THE GRATEFUL WORKPLACE: A MULTILEVEL MODEL OF GRATITUDE … et al_2017... · THE GRATEFUL WORKPLACE: A MULTILEVEL MODEL OF GRATITUDE IN ORGANIZATIONS RYAN FEHR University of Washington,

Q Academy of Management Review2017, Vol. 42, No. 2, 361–381.https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0374

THE GRATEFUL WORKPLACE: A MULTILEVEL MODEL OFGRATITUDE IN ORGANIZATIONS

RYAN FEHRUniversity of Washington, Seattle

ASHLEY FULMERNational University of Singapore

ELI AWTREYJARED A. MILLER

University of Washington, Seattle

Gratitude is a valuable emotion with an array of functional outcomes. Nonetheless,research on gratitude in organizations is limited. In this article we develop a multi-level model of gratitude composed of episodic gratitude at the event level, persistentgratitude at the individual level, and collective gratitude at the organizational level.We then consider the types of human resource initiatives that organizations candevelop to cultivate employee gratitude and the contingencies of gratitude’s emer-gence at the individual and organizational levels of analysis. Finally, we elucidatethe benefits of gratitude for organizations and their employees. The result is a deeperunderstanding of how gratitude unfolds in organizations and the role that organi-zations themselves can play in influencing emotions at multiple levels in theworkplace.

Organizations are often criticized as environ-ments that cultivate egocentrism and selfish-ness (Mueller, 2012; Vogel, 2006). Media reportson corporate greed and financial scandal seemto reinforce this critique, with many observerslamenting employees’ growing sense of entitle-ment (Twenge & Campbell, 2010). Organizationsconsequently suffer from a range of troubles, in-cluding increased conflict, incivility, deviance,and turnover (Fisk, 2010; Harvey&Martinko, 2009).At the same time there is evidence of an alterna-tive. Some organizations cultivate appreciationand thankfulness, thus promoting high-qualityrelationships and prosocial behavior (Cameron &Spreitzer, 2012). In these organizations gratitudecan play a critical role.

A growing body of work in the social scienceshas shown that gratitude improves life satis-faction (McCullough, Emmons, & Tsang, 2002),reduces aggression (DeWall, Lambert, Pond,Kashdan, & Fincham, 2012), and motivates

prosocial behavior (Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006;Tsang, 2006). However, in only a handful of stud-ies have scholars examined its role in organi-zations (Grant & Wrzesniewski, 2010; Kaplanet al., 2014; Waters, 2012). Even in domainswhere gratitude would seem to play a centralrole (e.g., servant leadership, organizational cit-izenship, and customer service), it is scarcelymentioned.An understanding of gratitude in organiza-

tions requires explicit attention to how the or-ganizational context shapes the emergence andfunctions of gratitude itself. Organizations arenot simply extensions of everyday social interac-tions. Rather, the organizational context intro-duces a unique set of constraints and affordancesthat influence how individual employees feel,think, and act on a daily basis. As noted byHouse,Rousseau, and Thomas-Hunt, “Until generalpsychological theories are linked to organiza-tional contextual variables they will remaininadequate to explain what goes on in organi-zations” (1995: 77; see also Gelfand, Leslie, &Keller, 2008). Research on the consequences ofemotions in general and gratitude in particularsuggests that organizations can greatly benefitfrom an explicit consideration of how gratitude

We thank special issue editor Ronald Humphrey andthree anonymous reviewers for their invaluable assistancethroughout the reviewprocess. This researchwas supported inpart by a National University of Singapore Isaac ManassehMeyer Fellowship to the first author and a National Universityof Singapore start-up grant to the second author.

361Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyrightholder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0374

emerges and influences workplace outcomesacross multiple levels of analysis (McCullough,Kilpatrick, Emmons, & Larson, 2001).

In this article we seek to accomplish severalinterrelated goals. First, we offer a multilevelmodel of gratitude, examining its manifesta-tions at the event, individual, and organiza-tional levels of analysis. Second, we explorethe unique organizational antecedents ofgratitude, with a focus on human resource (HR)initiatives aimed at cultivating gratitude.Third, we identify key contingencies of grati-tude emergence, highlighting the challengesthat organizations are likely to face in theirefforts to promote employee gratitude. Fourthand finally, we examine the consequences ofbuilding gratitude within organizations atmultiple levels of analysis. From a theoreticalperspective, we offer insight into how gratitudeunfolds at work, with broader implications forthe emergence and influence of other emotionsin the workplace. From a managerial perspec-tive, we highlight both the utility of workplacegratitude and the challenges of fostering it,focusing on organizational systems that canhelp practitioners build organizational change

efforts aimed at the cultivation of gratitude.A visual representation of the proposed modelis given in Figure 1.

CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS: GRATITUDE ATTHREE LEVELS

The scholarly history of gratitude is exten-sive, spanning disciplines as diverse as the-ology, philosophy, sociology, and psychology(Emmons & McCullough, 2004). Given thisdiverse history, it is perhaps not surprisingto find that scholars have likewise conce-ptualized gratitude in many different ways(McCullough et al., 2001). Focusing on theunique contours of the organizational context,we propose a multilevel model that conceptu-alizes gratitude as (1) an episodic emotion atthe event level, (2) a persistent tendency tofeel grateful at the individual level, and (3)a shared sense of gratitude at the organiza-tional level. As shown in Figure 1, we concep-tualize these phenomena as causally related,with gratitude at the event level emerging overtime at the individual and organizationallevels.

FIGURE 1A Multilevel Model of Gratitude in Organizations

Organizational citizenship (P13)

Gratitude initiativesAppreciation programs (P3)Beneficiary contact (P4)Developmental feedback (P5)

Organizational resilience (P16)Corporate social responsibility (P17)

Attentiveness to alternative outcomes (P6) Benevolent HR attributions (P7)Humility (P8)

Organizational level

Individual level

Collectivegratitude (P2)

Episodicgratitude

Persistentgratitude (P1)

Rumination (P9)Disruptive events (P10)

HR alignment (P11)Interdependent work practices (P12)

Well-being (P14) Communal exchange (P15)

Antecedents Contingencies Gratitude Outcomes

Event level

362 AprilAcademy of Management Review

Episodic Gratitude

At the event level, we define gratitude as afeeling of appreciation in response to an experi-ence that is beneficial to, but not attributable to,the self (Emmons & McCullough, 2004). Gratitudeat this level is an emotion in the classic sense—anaffective phenomenon that persists for a briefperiod of time (Elfenbein, 2008). Many differentexperiences can generate feelings of gratitude.In its most prototypical form, people experiencegratitude after receiving a tangible or intangiblebenefit from a benefactor (McCullough et al.,2001). Forexample,anemployeemightexperiencea feeling of gratitude when a coworker sacrificesher free time to help the beneficiary meet a dead-line. Similarly, an employee might experiencegratitude when a manager spends an afternoonhelping him develop new skills. In each of thesecases, the perceived benevolence and sacrifice ofthe benefactor play critical roles. In this sense ep-isodic gratitude is not elicited by an experienceitself but, rather, by its interpretation, and ittherefore requires a “willingness to recognize theunearned increments of value in one’s experience”(Bertocci & Millard, 1963: 389).

In this article we focus on gratitude that arisesin the organizational context or because of anemployee’s membership in an organization. Aswith any emotion, episodic gratitude in organi-zations can be expected to vary dramatically inits frequency and intensity (Frijda, Ortony,Sonnemans, & Clore, 1992). Low-intensity feel-ings of gratitude might arise following a smallfavor from a coworker or customer. High-intensity gratitude might instead arise whena coworker prevents an employee from gettingfired or saves a project at the last minute. Thefrequency and intensity of these experiences, inturn, can be expected to influence gratitude’sconsequences, with frequent, high-intensity grat-itude facilitating the strongest effects (Frijdaet al., 1992).

In Table 1 we distinguish gratitude from fourrelated emotions: happiness, compassion, pride,and elevation. As with other positive emotions,people generally enjoy feeling grateful (Emmons& McCullough, 2003). However, gratitude can bedistinguished from these other emotions alongthree key dimensions: the trigger event, the im-pact of the trigger on the self, and the prosocialaction tendency. For example, whereas gratitudeis triggered by personally relevant benefits,

compassion is triggered by the suffering of a thirdparty. As these distinctions show, the nomologi-cal net of gratitude is unique. Any model of grat-itude in organizations must treat gratitude as adistinct phenomenon and avoid grouping it to-gether with other positive emotions (Hu & Kaplan,2015).

