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

Abstract

Thriving at work is a psychological state in which employee experience both the sense of vitality and learning. Drawing on Self-Determination Theory, Job Demands and Resources model, and Socially Embedded Model of thriving, our study examines the direct influence of two behavioral antecedents (i.e. prosocial motivation and civility) on work engagement. Moreover, we also investigated the mediating mechanism of thriving at work in the relationship between workplace behavioral antecedents and work engagement. Data were collected in two-wave time lagged cross-sectional time horizon with a gap of two weeks from diverse sample. Using PROCESS macro by Hayes on actual sample of 239 employees from various job functions, strong empirical support is found for all the direct and indirect hypothesized relationships. The finding of the study contributes to the better understanding of the most emerging construct, namely, thriving at work. Theoretical and practical implications along with recommendations for further empirical research on thriving at work are also provided.

Keywords:

• prosocial motivation
• civility
• thriving at work
• work engagement

Public Interest Statement

Sustaining competitive advantage and achieving excellence in performance through thriving workforce and by adopting best practices are the common course of actions for organizations. A thriving workforce itself is a competitive advantage as it helps in avoiding negative individual outcomes like stress, depression, physical illnesses, absenteeism, and promotes positive organizational outcomes, i.e. better performance, greater job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Therefore, to identify the antecedents, consequences, and mechanism of thriving at work, we conducted a two-wave time lagged study. Our study contributes to the literature on thriving at work by explaining how and why individuals thrive at work.

1. Introduction

Sustaining competitive advantage and achieving excellence in performance through adopting best practices are the common course of actions for organizations. The service industries, in particular, face more challenges as compared to the manufacturing industries in sustaining their performance, therefore they require a workforce that thrives on an optimal level (Prem, Ohly, Kubiceki, & Korunka, 2017; Spreitzer & Porath, 2014). A thriving workforce itself is a competitive advantage as it helps in avoiding negative individual outcomes like stress, depression, physical illnesses (Gallup, 2013) and also promotes positive organizational outcomes, i.e. better performance, higher job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Gerbasi, Porath, Parker, Spreitzer, & Cross, 2015; Spreitzer & Porath, 2014). Thriving individuals are less likely to show absenteeism, stress, and burnout at job (Keyes, 2002). This is because thriving individuals are more energetic, physically and psychologically healthy which can ultimately reduce the costs that the organization would have to spend on providing medical care to employees (Spreitzer, Porath, & Gibson, 2012). Further, past studies on thriving at work demonstrated that thriving individuals are more prone towards creating resources as compared to depleting resources (Spreitzer et al., 2012). They strive more to achieve organizational objectives effectively and efficiently (Spreitzer & Porath, 2012). They continuously experience growth in their personalities which is portrayed through their zest for work (Miller & Stiver, 1997; Nix, Ryan, Manly, & Deci, 1999).

Thriving is defined as “psychological state in which individuals experience both a sense of vitality and a sense of learning at work” (Porath, Spreitzer, Gibson, & Garnett, 2012; Spreitzer, Sutcliffe, Dutton, Sonenshein, & Grant, 2005). It comprises both an affective (vitality) and a cognitive (learning) component (Niessen, Sonnentag, & Sach, 2012). Vitality is defined as feeling energetic in one’s work experiences (Nix et al., 1999), and learning that refers to the ability to acquire and apply new skills and knowledge (Edmondson, 1999). According to Spreitzer et al. (2005), a feeling of vitality and a sense of learning both are essential components of thriving. If one of them is missing, then thriving is not possible as when people have the energy to work, but do not have opportunities to learn their energy gets wasted. Likewise, when employees have the opportunities to learn new things, but they do not have enough energy to indulge into such opportunities, then they will not be able to thrive (Spreitzer et al., 2012). The concept of thriving at work has attained an excessive deal of attention in organizational studies and positive organizational scholarship (Paterson, Luthans, & Jeung, 2014; Spreitzer & Porath, 2012).

Employee health and safety has been one of the major concerns of organizations all over the globe. Owing to the increase in awareness of employee rights, organizations are giving more and more importance to healthy practices and factors that promote it (Mushtaq, Abid, Sarwar, & Ahmed, 2017). Thriving employees have stronger psychologically, more prone towards taking initiative and have a better life balance. For that reason, in this study, we are concerned for investigating factors that could encourage the employee thriving in the working environment. Therefore, in this study, we have empirically examined the role of the prosocial motivation in the transformation of individual psychological state i.e. thriving. Prosocial motivation is defined as “the desire to expend effort based on concern for helping or contributing to other people” (Grant, 2007). In the literature, the association between prosocial motivation and thriving was not examined. Therefore, this study has postulated that prosocial motivation is an important contributor of thriving at work which may increase the individual sense of vitality and learning ability.

Moreover, we assumed that civility is also an important factor and a major contributor of thriving at work. Civility is defined as “interpersonal behaviors that demonstrate mutual respect between individuals or groups” (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). To the best of our knowledge, the influence of civility on thriving at work was still unexplored. Therefore, in this study, we have empirically tested the relationship between civility and thriving at work. Furthermore, we also investigated that thrived individuals are more engaged with the organization. Though, there is an extant literature that has explored the mediating role of thriving at work (Abid et al., 2015; Paterson et al., 2014; Porath et al., 2012; Wallace, Butts, Johnson, Stevens, & Smith, 2016; Walumbwa, Muchiri, Misati, Wu, & Meiliani, 2017), but, the intervening role of thriving at work in the relationship of prosocial motivation and work engagement and also civility and work engagement association has been overlooked in the literature.

