3.12	.87	.22	.20	.20	.70	.72	.92	--
8. Work performance	3.20	.72	.27	.21	.21	.86	.87	.93	.94	--
9. Burnout	3.02	.77	−.16	−.15	−.04	−.11	−.15	−.05	−.07	−.10	.82
10. Age	2.79	1.24	.02	.05	−.01	.08	.11	.08	.08	.10	−.08	--
11. Gender	1.84	.36	−.01	.15	.13	.01	.05	.04	.03	.03	.03	−.05	--
12. Race	2.12	1.48	−.16	−.04	−.04	.04	−.04	.07	.03	.03	.08	−.09	−.06	--
13. Tenure	2.46	1.55	.03	.05	.02	.11	.12	.12	.15	.14	−.04	.53	−.09	−.09	--
14. Work type	1.37	.76	.01	.01	.03	.09	.01	.05	.02	.05	−.07	.11	.11	.10	−.03	--
15. Job level	5.16	1.42	−.01	.11	−.06	−.09	−.17	−.10	−.11	−.13	−.06	−.11	.27	−.07	−.17	.13	--

Note. Correlations .08 or greater are significant at the .05 level; n = 682. Reliability estimates are presented on the diagonal.

At the bivariate level, we found initial support for Hypotheses 4 and 5, such that H-factor was significantly and positively related to job performance (r = .21, p < .05) and negatively related to burnout (r = −.15, p < .05). H-factor was also positively related to WSC at the bivariate level (r = .22, p < .05), providing support for Hypothesis 6. Hypothesis 2 was, once again, supported, albeit with other source ratings of job performance, such that the correlations between WSC and performance variables were as follows: competencies (r = .25, p < .05), goal achievement (r = .22, p < .05), service performance, (r = .29, p < .05), citizenship behaviors (r = .21, p < .05), and overall job performance (r = .27, p < .05). WSC was also negatively related to burnout (r = −.16, p < .05), supporting Hypothesis 7.

To test Hypotheses 8 (a) and 8 (b), we employed hierarchical regression and tests of indirect effects (Tables 6 and 7). Controlling for conscientiousness and various demographics, we found that H-factor is a unique predictor for both job performance (

∆

R² = .02, F = 8.92, p < .05) and burnout (

∆

R² = .02, F = 3.65, p < .05; see step 2), thereby further supporting Hypotheses 4 and 5, respectively. In step 3, we entered WSC and found that it is a unique predictor for both job performance (

∆

R² = .04, F = 11.93, p < .05) and burnout (

∆

R² = .02, F = 4.52, p < .05) beyond H-factor, conscientiousness, and control variables, thereby further supporting Hypotheses 2 and 6, respectively. H-factor remained a significant predictor in the presence of WSC, which could be indicative of partial mediation, as opposed to full mediation.

Table 6.

Regression and indirect tests predicting Overall Work Performance in Study 2.

Predictor	β	SE	T	R ²	ΔR²	F
Step 1:
Age	.03	.03	.61
Gender	.04	.08	1.01
Race	.04	.02	1.08
Tenure	.11*	.02	2.40
Work status	.05	.04	1.20
Job level	−.10*	.02	−2.50
Conscientiousness	.20*	.06	5.22	.07	.07	7.63*
Step 2:
Age	.02	.03	.40
Gender	.03	.08	.69
Race	.04	.02	1.09
Tenure	.10*	.02	2.27
Work status	.05	.04	1.36
Job level	−.12*	.02	−3.05
Conscientiousness	.13*	.06	3.34
Honesty-humility	.17*	.07	4.10	.09	.02	8.93*
Step 3:
Age	.02	.03	.41
Gender	.04	.08	1.14
Race	.07*	.02	1.96
Tenure	.10*	.02	2.35
Work status	.05	.04	1.25
Job level	−.12*	.02	−3.13
Conscientiousness	.07	.06	1.57
Honesty-humility	.14*	.07	3.58
Work self-compassion	.22*	.04	5.71	.13	.04	11.93*
Direct and Indirect effect of honesty-humility on Performance via work self-compassion
Direct effect	Boot SE			95% Confidence Interval
.28	.06			.15, .41
Indirect effect	Boot SE			95% Confidence Interval
.09	.02			.05, .14

Note. *p < .05. n = 682.

Table 7.

Regression and indirect tests predicting Burnout in Study 2.

Predictor	β	SE	t	R ²	ΔR²	F
Step 1:
Age	−.07	.03	−1.50
Gender	.07	.09	1.60
Race	.07	.02	1.86
Tenure	.01	.02	.02
Work status	−.07	.04	−1.71
Job level	−.07	.02	−1.72
Conscientiousness	−.05	.07	−1.31	.02	.02	2.36*
Step 2:
Age	−.06	.03	−1.33
Gender	.08	.09	1.90
Race	.07	.02	1.88
Tenure	.01	.02	.13
Work status	−.07	.04	−1.85
Job level	−.05	.02	−1.25
Conscientiousness	.01	.07	.10
Honesty-humility	−.15*	.08	−3.52	.04	.02	3.65*
Step 3:
Age	−.06	.03	−1.34
Gender	.07	.09	1.65
Race	.05	.02	1.37
Tenure	.01	.02	.13
Work status	−.07	.04	−1.78
Job level	−.05	.02	−1.26
Conscientiousness	.05	.07	1.08
Honesty-humility	−.13*	.08	−3.18
Work self-compassion	−.14*	.05	−3.33	.06	.02	4.52*
Indirect effect of honesty-humility on Burnout via work self-compassion
Direct effect	Boot SE			95% Confidence Interval
−.21	.07			−.35, −.07
Indirect effect	Boot SE			95% Confidence Interval
−.05	.02			−.09, −.02

Note. *p < .05. n = 682.