Therefore, the main goals of our study are (a) to examine the direct impact of prosocial motivation and civility on thriving at work and work engagement, (b) to explore the effect of thriving at work on work engagement, and (c) to explore indirect effect prosocial motivation and civility on work engagement through thriving at work. The present study contributes to literature on thriving at work through incorporating prosocial motivation and civility. This study has also contributed in the prosocial motivation and civility literature for explaining the mechanism of the impact of prosocial motivation and civility through introducing thriving at work.

2. Literature review and hypotheses development

2.1. Prosocial motivation and thriving at work

Prosocial motivation is defined as “the desire to help others” (Grant, 2007). Prosocial motivation has three significant characteristics, namely: self-regulation (autonomous vs. identified), goal directedeness (process vs. outcome), and temporal focus (present vs. future) (Gagne & Deci, 2005). According to the Self-Determination Theory, prosocial motivation can be established at various stages of autonomous regulation; the need to help others can be independently sustained by sense of recognition and value coherence or can be compelled by sense of stress, and responsibility or obligation (Gagne & Deci, 2005). Prosocial motivation comprises of freedom in self-regulation which means that employees are not only motivated to help others, but they also indulge in self-motivation to accomplish tasks (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The choice to consume energy is less autonomous as it establishes self-control to attain an objective (Gagne & Deci, 2005). Second, prosocial motivation varies in goal directedness as prosocially motivated workers believe that they have to achieve a target to give advantage to others (Grant, 2007). Third, the preceding difference recommends the prosocial motivation varies in terms of temporal focus as these individuals are future oriented and anxious about accomplishing their work (Batson, 1998).

Prosocial motivated employees influences a person to feel the need to benefit others by offering combined compensations (De Dreu, Weingart, & Kwon, 2000), by inspiring individuals to reveal about how their behaviors will help colleagues and why that matters (Arieli, Grant, & Sagiv, 2014) and by giving knowledge about how work will give advantage to the beneficiaries (Belle, 2013; Hu & Liden, 2015). Hence, when individuals behave prosocially as virtuous citizens, they are likely to experience positive moods, feeling of vitality, and create a quality relationship with other people. The overall heedful relating behavior (quality relationship) creates relational knowledge and positive affective resources that enable the employees to thrive at work (George & Bettenhausen, 1990). As individuals have high prosocial motivation, they share knowledge with each other and also become capable of applying this knowledge to execute work tasks as a result they thrive at workplace. This occurs because knowledge sharing with colleagues enhances their cognitive (learning) resources. Moreover, prosocially motivated individuals also experience the emotions of vitality by supporting others who need at hand (Ryan & Bernstein, 2004). On the basis of the above-mentioned information, we propose our first hypothesis as follows:

H₁:

Prosocial motivation is positively related to thriving at work.

2.2. Thriving and work engagement

Theoretical and empirical studies demonstrated the thriving through both its vitality and learning elements which brings many beneficial individual and job outcomes (Spreitzer & Sutciffe, 2007) i.e. job performance (Frazier & Tupper, 2016; Paterson et al., 2014; Porath et al., 2012; Shan, 2016; Spreitzer et al., 2005); general health; career development initiative (Porath et al., 2012); innovative work behavior (Carmeli & Spreitzer, 2009; Wallace et al., 2016); self-development (Paterson et al., 2014; Spreitzer & Sutciffe, 2007); constructive voice behavior (Carmeli & Spreitzer, 2009); positive heatlh (Christianson, Spreitzer, Sutcliffe, & Grant, 2005; Porath et al., 2012); carreer adaptability (Jiang, 2017); subjective well-being (Basinska, 2017); affective organizational commitment (Walumbwa et al., 2017); life satisfaction (Zhai, Wang, & Weadon, 2017); job satisfaction (Abid, Khan, & Hong, 2016); and social, community, and family relationship (Spreitzer et al., 2012). It also reduced the strain, burnout (Porath et al., 2012), and turnover intention (Abid, Zahra, & Ahmed, 2015). Individuals have cognitive (learning) and affective (vitality) resources when they thrive in the workplace, in turn, their engagement towards work will enhance. Therefore, we have included work engagement as an outcome of thriving at work in this study.

Work engagement has gained more intention in the fields of organizational behavior, and positive organizational scholarship (Macey, Schneider, Barbera, & Young, 2009). “It is referred to as a positive work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). Vigor “is characterized by being energetic, resilient, and persistent in the face of workplace difficulties”. Dedication “is having inspiration, pride, enthusiasm, and the will to overcome challenges at work”. Absorption means “being content, and concentrating on work to such an extent that employee feels trouble while detaching from work”. Geldenhuys, Laba, and Venter (2014) explained that vigor, dedication, and absorption are three components of work engagement which represent the physical, emotional, and cognitive aspects.

Thriving share a theoretical similarity to work engagement (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008) as both concepts consider vigor (termed vitality or vigor, correspondingly) as an essential element in work life (Spreitzer, Lam, & Fritz, 2010). Alternately, the difference between the two concepts is on the basis of creation and utilization of resources. Work engagement determines the level to which employees are keen to utilize their personal resources at work (Kahn, 1990), while thriving identifies the degree to which individuals feel that their work gives them personal growth that is contingent upon creation of resources.