Indirect effects were tested using PROCESS Macro (Hayes, 2017). We found an indirect association between H-factor and job performance via WSC (indirect effect = .09, 95% CI = .05 to .14). The direct effect of H-factor on job performance was .28 (95% CI = .15 to .41). Similarly, we found an indirect association between H-factor and burnout via WSC (indirect effect = −.05, 95% CI = −.09 to −.02). The direct effect of H-factor on burnout was −.21 (95% CI = −.35 to −.07). Together, these results suggest that WSC mediates the effect of H-factor on job performance and burnout, but partially. Therefore, while we found support for Hypotheses 8 (a) and 8 (b), there is statistical room for other mediators to potentially explain these relationships.

Finally, as with Study 1, we conducted dominance analysis and found that for predicting job performance, WSC had relative importance of 51.14%, followed by H-factor (27.61%) and conscientiousness (21.24%). For predicting burnout, WSC had a relative importance of 52.85%, followed by H-factor (43.09%) and conscientiousness (4.07%).

Discussion

Interest in self-compassion has rapidly grown over the past few decades in positive psychology space, yet only recently have organizational scholars conducted theory-driven research on self-compassion in the workplace. To contribute to the growing literature, the primary purpose of this research was to “surface an unknown work construct,” namely WSC. Our results from confirmatory factor analyses suggested that WSC has a strong construct validity. In addition, in line with the principles of COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989; 2001; Hobfoll et al., 2018), our findings suggested that WSC predicts job performance, and it explains additional variance in job performance beyond the original Self-Compassion Scale (SCS) developed by Neff (2003b). Findings from Study 2 further clarified how WSC fits within the broader nomological network in workspace, such that WSC mediates the association between H-factor and work-related outcomes. As predicted, our findings indicated that both WSC and H-factor serve individually as personal resources, and that the two could work in tandem to function as a “resource caravan” (Hobfoll et al., 2018, p. 106) to prevent burnout and enhance overall job performance. Taken together, our findings from two studies consistently suggest that WSC is a psychometrically sound construct, and it possesses predictive utility in the workplace beyond the effect of non-contextualized self-compassion.

Theoretical Contributions

One important contribution of this research is that we highlighted the need to focus on context when studying workplace human behaviors. Consistent with prior work suggesting the importance of studying organizational behaviors within their specific contexts (Allport, 1961; Shaffer & Postelthwaite, 2012; Wallace & Chen, 2005), we refined the definition of WSC and introduced a measure that more precisely conveys work context to respondents. By conceptualizing WSC as an important personal resource, our findings across two studies consistently demonstrated that WSC explains incremental variance in job performance and burnout beyond the non-contextualized measure of self-compassion.

In addition, our findings contribute to the current literature by examining a unique individual difference character as an antecedent of WSC. Consistent with a recent suggestion that theory-driven research can help advance the understanding of antecedents of self-compassion (Dodson & Heng, 2022), we drew from COR theory to demonstrate a process by which H-factor predicts enhanced WSC and, in turn, results in enhanced job performance and reduced burnout. Particularly, given that most prior research has focused on the antecedent role of the Big Five (eg Neff et al., 2007) and emotional intelligence (Di Fabio & Saklofske, 2021), our results shed light on a relatively underexplored relationship, such that H-factor promotes self-compassion.

Our findings further provide empirical evidence that inherently outward- and inward-facing characteristics can operate together to induce positive work-related outcomes. Specifically, while both H-factor and self-compassion entail being truthful and fair (eg Ashton et al., 2014; Neff, 2003b), for H-factor, the target of fair treatment is typically considered other individuals or the situation, whereas for self-compassion, the target is the self. Thus, our findings contribute to the theory by showing that resources that share some overlaps in conceptual terms but directed at different targets can nonetheless have a chain-like relationship to promote desirable outcomes. However, it remains unclear how H-factor promotes WSC, and we call for future studies to explore variables that bridge the two constructs.

Practical Implications

Our research has applied implications for managerial practices. Specifically, we provide empirical evidence that self-compassion predicts job performance and burnout. Relevant to our findings, we recommend managers and individuals in leadership positions to develop strategies to foster employees’ self-compassion. For example, managers may reconsider the concept of self-compassion and reflect on the current organizational climate to ensure that employees are surrounded by work environment that is supportive of practicing self-compassion. Furthermore, given prior research suggesting the developable nature of self-compassion, we contend that organizational leaders could implement relatively quick yet effective intervention programs to help enhance employees’ self-compassion. For example, the Self-Compassion Break (Gerner & Neff, 2013; Neff & Gerner, 2017) is a short pause an individual can provide him/herself where they take a deep breath to recognize that this is a moment of failure (mindfulness), acknowledge that failure is a part of work (common work experience), and repeat: “May I be kind to myself and may I live with ease” (self-kindness). Such a short exercise is shown to increase self-compassionate responses in the face of various challenges, and we envision that doing so may contribute to enhanced self-compassion at work.

Additionally, there are structured programs that could be implemented in a more systematic fashion in organizations. For example, the Mindful Self-Compassion Training Program (Gerner & Neff, 2013; Neff & Gerner, 2017) has been shown to not only be highly effective at increasing self-compassion, but also compassion for others and life satisfaction while decreasing negative consequences, such as anxiety and stress. Similarly, the Mindful2Work program was shown to reduce perceived employee stress and fatigue both directly and indirectly via self-compassion (van der Meulen et al., 2021). Considering that participants in the present research consisted of healthcare workers, who by all accounts work in a highly stress-inducing environment, such workplace self-compassion training programs could be particularly helpful to them and others working in high-stress environment.

Limitations and Future Directions

While this research is a positive step forward, it is not without limitations. First, and likely most obvious, we used an online panel of employees with self-report performance data in Study 1. As a stand-alone study, Study 1 may not meet the rigor to allow for strong inferences. However, our primary goal for Study 1 was to demonstrate that we are “in the ballpark” when it comes to WSC. We attempted to ensure that WSC is 1) important to work performance, 2) highly related to general self-compassion, and 3) more informative to work performance than general self-compassion. As such, this study allowed us to build a valid assessment of WSC and set the basis for a subsequent study. Coupling Study 1 with a more rigorous Study 2 made us more confident in making inferences from Study 1 results.

We also relied on concurrent data, even though it was temporally ordered to predict performance and burnout in Study 2. Therefore, results from this research should be taken with caution, particularly due to issues associated with common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). However, because our model was designed to examine the effects of a stable personality characteristic (ie H-factor) on a context-specific variable (ie WSC), we envision that the results are relatively reliable. Nonetheless, future studies could implement longitudinal designs to further extrapolate how this process unfolds over time. For example, researchers could examine possible intra-individual variations (eg within-person analysis) to find where WSC stands in broader positive organizational scholarship (POS) literature. In doing so, scholars could further examine how internally and externally focused compassion collectively function. Specifically, it is possible that being compassionate towards oneself might be a critical first step prior to extending genuine compassion for others, and that this relationship may be cyclical such that compassion for oneself feeds compassion for others, or vice-versa, and a positive cyclical relationship may develop over time. As such, examination of positive ripple effects may help advance the current literature. For example, by being self-compassionate, employees may become compassionate toward others and thus, can ward off dysfunctional behaviors such as workplace aggression (eg social undermining, see Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002; Hershcovis, 2011).

In addition, our WSC measure is developed based on Neff’s (2003b) original SCS. While the original scale has received some criticism associated with its psychometric validity, it is one of the most widely accepted measurement tools that is theoretically and empirically valid (Neff, 2016, 2020; Neff et al., 2019). Further, more recent conceptualizations of self-compassion in work contexts (eg Dodson & Heng, 2022; Gilbert et al., 2017) continue to retain Neff’s (2003b) core components, including mindfulness, common humanity, and self-kindness, as its theoretical basis. Nonetheless, the current WSC measure includes items that may convey double-barreled statements, and we encourage scholars to further test the scale’s validity and reliability across various work samples. Finally, future research could examine potential mediators and moderators of the association between WSC and work-related outcomes. For example, Dodson and Heng (2022) recently called for the processual approaches of examining work-related self-compassion. While we have incorporated the mediating role of self-compassion that links an individual factor and intrapersonal outcomes to show how self-compassion manifests at work, we have not addressed the processual effect of self-compassion on interpersonal outcomes. Future studies can explore this area to further expand the recent conceptualization of self-compassion at work.

Indeed, Whetten (1989) has noted that understanding features including what, how, for whom, and when are some of the key building blocks of theory development. As an initial attempt, in the current research, we found that WSC has positive implications for performance and well-being, yet we have not explored how such effects occur and for whom the effects may stand out. Particularly given that self-compassion is a competitive self-regulatory resource, we suggest researchers to explore how such benefits are enabled. Some scholars have provided initial theoretical and empirical grounds (eg Ma et al., 2022; Schabram & Heng, 2022; Zhang et al., 2020). We argue that it is an excellent starting point and more research on processual mechanism of WSC can help advance the theory.

Conclusion

Today’s workplace can be a demanding environment and inevitably, each employee, at one time or another, experiences various forms of failures, including failing at a task, losing initiatives, ruminating on what should/could have been done, and questioning their capabilities. Advancing forward upon overcoming setbacks can boost positive work-related outcomes, such as enhanced job performance, and can buffer against negative ones, such as reduced burnout. Self-compassion has been credited as one such mechanism (Neff et al., 2017) that affords enhanced self-regulatory benefits. In this research, we introduced WSC, which is a work-context specific construct. Building on the principles of COR theory, we explored the role of WSC as an important personal resource and, in doing so, demonstrated that individual resources, H-factor and WSC, can collectively elicit desirable work-related outcomes.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Associate Editor: Thomas Zagenczyk

ORCID iDs

Julian Craig Wallace

Jeromy Blake Snider

Author Biographies

Lina George has over 30 years of experience as a labor and employment attorney and human resources executive. She has served as the Chief Human Resources Officer for major organizations in technology, retail and healthcare. As Chief Human Resources Officer, she has directed overall human resources strategy including total rewards, talent acquisition and development, performance management, employee engagement, workforce planning, HR technology, workforce analytics, transformation and organizational effectiveness, employee relations, labor relations and DEI. In addition to earning several certifications and professional designations, Lina has been recognized as a top executive by the Georgia Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Latina Style magazine and the Georgia Diversity Council. Lina received her PhD in Business Administration from Oklahoma State University and her Juris Doctorate and Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from the University of Denver.