Ryan and Bernstein (2004) believed that the vitality is depicted through mental and physical sensation that forces a person to live with vigor and purpose. It comprises of advancing life with enthusiasm, strength, zest, zeal, and energy. Vital people do not work halfheartedly and are persistent as well as work energetically towards achieving their aim. On the other hand, learning employees are those who acquire knowledge and apply it to situations with confidence, thereby making themselves more and more capable to perform job (Carver, 1998). The Job Demands and Resources (JD-R) model explains that by providing an atmosphere of knowledge and learning, it is possible to keep employees engaged (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). Thriving employee feels energy while in taking challenging tasks (Carver, 1998). Accordingly, such employees utilize their large pool of enduring resources to safely anticipate consequences (Halbesleben, Harvey, & Bolino, 2009) and to keep themselves away from being anxious, stressed, and pressured due to challenging conditions (Hakanen, Perhoniemi, & Toppinen-Tanner, 2008). Prosocial behavior is expected to generate a helpful social environment that promotes cooperation and information sharing (Schaufeli, 2012). Employees learn new skills and knowledge during information sharing because it cannot happen in isolation (Spreitzer et al., 2005). Thus, on the basis of the above arguments, our second hypothesis is:

H₂:

Thriving at work is positively associated to work engagement.

2.3. Prosocial motivation and work engagement

Prosocial motivation has gained momentum in the fields of organizational behavior, positive organizational studies, and applied psychology (Grant & Berg, 2010) due to its beneficial outcomes for an organization (Grant & Berg, 2010; Grant & Sumanth, 2009). For example, prosocial motivation enhances work effort, performance, persistence (Grant, 2007), productivity, and in-role or extra-role activities (Grant et al., 2007). Prosocial attitude is an extra-role behavior that gives advantage to employees by helping in the team tasks (Anderson & Williams, 1996). Prosocially motivated employees pursue to have an encouraging influence on their colleagues (Grant, 2007). They indulge in being creative at work and also continually look for ways to help others (Rioux & Penner, 2001). Prosocially motivated employees are prone to take initiative (De Dreu et al., 2009), perform better, complete task persistently (Grant, 2008), and achieve excellence in the meeting their basic objectives while helping their colleagues in the process as well (Grant, 2007; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

JD-R model (Demerouti et al., 2001) also explains work engagement (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011) by explaining that job resources are the characteristics of work that are useful in attaining task objectives and in motivating individual development. It is important to note that job resources promote work engagement, which help employees in achieving their goals and objectives (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Previous studies on work engagement showed a positive association among different job resources (such as, prosocially motivated learning environment, job freedom, skill variety, job control, task identity, and supervisor support) and work engagement (Bakker et al., 2011; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Van Rhenen, 2009). Based on the above discussion, therefore, in this study, we have proposed that:

H₃:

Prosocial motivation is positively related to work engagement.

2.4. Thriving as a mediator between civility and work engagement

Based on the hypothetical model, we have implicit that thriving mediates the relationship between prosocial motivation and work engagement. Prosocially motivated individuals could also share cognitive (learning) and affective (vitality) resources to their co-workers which could also benefit them (Hobfoll, 2002). Thriving employees exert greater levels of energy and actively engaged in their tasks and work (Eldor & Vigoda- Gadot, 2016; Vigoda-Gadot, Eldor, & Schohat, 2013). So, we posit that:

H₄:

Thriving at work mediates the relationship between prosocial motivation and work engagement.

2.5. Civility and thriving at work

Civility is one of the main concerns of outcome-oriented organizations in these days (Brown, 2012). Civility is referred to “as the following of shared norms of politeness, courtesy and respect at workplace” (Ferriss, 2002; Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000). It refers to both formal and informal social relationships (Alderfer, 1972) and also includes consciously motivated organizational behavior (Peck, 1993). One approach to demonstrate the civility vs. incivility is through a spectrum of positive to negative deviance. Civility is on the positive end of the continuum representing concepts like being polite or considerate, respectful behavior, pleasurable and encouraging positive connections, and respecting emotions. In comparison to civility, incivility is at the negative end of the continuum (Porath, 2011). Theoretically, there are possible to be significant differences between behaving without respect, i.e. behaving with disregard (incivility), behaving courteously, and with concern for others norms of courtesy or respect (civil behavior) (Osatuke, Moore, Ward, Dyrenforth, & Belton, 2009). Civility is not only the nonappearance of mistreatment, but it includes being politically polite (Boyd, 2006; Walsh et al., 2012).

Thriving occurs when individuals experience growth, development, and energy in their work routine (Carmeli & Spreitzer, 2009). Socially embedded model of thriving (Spreitzer et al., 2005) highlights the significance of relative, and contextual aspects of work structure (for instance, climate of respect) that are formed in work procedures which encourage practices of vigor, vitality, and learning (Niessen et al., 2012; Paterson et al., 2014). Individuals are influenced by the environment in which they worked (Spreitzer et al., 2005). Civility creates positive emotions for oneself and with others. Individuals are considered themselves as admirable members of the organization when they face civil behavior. (Pearson & Porath, 2009). Organization norms of joint courteous behavior, respect, and civility develop learning environment that inspires individuals to share knowledge and support each other (Carmeli & Tischler, 2004). When employees feel civilized, they feel honored and are more likely to trust each other (Edmondson, 1999). This trust can increase feelings of competence and efficacy at work (Spreitzer, 1995). As a result of it, they feel vital. Consequently, civility enables thriving at work (Porath, Spreitzer, & Gibson, 2008) because individuals fail to thrive in the presence of incivility (Spreitzer & Porath, 2012). Incivility limits the work improvement and employee development while civility makes them lively, energetic, and gives them encouragement (Porath & Gerbasi, 2015). Hence, we suggest the following hypothesis:

H₃:

Civility is positively related to thriving at work.