Julian Craig Wallace is currently the Head of the Management Department in the Wilbur O. and Ann Powers College of Business at Clemson University. He was previously the Head of Management in the Daniels College of Business at the University Denver. Prior, he held the Spears Chair of Business and was the Executive & Research Director of the first Executive PhD program in Business at Oklahoma State University. With over a decade of administrative responsibility, Craig has built several highly impactful programs at the undergraduate and graduate level, including assisting in raising over 40M dollars. His PhD is from Georgia Tech and is a graduate of Wharton’s Advanced Management Program. He has published over 70 articles, given hundreds of talks, been a featured guest on Sirius/XM Business Radio, wrote a column for PsychToday, and even won a few major awards along the way. He is a Fellow in the Society for I/O Psychology–the world’s most prestigious group of organizational psychologists. He is a former associate editor for Journal of Management and has sat on the boards of many other premier journals (e.g., Personnel Psychology). Craig is also a sought-after consultant and speaker with experience helping Fortune 1 to Mom-and-Pop firms smash through ‘people barriers’ to realize significant increases in business outcomes. He has worked with firms such as Starbucks, Wal-Mart, UPS, Wynn Entertainment, Shell Oil, ONEOK, and Anschutz Entertainment Group. Through his work, Craig aims to create organizations where employees thrive and business booms.

Jeromy Blake Snider is the Assistant Department Chair and an Associate Professor in the Department of Management in the Wilbur O and Ann Powers College of Business at Clemson University. His current research interests include antecedents of workplace aggression and maltreatment with a specific focus on social undermining behavior, workplace self-compassion, and the importance of emotional intelligence in leadership. He also has a record of earlier scholarship focused on late adolescent/emerging adult developmental processes. Prior to his current role in the Department of Management, Dr. Snider served in a number of University-level administrative roles focused on Undergraduate student success, summer session and online/off-campus education.

Hyunji Suh is a third year Ph.D. candidate in Business Administration at Clemson University, with an emphasis on Organizational Behavior and Human Resources. Her research interests include psychological resilience, leadership, and team and organizational climate.

References

Abaci

Arda

(2013). Relationship between self-compassion and job satisfaction in white collar workers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 2241–2247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.255

Adams

C. E.

Leary

M. R.

(2007). Promoting self–compassionate attitudes toward eating among restrictive and guilty eaters. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(10), 1120–1144. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2007.26.10.1120

Allen

A. B.

Goldwasser

E. R.

Leary

M. R.

(2012). Self-compassion and well-being among older adults. Self and Identity: The Journal of the International Society for Self and Identity, 11(4), 428–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2011.595082

Allen

A. B.

Leary

M. R.

(2010). Self-Compassion, stress, and coping. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(2), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00246.x

Alliger

G. M.

Cerasoli

C. P.

Tannenbaum

S. I.

Vessey

W. B.

(2015). Team resilience: How teams flourish under pressure. Organizational Dynamics, 44(3), 176–184. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.05.003

Allport

G. W.

(1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Allport

G. W.

(1966). Traits revisited. American Psychologist, 21(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023295

Anjum

M. A.

Liang

Durrani

D. K.

Parvez

(2020). Workplace mistreatment and emotional exhaustion: The interaction effects of self-compassion. Current Psychology, 41(3), 1460–1471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00673-9

Ashton

M. C.

Lee

(2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294907

10.

Ashton

M. C.

Lee

de Vries

R. E.

(2014). The HEXACO honesty-humility, agreeableness, and emotionality factors: A review of research and theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314523838

11.

Atkins

P. W. B.

Parker

S. K.

(2012). Understanding individual compassion in organizations: The role of appraisals and psychological flexibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 524–546. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0490

12.

Azen

Budescu

D. V.

(2003). The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8(2), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.2.129

13.

Babenko

Mosewich

A. D.

Lee

Koppula

(2019). Association of physicians’ self-compassion with work engagement, exhaustion, and professional life satisfaction. Medical Sciences, 7(2), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/medsci7020029

14.

Barford

K. A.

Zhao

Smillie

L. D.

(2015). Mapping the interpersonal domain: Translating between the Big Five, HEXACO, and Interpersonal Circumplex. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 232–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.038

15.

Barnard

L. K.

Curry

J. F.

(2011). Self-compassion: Conceptualizations, correlates, & interventions. Review of General Psychology, 15(4), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025754

16.

Barnard

L. K.

Curry

J. F.

(2012). The relationship of clergy burnout to self-compassion and other personality dimensions. Pastoral Psychology, 61(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-011-0377-0

17.

Barrick

M. R.

Mount

M. K.

(1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x

18.

Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

(2007). Self-Regulation, ego depletion, and motivation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00001.x

19.

Bing

M. N.

Whanger

J. C.

Davison

H. K.

VanHook

J. B.

(2004). Incremental validity of the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores: a replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 150–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.150

20.

Bluth

Blanton

P. W.

(2014). Mindfulness and self-compassion: Exploring pathways to adolescent emotional well-being. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(7), 1298–1309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9830-2

21.

Breen

W. E.

Kashdan

T. B.

Lenser

M. L.

Fincham

F. D.

(2010). Gratitude and forgiveness: Convergence and divergence on self-report and informant ratings. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(8), 932–937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.033

22.

Breines

J. G.

Chen

(2012). Self-compassion increases self-improvement motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(9), 1133–1143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212445599

23.

Brion

J. M.

Leary

M. R.

Drabkin

A. S.

(2014). Self-compassion and reactions to serious illness: The case of HIV. Journal of Health Psychology, 19(2), 218–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105312467391

24.

Buhrmester

M. D.

Talaifar

Gosling

S. D.

(2018). An evaluation of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, its rapid rise, and its effective use. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617706516

25.

Button

S. B.

Mathieu

J. E.

Zajac

D. M.

(1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1), 26–48. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0063

26.

Ceschi

Sartori

Dickert

Costantini

, (2016) Grit or honesty-humility? New Insights into the Moderating Role of Personality between the Health Impairment Process and Counterproductive Work Behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1799. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01799

27.

Chamberlain

J. M.

Haaga

D. A. F.

(2001). Unconditional self-acceptance and psychological health. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 19(3), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1011189416600

28.