2.6. Civility and work engagement

Civility was referred to as the interpersonal behavior that demonstrated respect and love for others (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). This concept was elaborated over the years to include being social and respected by others, a view that has extended to organizations now in the fields of organizational studies, applied psychology, and industrial organizational psychology areas (Osatuke et al., 2009) because it is considered as the antidote for various negative workplace behaviors (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Pearson et al., 2000). Civil organizational environment has been related to: positive employee and workplace outcomes involving greater levels of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and management trust (Leiter, Day, Gilin-Oore, & Laschinger, 2012); performance and organization citizenship behavior (Porath et al., 2008); also with less turnover, absenteeism, anxiety, and stress (Leiter et al., 2012); and counterproductive work behavior (Porath et al., 2008). Civility creates the foundation for positive encouragement, vitalizing associations, and increased organizational performance (Meyer, 2006).

Crawford, LePine, and Rich (2010) in their positive affect approach emphasized that an engaged individual face challenging stressors with positivity, encouragement, and motivation in the civil environment. Empirical evidence on engagement shows that it has a positive association with job responsibilities, and workload cognitive demands. In the respectful or civil working environment, engaged individuals react to challenging tasks with greater levels of vigor, energy, commitment, and dedication and generate respectful or civil working atmosphere (Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2007; Hakanen, Bakker, & Demerouti, 2005; Van den Broeck, De Cuyper, De Witte, & Vansteenkiste, 2010). While individuals facing civil or fair workplace rules, policies, and procedures, they recognize the organization as honest, responsible, and trustworthy and as a result, they respond positively to the organization (Agarwal, 2014) which leads to a higher level of work engagement. Trust in organizations is a significant driver of work engagement. As individuals give their strength, energy, time, and talent, they need to be assured that they are spending their efforts in the benefit of their organization (Macey et al., 2009). Civility in the organization has a strong influence on work engagement such that when innovative leaders show the greater level of work engagement, the sub-ordinates are 55% more likely to get engaged too (Porath & Gerbasi, 2015). On the basis of above literature, we propose our next hypothesis as:

H₆:

Civility is positively related to work engagement.

2.7. Thriving as a mediator between civility and work engagement

Civility, which is one of the main elements of the workplace environment, significantly impacts workplace outcomes (Osatuke et al., 2009). It is described in various perspectives, but nearly all descriptions agree that this concept is explained through courtesy, politeness, respect, and an overall responsiveness for the rights of others (Carver, 1998; Elias, 1982). When employees are civil, they feel much more hopeful and respected within the organization as a result of which they create an energetic work environment (Pearson & Porath, 2009). Civility is the honest, trustworthy, polite, prosocial, careful behavior at workplace that includes social style arrangements in relation with one’s engagement with others (Di Fabio et al., 2016; Rehfuss & Di Fabio, 2012). Civility creates quality relationship among people (Dutton, 2003) as a result of it, vitality and learning opportunities are created (Carmeli & Spreitzer, 2009). Individuals energetically share their skills and knowledge (Eldor & Harpaz, 2016; Parker & Griffin, 2011), when they have good connection with other because employees cannot learn in the isolation (Spreitzer et al., 2005). Griffin, Neal, and Parker (2007) explained that thriving individuals utilize extra strength (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Hornung & Rousseau, 2007) which in turn encourages the employee work engagement. Therefore, we propose that:

H₇:

Thriving mediates the relationship between civility and work engagement.

3. Methods

3.1. Sample and procedure

The current study has collected the data from the service sector (specifically banks and educational institutions) of Lahore through a self-administered questionnaire by using the non-probability convenience sampling technique. From the educational institutes, targeted respondents were lecturers and assistant professors, while from the banks, targeted respondents were those employees who were at managerial posts. Based on two-wave time lagged cross-sectional time horizon, 400 survey questionnaires were distributed among various educational institutions and banks for the removal of common method biases. At Time 1, data were collected for demographic variables (age, gender, education, and tenure) and study variables (civility and prosocial motivation). On the other hand, after the three weeks of T1 data collection, the data of thriving and work engagement were collected at T2. The actual response for this study was 239 (60% response rate) after the collection of data at two different time points which was beyond average and appropriate in organizational studies (Baruch & Holtom, 2008; Bordia, Restubog, Jimmieson, & Irmer, 2011).

Among 239 employees, 124 (51.9%) were male and 115 (48.1%) were female. The average age of employees was 32.2 (SD = 7.63), 97 (42%) employees were single, 141 (59%) were married. Majority of employees i.e. 137 (57.3%) has an equivalent master’s degree. Average tenure of employees was 6.77 years. 46 (19.2%) employees were designated at lecturer position, while 12 (2.5%) were assistant professor. About 11(4.6%) were operation managers, 10 (4.2%) were relationship manager, and 9 (3.8%) were branch managers.

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Civility

Civility was measured by the 4-item scale developed by Porath and Erez (2009). Items were scored on 5-point Likert scale ranging from (strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5). A sample items from the scale is “Does this person treat you with respect” and “Does this person treat you with dignity?”. The reliability of scale was 0.84.

3.2.2. Prosocial motivation

Prosocial motivation was measured by the 5-item scale of Grant and Sumanth (2009). Items were anchored on 5-point Likert scale ranging from (strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5). A sample item from the scale “I get energized by working on tasks that have potential to benefit others”. The reliability of scale was 0.86.

3.2.3. Thriving at work

To measure thriving at work, 10-item scale of Porath et al. (2012) was used. This scale includes five items for learning and five items for vitality. Items were scored on 5-point Likert scale ranging from (strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5). A sample item for learning is “I continue to learn more and more as time goes by” and for vitality “I feel alive and vital”. The reliability of scale was 0.70.

3.2.4. Work engagement

Work engagement was measured by the scale of Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, and Bakker (2002). It consists of six items of vigor, five items for dedication, and six items of absorption, but in this study, work engagement had taken as composite variable. Employees indicated the extent of agreement with each the item of work engagement on 5-point Likert scale ranging from (strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5). A sample item of scale includes “At work, I feel full of energy”. The reliability of scale was 0.85.

3.3. Control variables

Demographic information was collected along with the data on study variables in this study. However, these variables were not assimilated in the conceptual framework, but these were taken as control variables as they could have confounded the results. For example, age affects vitality of employees because older people feel more exhausted at the workplace than younger ones (Uchino, Berg, Smith, Pearce, & Skinner, 2006). The study of Kanfer and Ackerman (2004) has also shown that increase in age reduces the capacity to learn. Similarly, Purvanova and Muros (2010) in their meta-analysis explain that women tend to feel more fatigued than men. Likewise, employees who have worked for an extended period of time at a workplace are less likely to feel thriving than those who freshly join the organization. Hence, due to the effects that demographic variables have on thriving, we have taken age, gender, education, and tenure as controls.

3.4. Data analysis approcah

First, the mean, standard deviation, reliability, correlation were examained by using SPSS 24. Second, multiple fit indices of factor model were evaluated by utilizing the AMOSS 24 before hypotheses testing. Third, PROCESS macros (Hayes & Preacher, 2013) was used to test the hypotheses. Two mediation models were performed because there are two independent variables in hypothetical model (Figure 1). The first simple mediation model has tested the hypotheses (H1–H4) and second mediation model has tested (H5–H7).

Figure 1. Theoretical Model.

4. Findings

4.1. Descriptive analysis

Table 1 showed a mean, standard deviation, and bivariate correlations of study variables (prosocial motivation, civility, thriving, and work engagement) as well as the control variables (age, education, and tenure). Reliabilities of scales ranged from 0.70 to 0.86. Consistent with our hypothesized relationships, the results indicate that prosocial motivation is positively and significantly related to thriving (r = 0.543, p < .01), and work engagement (r = 0.586, p < .01). Civility is positively and significantly related to thriving (r = 0.497, p < .01), and work engagement (r = 0.607, p < .01). The results also show that thriving is positively related to work engagement (r = 0.619, p < .01). This correlation analysis provides the preliminary support to our hypothesized relationships.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics, correlation, and reliabilities of study variables

Correlation
Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1.Age	32.2	7.63	-
2. Education	16.2	1.55	0.217**	-
3. Tenure	6.77	6.33	0.863**	0.213**	-
4.Thriving	3.77	0.49	0.141*	0.031	0.098	(0.70)
5.Prosocial Motivation	3.99	0.66	0.165*	0.172**	0.124	0.543**	(0.86)
6.Civility	3.95	0.69	0.156*	−0.025	0.137*	0.497**	0.464**	(0.84)
7. Work Engagement	3.87	0.49	0.136*	0.09	0.147*	0.619**	0.586**	0.607**	(0.85)

N = 239. Relabilities are on the diagonal in parentheses

* Symbolizes (0.05) significance level; ** Symbolize (0.01) significance level.

Table 2 showed that measurement model (four-factor model) has plausibly good fit indices as compared to alternative models i.e. χ²/(df) = 1.97, IFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.06, RMR = 0.04; all of these indices surpass the satisfactory limit of Hu & Bentler (1999).

Table 2. Fit statistics from measurement model comparison

Models	χ^2	df	χ^2/df	IFI	CFI	SRMR	RMSEA
Measurement Model	390.73	198	1.97	0.9	0.9	0.04	0.06
Model A^a	687.72	206	3.33	0.75	0.76	0.06	0.09
Model B^b	703.86	208	3.38	0.75	0.76	0.06	0.1
Model C^c	760.41	209	3.63	0.74	0.73	0.06	0.1

Notes: n = 239, All models are compared with the measurement model.

^aProsocial motivation and civility combined into one factor.

^bPositive energy and flourishing combined into one factor, prosocial motivation and well-being combined into other factor.

^cAll constructs combined into one factor.

χ2 = chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; IFI = Incremental fit index; CFI = Comparative fit index; RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; RMR = Root mean square residual.