Chen

Goddard

T. G.

Casper

W. J.

(2004). Examination of the relationships among general and work-specific self-evaluations, work-related control beliefs, and job attitudes. Applied Psychology, 53(3), 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00175.x

29.

Chen

Klimoski

R. J.

(2003). The impact of expectations on newcomer performance in teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchanges, and empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 591–607. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040651

30.

Colvin

C. R.

Block

Funder

D. C.

(1995). Overly positive self-evaluations and personality: Negative implications for mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1152–1162. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1152

31.

Costa

P. T.

Jr McCrae

R. R.

(1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I

32.

Crews

Crawford

(2015). Exploring the role of being out on a queer person's self-compassion. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 27(2), 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720.2015.1022272

33.

Cunha

Xavier

Castilho

(2016). Understanding self-compassion in adolescents: Validation study of the Self-Compassion Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 93, 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.023

34.

Davis

D. E.

Hook

J. N.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr Van Tongeren

D. R.

Gartner

A. L.

Jennings

D. J.

Emmons

R. A.

(2011). Relational Humility: Conceptualizing and measuring Humility as a personality judgment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.558871

35.

Dawson Rose

Webel

Sullivan

K. M.

Cuca

Y. P.

Wantland

Johnson

M. O.

Brion

Portillo

C. J.

Corless

I. B.

Voss

Chen

W. T.

Phillips

J. C.

Tyer-Viola

Rivero-Mendez

Nicholas

P. K.

Nokes

Kemppainen

Sefcik

Eller

L. S.

Holzemer

W. L.

(2014). Self-compassion and risk behavior among people living with HIV/AIDS. Research in Nursing & Health, 37(2), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21587

36.

Deffler

S. A.

Leary

M. R.

Hoyle

R. H.

(2016). Knowing what you know: Intellectual humility and judgments of recognition memory. Personality and Individual Differences, 96, 255–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.016

37.

Dev

Fernando

A. T.

III Lim

A. G.

Consedine

N. S.

(2018). Does self-compassion mitigate the relationship between burnout and barriers to compassion? A cross-sectional quantitative study of 799 nurses. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 81, 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.02.003

38.

Di Fabio

Saklofske

D. H.

(2021). The relationship of compassion and self-compassion with personality and emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 169, 110109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110109

39.

Dodson

S. J.

Heng

Y. T.

(2022). Self-compassion in organizations: A review and future research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(2), 168–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2556

40.

Duffy

M. K.

Ganster

D. C.

Pagon

(2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331–351. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069350

41.

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.

42.

Dutton

J. E.

Lilius

J. M.

Kanov

(2007). The transformative potential of compassion at work. In Handbook of transformative cooperation: New designs and dynamics, Piderit

S. K.

Fry

R. E.

Cooperrider

D. L.

(eds), pp. 107–126. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.

43.

Dutton

J. E.

Workman

K. M.

Hardin

A. E.

(2014). Compassion at work. Annual Review Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 277–304. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091221

44.

Exline

J. J.

Geyer

A. L.

(2004). Perceptions of humility: A preliminary study. Self and Identity, 3(2), 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500342000077

45.

Exline

J. J.

Hill

P. C.

(2012). Humility: A consistent and robust predictor of generosity. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(3), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2012.671348

46.

Ferguson

L. J.

Kowalski

K. C.

Mack

D. E.

Sabiston

C. M.

(2014). Exploring self-compassion and eudaimonic well-being in young women athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 36(2), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2013-0096

47.

Ferreira

Pinto-Gouveia

Duarte

(2013). Self-compassion in the face of shame and body image dissatisfaction: Implications for eating disorders. Eating Behaviors, 14(2), 207–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2013.01.005

48.

Franco

P. L.

Christie

L. M.

(2021). Effectiveness of a one day self-compassion training for pediatric nurses’ resilience. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 61, 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2021.03.020

49.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218

50.

Galhardo

Cunha

Pinto-Gouveia

Matos

(2013). The mediator role of emotion regulation processes on infertility-related stress. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 20(4), 497–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-013-9370-3

51.

Gallup, Inc (2022). State of the global workplace: 2022 report. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace-2022-report.aspx#ite-393248

52.

Gerber

Anaki

(2021). The role of self-compassion, concern for others, and basic psychological needs in the reduction of caregiving burnout. Mindfulness, 12(3), 741–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01540-1

53.

Germer

C. K.

Neff

K. D.

(2013). Self-compassion in clinical practice. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(8), 856–867. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22021

54.

Gilbert

Baldwin

M. W.

Irons

Baccus

J. R.

Palmer

(2006). Self-criticism and self-warmth: An imagery study exploring their relation to depression. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 20(2), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1891/jcop.20.2.183

55.

Gilbert

Catarino

Duarte

Matos

Kolts

Stubbs

Ceresatto

Duarte

Pinto-Gouveia

Basran

(2017). The development of compassionate engagement and action scales for self and others. Journal of Compassionate Health Care, 4(1), 4–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40639-017-0033-3

56.

Gilbert

Irons

(2004). A pilot exploration of the use of compassionate images in a group of self-critical people. Memory, 12(4), 507–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210444000115

57.

Gilbert

Procter

(2006). Compassionate mind training for people with high shame and self-criticism: Overview and pilot study of a group therapy approach. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 13(6), 353–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.507

58.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216

59.

Good

D. J.

Lyddy

C. J.

Glomb

T. M.

Bono

J. E.

Brown

K. W.

Duffy

M. K.

Baer

R. A.

Brewer

J. A.

Lazar

S. W.

(2016). Contemplating mindfulness at work: An integrative review. Journal of Management, 42(1), 114–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315617003

60.

Grant

A. M.

Wrzesniewski

, (2010). I won’t let you down or will I? Core self-evaluations, other-orientation, anticipated guilt and gratitude, and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 108–121. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0017974

61.

Harker

Pidgeon

A. M.

Klaassen

King

(2016). Exploring resilience and mindfulness as preventative factors for psychological distress burnout and secondary traumatic stress among human service professionals. Work, 54(3), 631–637. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-162311

62.

Hashem

Zeinoun

(2020). Self-compassion explains less burnout among health-care professionals. Mindfulness, 11, 2542–2551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01469-5

63.

Hayes

(2017). My macros and code for SPSS and SAS. AFHayes.com.

64.

Heffernan

Quinn Griffin

M. T.

McNulty

Fitzpatrick

J. J.

(2010). Self-compassion and emotional intelligence in nurses. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 16(4), 366–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-172X.2010.01853.x

65.

Heller

Watson

Komar

Min

J. A.

Perunovic

W. Q. E.

(2007). Contextualized personality: Traditional and new assessment procedures. Journal of Personality, 75(6), 1229–1253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00474.x

66.

Hershcovis

M. S.

(2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying…oh my!”: A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 499–519. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.689

67.

Hilbig

B. E.

Zettler

(2009). Pillars of cooperation: Honesty-humility, social value orientations and economic behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 516–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.01.003

68.

Hinkin

T. R.

(1998). A brief tutorial on measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106

69.

Hiraoka

Meyer

E. C.

Kimbrel

N. A.

DeBeer

B. B.

Gulliver

S. B.

Morissette

S. B.

(2015). Self-compassion as a prospective predictor of PTSD symptom severity among trauma-exposed US Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 28(2), 127–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.21995

70.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513

71.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 337–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062

72.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Halbesleben

Neveu

J. P.

Westman

(2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640

73.

Imrie

Troop

N. A.

(2012). A pilot study on the effects and feasibility of compassion-focused expressive writing in Day Hospice patients. Palliative & Supportive Care, 10(2), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951512000181

74.

Jennings

P. A.

(2015). Early childhood teachers’ well-being, mindfulness, and self-compassion in relation to classroom quality and attitudes towards challenging students. Mindfulness, 6(4), 732–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-014-0312-4

75.

Johnson

M. K.

Rowatt

W. C.

Petrini

(2011). A new trait on the market: Honesty–Humility as a unique predictor of job performance ratings. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(6), 857–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.01.011

76.

Kabat-Zinn

(2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 144–156. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1093/clipsy.bpg016

77.

Kanov

J. M.

Maitlis

Worline

M. C.

Dutton

J. E.

Frost

P. J.

Lilius

J. M.

(2004). Compassion in organizational life. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 808–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764203260211

78.

Kelly

A. C.

Vimalakanthan

Carter

J. C.

(2014). Understanding the roles of self-esteem, self-compassion, and fear of self-compassion in eating disorder pathology: An examination of female students and eating disorder patients. Eating Behaviors, 15(3), 388–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2014.04.008

79.

Kelly

A. C.

Zuroff

D. C.

Foa

C. L.

Gilbert

(2010). Who benefits from training in self-compassionate self-regulation? A study of smoking reduction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29(7), 727–755. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2010.29.7.727

80.

Kemper

K. J.

Khayat

(2015). Are mindfulness and self-compassion associated with sleep and resilience in health professionals? Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (New York, N.Y.), 21(8), 496–503. https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2014.0281

81.

Kossek

E. E.

Perrigino

M. B.

(2016). Resilience: A review using a grounded integrated occupational approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 00–00. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1159878

82.

Krieger

Altenstein

Baettig

Doerig

Holtforth

M. G.

(2013). Self-compassion in depression: Associations with depressive symptoms, rumination, and avoidance in depressed outpatients. Behavior Therapy, 44(3), 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2013.04.004

83.

Lanaj

Jennings

R. E.

Ashford

S. J.

Krishnan

(2022). When leader self-care begets other care: Leader role self-compassion and helping at work. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(9), 1543–1560. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000957

84.

Leary

M. R.

Tate

E. B.

Adams

C. E.

Allen

A. B.

Hancock

(2007). Self-compassion and reactions to unpleasant self-relevant events: The implications of treating oneself kindly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 887–904. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.887

85.

Lee

Ashton

M. C.

de Vries

R. E.

(2005). Predicting workplace delinquency and integrity with the HEXACO and five-factor models of personality structure. Human Performance, 18(2), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1802_4

86.

Lee

Berry

C. M.

Gonzalez-Mulé

(2019). The importance of being humble: A meta-analysis and incremental validity analysis of the relationship between honesty-humility and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(12), 1535–1546. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000421

87.

Lefebvre

J. I.

Montani

Courcy

(2020). Self-compassion and resilience at work: A practice-oriented review. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 22(4), 437–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422320949145

88.

Lefebvre

J. I.

Montani

Courcy

Dagenais-Desmarais

(2021). Self-compassion at work: A key for enhancing well-being and innovation through social safeness at multiple levels. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 38(4), 398–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1599

89.

Leiberg

Klimecki

Singer

(2011). Short-term compassion training increases prosocial behavior in a newly developed prosocial game. PLoS ONE, 6(3), e17798. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017798

90.

Liu

Bao

(2022). How to ward off the threat of workplace ostracism? The merit of self-compassion. Personality and Individual Differences, 187, 111396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111396

91.

Mantzios

Wilson

J. C.

(2014). Making concrete construals mindful: a novel approach for developing mindfulness and self-compassion to assist weight loss. Psychology & Health, 29(4), 422–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2013.863883

92.

Marcus

Lee

Ashton

M. C.

(2007). Personality dimensions explaining relationships between integrity tests and counterproductive behavior: Big five, or one in addition? Personnel Psychology, 60, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00063.x

93.