4.2. Hypotheses testing

To test the study hypotheses, we have used Andrew F. Hayes’ PROCESS Macro model 4 (Hayes & Preacher, 2013). The results of hypotheses testing were presented in Tables 3 and 4. The findings of SPSS PROCESS macro showed that prosocial motivation significantly impact thriving at work (β = 0.41, t = 9.96, p < 0.001), thus H₁ is supported (a path in Figure 2). Thriving at work has a positive and significant influence on work engagement (β = 0.42, t = 7.75, p < 0.001) when controlling for prosocial motivation (b path in Figure 2). Prosocial motivation has a positive and significant effect on work engagement (β = 0.26, t = 6.28, p < 0.001) while controlling for thriving (cʹpath in Figure 2), these outcomes were favored H2 and H4. Findings also indicated that the total effect of prosocial motivation on work engagement was positive and significant (β = 0.44, t = 11.12, p < 0.001), thus H3 was supported (c path in Figure 2).

Table 3. Results of simple mediation model

Variables	Β	SE	T	p
Direct and total effects
Work engagement regressed on prosocial motivation	0.44	0.04	11.12	0.00
Thriving regressed on prosocial motivation	0.41	0.04	9.96	0.00
Work engagement regressed on thriving, controlling for prosocial motivation	0.42	0.06	7.75	0.00
Work engagement regressed on prosocial motivation, controlling for thriving	0.26	0.04	6.28	0.00

Table

	Value	SE	LL 90% CI	UL 90% CI	z	P
Indirect effect and significance using the normal distribution
Sobel	0.17	0.03	0.13	0.23	6.01	0.00
	M	SE	LL 90% CI	UL 90% CI
Bootstrap results for indirect effect
Effect	0.17	0.03	0.13	0.23

Note: N = 239. β = Unstandardized Regression Coefficient; SE = Standard Error; Bootstrap Sample Size = 1000; LL = Lower Limit; CI = Confidence Interval; UL = Upper Limit, 1,000 Bootstrapping

Table 4. Results of simple mediation model

Variables	Β	SE	t	p
Direct and total effects
Work engagement regressed on civility	0.43	0.05	8.82	0.00
Thriving regressed on civility	0.36	0.04	7.96	0.00
Work engagement regressed on thriving, controlling for civility	0.42	0.06	11.75	0.00
Work engagement regressed on civility, controlling for thriving	0.28	0.04	7.50	0.00

Table

	Value	SE	LL 90% CI	UL 90% CI	z	P
Indirect effect and significance using the normal distribution
Sobel	0.15	0.03	0.11	0.19	5.89	0.00
	M	SE	LL 90% CI	UL 90% CI
Bootstrap results for indirect effect
Effect	0.15	0.03	0.11	0.19

Note: N = 239. β = Unstandardized Regression Coefficient; SE = Standard Error; Bootstrap Sample Size = 1000; LL = Lower Limit; CI = Confidence Interval; UL = Upper Limit, 1,000 Bootstrapping

Figure 2. Indirect effect of prosocial motivation on work engagement through thriving at work.

Results of simple mediation model suggested that prosocial motivation has an indirect effect on work engagement via thriving at work. This indirect effect was positive (β = 0.17) and formal two-tailed significance of normal distribution (Sobel test) indicated that indirect effect was significant (Sobel z = 6.01, p < 0.001). The bootstrapping results consistent with Sobel test, as 90% CI (0.13, 0.23) around indirect effect (ab) have a non-zero point. Therefore, H4 was supported.

Further, results suggested that civility is positively impact thriving at work (β = 0.36, t = 7.96, p < 0.001). Hence, H5 is supported (a path in Figure 3). Thriving at work positively impact work engagement (β = 0.42, t = 11.75, p < 0.001) when controlling for civility (b path in Figure 3). Civility has a positive and significant effect on work engagement (β = 0.28, t = 7.50, p < 0.001) while controlling for thriving (cʹpath in Figure 3). In line with H6, results showed that total effect of civility on work engagement (c path in Figure 3) was positive and significant (β = 0.43, t = 8.82, p < 0.001). Finally, favoring our H7, results showed that indirect relationship between civility and work engagement was positive (β = 0.15) and significant (Sobel z = 5.89, p < 0.001). The bootstrapped results confirmed Sobel test because 90% CI (0.11, 0.19) around indirect effect (ab) did not contain zero. So, H7 was supported.

Figure 3. Indirect effect of civility on work engagement through thriving at work.

5. Discussions and conclusions

The current study contributes to the existing body of literature by empirically examining the antecedents and outcomes of thriving at work. Specifically, this study is a unique attempt to examine prosocial motivation, civility at work as antecedents of thriving, and work engagement as its outcome in the South Asian context. The present study is pivotal in the light of the fact that it is the first study which investigates the direct impact of prosocial motivation and civility on thriving at work and work engagement and also examines the mediating role of thriving at work between prosocial motivation and work engagement and also between civility and work engagement in the service sector (i.e. banks and educational institutions) of Lahore, Pakistan. All empirical results of this study are highly in the favor of our hypothesized model. There are seven main results of the current study which are discussed below: First, research findings demonstrated that prosocial motivation is positively and significantly related to thriving at work. Prosocial motivation plays a major role in helping others, accomplishment of employee’s goal and objectives, job duties and responsibilities of work. Prosocial motivation serves as a motivational force behind employee extra-role behaviors and it gives advantage to employees by facilitating in the team tasks (Anderson & Williams, 1996; Frazier & Tupper, 2016) and to organization in effective functioning. Prosocially motivated employees achieve excellence and help their colleagues in the process (Grant, 2007; Ryan & Deci, 2000) while experiencing continuous learning and vitality (i.e. thriving at work). Such individuals collaborate with others to develop a sense of forward momentum at the workplace through helping or benefiting others (Spreitzer et al., 2005). As a result, thriving individuals exert more energy, effort, and develop at the workplace through constantly refining their skills in order to perform better and sustain that performance and stay active and vital at work. It allows individuals to develop understanding in order to progress at their work (Wallace et al., 2016) and indulge in behaviors that are complementary for a job (Carmeli & Spreitzer, 2009).

Second, the study findings revealed that thriving at work is positively associated with work engagement. The more the employees invest their energies and efforts in gaining skills and knowledge (i.e. thriving), the more they are engaged with their work. This result empirically supports that thriving is vital concept that envisages employee work outcome such as work engagement.

Third, our study results confirmed that prosocial motivation and work engagement are positively related. Helping attitude is probable to create supportive social atmosphere that encourages prosocial behaviors like support, information sharing, or helping others. In line with the findings of previous studies, this study empirically confirmed that individual’s feel more motivated and encouraged while organizations create healthy, civil, supportive, helping environment that enable employee engagement in work as described by many researchers (Eldor, 2016; Grant & Berry, 2011; Schaufeli, 2012).

Fourth, we found that thriving at work mediates the relationship between prosocial motivation and work engagement. Individuals who optimally thrive get involved in prosocial (helping) behaviors at workplace. They take challenges and enthusiastically accomplish their goals through sharing knowledge and learning and consciously solve problems with motivating others. As individuals thrive at workplace, their high vigor and increased knowledge enable them to be engaged and perform their work tasks effectively. This finding is in line with the notion of many researchers (Eldor, 2017; Frazier & Tupper, 2016; Shao, Cardona, Ng, & Trau, 2017).

Fifth, our results demonstrated that civility is positively related to thriving at work. In today’s growing world, the respectful work environment is the dynamic or important element for organizational success. Basically, the civil and respectful work environment is a key for the development and survival of organizations. Civility at work spurs energy that employees get from their supervisors/managers and increases motivation and enthusiasm and also individuals more easily learn and apply new skills and knowledge. In addition, these findings empirically revealed that individuals feel more sense of vitality and learning when they face respectful behavior at work as described by different authors (Leiter, Laschinger, Day, & Oore, 2011; Porath, 2011; Reio & Ghosh, 2009).

Lastly, our study finds that thriving mediates the relationship between civility and work engagement. Civility creates positive moods and feelings in self and in relation with other individuals. Within civil work environment, employees feel respected which produces energetic work environment that promotes employee thriving (Pearson & Porath, 2009). When employees thrive at work, they develop more interest in their job activities and become more engaged in their activities.

6. Theoretical contributions

The current study essentially added to the literature on thriving at work in various ways. First, the present study contributes to the existing body of literature by empirically investigating the antecedents and outcomes of thriving at work. Previous studies have focused on the consequences and behavioral aspects of thriving at work (Carmeli & Spreitzer, 2009; Paterson et al., 2014; Abid et al., 2015). Spreitzer and her colleagues (Spreitzer et al., 2005) recommended to explore the contextual and personal characteristics that may facilitate thriving at work in order to enhance comprehension of factors that promote it. By following this call, this study examined the prosocial motivation and civility as contributors of thriving at work and work engagement as its outcome. The study findings provides the empirical support to the view that prosocial and civil work environment spur energy the employees get from their supervisors/managers and increases motivation and enthusiasm and also individuals more easily learn and apply new skills and knowledge.

Second, by empirically validating the positive association between thriving at work and work engagement, it provided the evidences on beneficial outcomes of thriving at workplace as recommended by various scholars (Eldor, 2017; Eldor & Harpaz, 2016; Porath et al., 2012; Prem et al., 2017). The individuals thrive when they feel active and motivated (vitality) and when they constantly refine their skills in order to perform better (learning). It allows employees to be more engaged in their work duties (Wallace et al., 2016). Third, recent study has explored the mediating mechanism of thriving between prosocial motivation and work engagement and between civility and work engagement to explain how and why individual thrive at workplace.

Fourth, the associations between prosocial motivation and work engagement as well as between civility and work engagement are empirically tested and confirmed in the organizational context. The greater employees are involved in prosocial activities, the higher their work engagement is, as recommended by Eldor (2016), Grant and Berry (2011), and Shaufeli (2012). Moreover, civil behavior that employees received from their colleagues and boss motivates them to be fully engaged in their job duties which are in line with the findings of Agarwal (2014), Eldor (2017), and Porath and Gerbasi (2015).

6.1. Practical contributions

This study provides important implications for managers and practitioners. The current study observed that prosocial motivation and civility are important predictors of thriving at work and work engagement. Both the prosocial motivation and civility has a positive and significant effect on individual thriving in the service sector (banks and educational institutions). In today’s growing world, the work environment is dynamic and working societies are rapidly developing and have heightened awareness about work-related rights and issues. This study recommends that the managers of service sector can increase thriving and work engagement of its workforce by enhancing helping ability of its employees and by promoting the civil behavior in the organization. In prosocially motivated and civil or respectful working organizations, employees feel more energetic and highly motivated to acquire and learn new skills and knowledge. They have great potential, enthusiasm, steadiness, and desire to get fully engaged and dedicated in performing their duties and in achieving challenging goals and objectives. This research can provide significant implication for Human Resource Development (HRD) practitioners and human resource managers in designing recruitment and selection procedures. The managers should employ such personnel who have respectful and civil behavior and possess the desire to extend their efforts for benefiting co-workers.