Marshall

S. L.

Parker

P. D.

Ciarrochi

Sahdra

Jackson

C. J.

Heaven

P. C.

(2015). Reprint of “Self-compassion protects against the negative effects of low self-esteem: A longitudinal study in a large adolescent sample”. Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.049

94.

Maslach

Jackson

S. E.

(1981a). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2, 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205

95.

Maslach

Jackson

S. E.

(1981b). Maslach burnout inventory. Sunnyvale, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

96.

Maslach

Schaufeli

W. B.

Leiter

M. P.

(2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397

97.

Neff

K. D.

(2003a). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2, 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309032

98.

Neff

K. D.

(2003b). The Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure Self-Compassion. Self and Identity, 2(3), 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309027

99.

Neff

K. D.

(2016). The self-compassion scale is a valid and theoretically coherent measure of self-compassion. Mindfulness, 7, 264–274.

100.

Neff

K. D.

(2020). Commentary on Muris and Otgaar (2020): Let the empirical evidence speak on the Self-Compassion Scale. Mindfulness, 11(8), 1900–1909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01411-9

101.

Neff

K. D.

Beretvas

S. N.

(2013). The role of self-compassion in romantic relationships. Self and Identity, 12(1), 78–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2011.639548

102.

Neff

K. D.

Dahm

K. A.

(2015). Self-compassion: What it is, what it does, and how it relates to mindfulness. In Handbook of mindfulness and self-regulation (pp. 121–137). Springer.

103.

Neff

K. D.

Germer

(2017). Self-Compassion and Psychological Wellbeing. In Doty

(Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Compassion Science. Oxford University Press. Chap. 27.

104.

Neff

K. D.

Hsieh

Y. P.

Dejitterat

(2005). Self-compassion, achievement goals, and coping with academic failure. Self and Identity, 4(3), 263–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500444000317

105.

Neff

K. D.

Knox

M. C.

(2017). Self-compassion. In Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences, Zeigler-Hill

Shackelford

T. K.

(eds), pp. 1–8, Springer International Publishing, AG.

106.

Neff

K. D.

McGehee

(2010). Self-compassion and psychological resilience among adolescents and young adults. Self and Identity, 9(3), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860902979307

107.

Neff

K. D.

Rude

S. S.

Kirkpatrick

K. L.

(2007). An examination of self-compassion in relation to positive psychological functioning and personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(4), 908–916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.002

108.

Neff

K. D.

Tóth-Király

Yarnell

L. M.

Arimitsu

Castilho

Ghorbani

Guo

H. X.

Hirsch

J. K.

Hupfeld

Hutz

C. S.

Kotsou

Lee

W. K.

Montero-Marin

Sirois

F. M.

de Souza

L. K.

Svendsen

J. L.

Wilkinson

R. B.

Mantzios

(2019). Examining the factor structure of the Self-Compassion Scale in 20 diverse samples: Support for use of a total score and six subscale scores. Psychological Assessment, 31(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000629

109.

Neff

K. D.

Vonk

(2009). Self-compassion versus global self-esteem: Two different ways of relating to oneself. Journal of Personality, 77(1), 23–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00537.x

110.

Neff

K. D.

Whittaker

T. A.

Karl

(2017). Evaluating the factor structure of the self- compassion Sscale in four distinct populations: Is the use of a total self-compassion score justified? Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(6), 596–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1269334

111.

I.-S.

Whitman

D. S.

Kim

Yoo

T.-Y.

Hwang

J.-O.

Kim

C.-S.

(2014). The incremental validity of Honesty–Humility over cognitive ability and the big five personality traits. Human Performance, 27(3), 206–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2014.913594

112.

Ostroff

(1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6), 963–974. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.6.963

113.

Owens

B. P.

Baker

W. E.

Sumpter

D. M.

Cameron

K. S.

(2016). Relational energy at work: Implications for job engagement and job performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 35–49. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/apl0000032

114.

Owens

B. P.

Johnson

M. D.

Mitchell

T. R.

(2013). Expressed humility in organizations: Implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organization Science, 24(5), 1517–1538. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0795

115.

Owens

B. P.

Rowatt

W. C.

Wilkins

A. L.

(2011). Exploring the relevance and implications of humility in organizations. Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship, 260–272.

116.

Paolacci

Chandler

(2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598

117.

Pathki

C. S.

Kluemper

D. H.

Meuser

J. D.

McLarty

B. D.

(2022). The org-B5: development of a short work frame-of-reference measure of the big five. Journal of Management, 48(5), 1299–1337. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211002627

118.

Pletzer

J. L.

Bentvelzen

Oostrom

J. K.

De Vries

R. E.

(2019). A meta-analysis of the relations between personality and workplace deviance: Big Five versus HEXACO. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.04.004

119.

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(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

120.

Prudenzi

D Graham

Flaxman

P. E.

O’Connor

D. B.

(2022). Wellbeing, burnout, and safe practice among healthcare professionals: predictive influences of mindfulness, values, and self-compassion. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 27(5), 1130–1143. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2021.1898651

121.

Prudenzi

Graham

C. D.

Clancy

Hill

O'Driscoll

Day

O'Connor

D. B.

(2021). Group-based acceptance and commitment therapy interventions for improving general distress and work-related distress in healthcare professionals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 295, 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.07.084

122.

Pyszkowska

(2020). Personality predictors of self-compassion, ego-resiliency and psychological flexibility in the context of quality of life. Personality and Individual Differences, 161, 109932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109932

123.

Reizer

(2019). Bringing self-kindness into the workplace: Exploring the mediating role of self-compassion in the associations between attachment and organizational outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1148. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01148

124.

Rockliff

Gilbert

McEwan

Lightman

Glover

(2008). A pilot exploration of heart rate variability and salivary cortisol responses to compassion-focused imagery. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 5, 132–139.

125.

Rynes

S. L.

Bartunek

J. M.

Dutton

J. E.

Margolis

J. D.

(2012). Care and compassion through an organizational lens: Opening up new possibilities. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 503–523. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0124

126.

Saucier

(2009). Recurrent personality dimensions in inclusive lexical studies: Indications for a Big Six structure. Journal of Personality, 77(5), 1577–1614. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00593.x

127.

Schabram

Heng

Y. T.

(2022). How other-and self-compassion reduce burnout through resource replenishment. Academy of Management Journal, 65(2), 453–478. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2019.0493

128.

Schmit

M. J.

Ryan

A. M.

Stierwalt

S. L.

Powell

A. B.

(1995). Frame-of-reference effects on personality scale scores and criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(5), 607–620. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.5.607

129.

Shaffer

J. A.

Postlethwaite

B. E.

(2012). A matter of context: A meta-analytic investigation of the relative validity of contextualized and noncontextualized personality measures. Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 445–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01250.x

130.

Shapiro

S. L.

Astin

J. A.

Bishop

S. R.

Cordova

(2005). Mindfulness-based stress reduction for health care professionals: Results from a randomized trial. International Journal of Stress Management, 12(2), 164–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.12.2.164

131.

Shapiro

S. L.

Brown

K. W.

Biegel

G. M.

(2007). Teaching self-care to caregivers: Effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction on the mental health of therapists in training. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 1(2), 105–115. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1931-3918.1.2.105

132.

Sheehan

K. B.

(2018). Crowdsourcing research: data collection with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 140–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1342043

133.

Shepherd

D. A.

Cardon

M. S.

(2009). Negative emotional reactions to project failure and the self-compassion to learn from the experience. Journal of Management Studies, 46(6), 923–949. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00821.x

134.

Soysa

C. K.

Wilcomb

C. J.

(2015). Mindfulness, self-compassion, self-efficacy, and gender as predictors of depression, anxiety, stress, and well-being. Mindfulness, 6(2), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-013-0247-1

135.

Taris

T. W.

Schreurs

P. J.

(2009). Well-being and organizational performance: An organizational-level test of the happy-productive worker hypothesis. Work & Stress, 23(2), 120–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370903072555

136.

Terry

M. L.

Leary

M. R.

(2011). Self-compassion, self-regulation, and health. Self and Identity, 10(3), 352–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2011.558404

137.

Thatcher

J. B.

Wright

R. T.

Sun

Zagenczyk

T. J.

Klein

(2018). Mindfulness in information technology use: Definitions, distinctions, and a new measure. MIS Quarterly, 42(3), 831–847. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2018/11881

138.

Thurackal

J. T.

Corveleyn

Dezutter

(2016). Personality and self-compassion: exploring their relationship in an Indian context. European Journal of Mental Health, 11(01-02), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.5708/EJMH.11.2016.1-2.2

139.

Vaillancourt

E. S.

Wasylkiw

(2020). The intermediary role of burnout in the relationship between self-compassion and job satisfaction among nurses. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 52(4), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0844562119846274

140.

Vaillant

G. E.

(1992). Ego mechanisms of defense: A guide for clinicians and researchers. American Psychiatric Association.

141.

Van der Meulen

R. T.

Valentin

Bogels

S. M.

de Bruin

E. I.

(2021). Mindfulness and self-compassion as mediators of the Mindful2Work Training on perceived stress and chronic fatigue. Mindfulness, 12(4), 936–946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01557-6

142.

Vera

Rodriguez-Lopez

(2004). Strategic virtues: humility as a source of competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33(4), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004.09.006

143.

Vettese

L. C.

Dyer

C. E.

W. L.

Wekerle

(2011). Does self-compassion mitigate the association between childhood maltreatment and later emotion regulation difficulties? A preliminary investigation. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 9(5), 480–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-011-9340-7

144.

Vohs

K. D.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2004). Understanding self-regulation. In Handbook of self-regulation (p. 19).

145.

Wallace

J. C.

Chen

(2005). Development and validation of a work-specific measure of cognitive failure: Implications for occupational safety. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(4), 615–632. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X37442

146.

Wang

Dunlop

P. D.

Parker

S. K.

Griffin

M. A.

Gachunga

(2022). The moderating role of honesty-humility in the association of agreeableness with interpersonal competency: a study of managers in two countries. Applied Psychology, 71(1), 219–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12318

147.

Welbourne

T. M.

Johnson

D. E.

Erez

(1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 540–555. https://doi.org/10.5465/256941

148.

Whetten

D. A.

(1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308371

149.

Woo Kyeong

(2013). Self-compassion as a moderator of the relationship between academic burn-out and psychological health in Korean cyber university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(8), 899–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.01.001

150.

Wren

A. A.

Somers

T. J.

Wright

M. A.

Goetz

M. C.

Leary

M. R.

Fras

A. M.

Huh

B. K.

Rogers

L. L.

Keefe

F. J.

(2012). Self-Compassion in patients with persistent musculoskeletal pain: Relationship of self-compassion to adjustment to persistent pain. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 43(4), 759–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.04.014

151.

Wright

J. C.

Mischel

(1987). A conditional approach to dispositional constructs: The local predictability of social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1159–1177. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1159

152.

Zhang

J. W.

Chen

Tomova Shakur

T. K.

(2020). From me to you: Self-compassion predicts acceptance of own and others’ imperfections. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(2), 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219853846