Furthermore, this study implies that when employees work in civilized and prosocial (helping) environment, they feel energized and their cognitive abilities broadened which may enhance their vitality and learning (i.e. thriving) and they have enhanced engagement in their job obligations and duties. Basically, organizations need to promote thriving at work through producing productive environment for helping work behavior and civil behavior. The management can promote civil environment by proper coaching, conflict resolution training of employees for uncivilized behaviors while prosocial motivation can be promoted among employees by their mentoring and socialization.

Moreover, the positive atmosphere for the employees’ thriving at work results in beneficial outcomes (Paterson et al., 2014; Porath et al., 2012). Organizations need to evaluate the employees thriving, their prosocial or helping abilities and their enthusiasm, vigor and dedication to work, and their respect towards their fellows and try to improve organizational resources to encourage it (Porath et al., 2012). To benefit from thriving employees, supervisors should invent ways to develop it. These interventions could focus on enhancing thriving by assessment, decision-making choice, wide-ranging information or knowledge sharing, and response to an environment of civility (Porath et al., 2008). Organizational norms and values of shared respect and civility develop a workplace learning environment that influences individuals to provide knowledge and jointly support each other’s skilled and personal growth (Carmeli & Tischler, 2004).

This research also gives multiple visions for HRD professionals and practitioners. HRD professionals and managers should create universal civil and ethical training programs and train their employees on how to treat with disrespectful behaviors in the organizational surroundings (Porath, 2011). They should also create learning climate for employees because learning environment can encourage employees to thrive at work. Managers should inspire employees to learn, work together with greater levels of collaboration through knowledge transferring, and be engaged in developing an organizational image. Employees could thereby be enabled and motivated to attain higher levels of engagement and thriving.

7. Limitations and future directions

This study is not free from limitation. First, in this study, the primary data were collected through self-administered survey questionnaires from a single source (i.e. employees) which may give rise to common method variance and the study relationships may be spurious ones (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Podsakoff, Mackenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). Although, we used time-lagged technique for the data collection in order to remove this problem, the future researchers may use alternative sources for data collection. Second, in the current research, we examined the effect of prosocial motivation and civility on work engagement with the mediating impact of thriving at work by using the cross-sectional study design. This type of study design cannot determine causation among study variables. Thus, future studies may attempt to explore the causality between study variables by utilizing longitudinal study design.

Third, in this current study, we have collected data from the service sector, including banking companies and educational institutions of Lahore city (Pakistan) through non-probability sampling. Therefore, these findings might not be representative of the employees working in different cities and sectors of Pakistan. In order to generalize our findings, future studies can collect data through probability sampling technique and from other sectors and cities of Pakistan.

Fourth, this is the first study that examines the influence of prosocial motivation and civility on work engagement through thriving at work. This study is mainly conducted in particular cultural and organizational work setting of Pakistan. Future research can authenticate the recent study results in other developed countries. Pakistani culture and working procedures are far different from other developing regional cultures, such as from European and American cultural context (Malik, Butt, & Choi, 2015).

Fifth, we examined thriving at work as a single mediator between behavioral antecedents and work engagement. There is the possibility for future studies to investigate the underlying mediating mechanism with few additional mediators, for instance, resilience, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, organizational identification, emotional intelligence, or other individual-level variables (Bimrose & Hearne, 2012; Jiang, 2016). Sixth, this study focused thriving at individual level. The individual thriving at work becomes shared and changed into collective thriving at work by “Schema Collectivization” (McKinley, Zhao, & Rust, 2000). Future studies can try to explore thriving of employees at group, organizational, and departmental levels (Spreitzer et al., 2005). It is also possible that group-level thriving is higher as compared to shared division of individuals.

8. Conclusion

The current study contributes to the employee thriving literature by empirically investigating its antecedents and outcomes in banks and educational institutions of Pakistan. The empirical findings confirmed the significant and positive association between hypothesized relationships. The study also revealed that thriving at work intervenes between prosocial motivation and work engagement relationship as well as between civility and work engagement. This research specifies that workplace civility and employees prosocial (helping) ability play a significant role in influencing thriving at work and their engagement towards work. Therefore, the organizations should emphasis on creating a civil and respectful environment as well as on developing prosocial motivation among employees to promote individual thriving and engagement with the work in today’s contemporary challenging times.

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no direct funding for this research.

Notes on contributors

Ghulam Abid

Ghulam Abid is an Assistant Professor of Management in School of Business Administration at National College of Business Administration & Economics (NCBA&E), Lahore, Pakistan. His research focuses on employee thriving and positive organizational scholarship. His most recent research is on examining how organizations can create a more positive environment where individuals can thrive, and how organizations benefit in terms of positive behavioral outcomes. He received his PhD degree from the NCBA&E.

Iqra Sajjad

Iqra Sajjad received her MPhil from NCBA&E and is currently involved in research revolving around work engagement.

Natasha Saman Elahi

Natasha Saman Elahi received her MPhil from NCBA&E and is currently involved in research circling around compassion at work.

Asma Nisar

Saira Farooqi is a doctoral candidate at the NCBA&E and serving as Head of the Department at Kinnaird College for Women, Pakistan. Her research is in the realm of performance management and ethics.

Asma Nisar is a doctoral candidate at the NCBA&E and serving as lecturer at Kinnaird College. She is particularly interested in researching voice behavior.