Persistent Gratitude

Gratitude researchers have overwhelminglyadopted an episodic perspective. However, it isunlikely that gratitude exists exclusively at theevent level. More durable manifestations of grati-tude are likely at the individual and organizationallevels (Ashkanasy&Ashton-James, 2007;Rosenberg,1998). We argue that gratitude emerges at the indi-vidual level in the formofpersistentgratitude,whichwedefineasastable tendency to feel gratefulwithina particular context.The idea of persistent gratitude is rooted in

the existing multilevel emotion literature, whichnotes that individuals differ in “the threshold forthe occurrence of particular emotional states”(Rosenberg, 1998: 249). Yet whereas most of theindividual-level emotion literature focuses ontraits, our conceptualization of persistent grati-tude focuses on the broader notion of a schema.Schemas are mental structures that function asheuristics, directing attention and regulating ac-tion. Especially when the available informationis ambiguous, schemas enable quick responsesin a given domain through default strategiesand behavior (Bargh & Ferguson, 2000). Emotionschemas, in turn, are mental structures that spe-cifically predispose individuals to experiencea particular emotion in a given domain (Jenkins &Oatley, 1996).According to network theories of emotion

(Bower, 1981; Leventhal, 1980), emotion schemasdevelop linearly through repeated pairings ofstimuli and emotions (Tomkins, 1995). For exam-ple, an employee with an abusive supervisormight develop an anxiety-based emotion schemaat work, compiled over time as the product of re-peated anxiety-producing episodes (Hobman,Restubog, Bordia, & Tang, 2009). As one suchemotion schema, persistent gratitude can be ex-pected to emerge in an organization when anemployee experiences frequent and intense epi-sodic gratitude within the organization.Once formed, persistent gratitude operates in

several interrelated ways. First, individuals who

2017 363Fehr, Fulmer, Awtrey, and Miller

develop persistent gratitude “have specificappraisal tendencies leading to gratitude-relevant interpretations of the behavior ofother people” (Wood, Maltby, Gillett, Linley, &Joseph, 2008: 282), and they therefore are likelyto becomemore attentive to gratitude-inducingstimuli in their organizations (Compton, 2003).For example, they might notice a leader’shelpful advice, whereas employees withoutgratitude schemas would not. Second, theybecome better able to recall past gratitude-inducing experiences and use them to interprettheir environments (DeCoster & Claypool,2004). For example, they might frequently re-call the actions of a particularly helpful su-pervisor during a challenging time. Third, theybecome more likely to interpret ambiguousevents through the lens of gratitude-inducingappraisals (Wilkowski, Robinson, Gordon, &Troop-Gordon, 2007). For example, they mightinterpret help with a deadline as worthy ofgratitude, whereas another employee mightperceive it as an act of reciprocated exchangeor an attempt to steal the spotlight. Persistentgratitude can thus be expected to exert effects

that are comparatively enduring, influencinghow employees respond to a wide range ofsituations.

Proposition 1: Persistent gratitudeat theindividual level emerges from episodicgratitude at the event level.

Collective Gratitude

Beyond the event and individual levels, grati-tude can also emerge at the organizational level.We term this organizational-level construct col-lective gratitude, which we define as persistentgratitude that is shared by the members of an or-ganization. Collective gratitude occurs throughan emergent process in which individuals’ ownexperiences of persistent gratitude convergeto manifest as a shared organizational-levelphenomenon (Rousseau, 1985). Put differently,collective gratitude “is the result of bottom-upprocesses whereby phenomena and constructsthat originate at a lower level of analysis,through social interaction and exchange, com-bine, coalesce, and manifest at a higher collectivelevel of analysis” (Kozlowski, 2012: 267).

TABLE 1Definitions and Comparisons Among Gratitude and Related Emotions

Positive Emotion Definition

Distinguishing Features

Trigger EventImpact of Triggeron the Selfa

Prosocial ActionTendency

Gratitude A feeling of appreciation in response toan experience that is beneficial to,but not attributable to, the self

Receipt of benefitsfrom outside the self

High High

Happiness “The degree to which someoneevaluates positively the overallquality of his or her present ’life asa whole’” (Veenhoven, 2000: 267)

A broad array ofpositive forces

High Low

Compassion “The emotional response of caring forand wanting to help those who aresuffering” (Weng et al., 2013: 1171)

Others’ suffering Low High, but limited tosuffering individuals

Pride “A pleasurable emotion resulting fromactions that indicate that the self isindeed good, competent, andvirtuous” (Haidt, 2003: 860)

Positive outcomesattributed to the self

High Low

Elevation “An emotion a person may experiencewhen seeing an action the persondeems morally virtuous” (Siegel,Thomson, & Navarro, 2014: 414)

Observation of a moralexemplar

Low Highb

a As discussed by Haidt (2003), whereas some emotions are primarily elicited by events that directly impact the self (e.g.,gratitude arises from a direct benefit to the self), others are more easily elicited by simply observing a third party (e.g.,compassion).

b But see Siegel et al. (2014) for evidence that gratitude entails a broader prosocial action tendency than elevation.


We conceptualize this emergence as composi-tional, where emergence at the organizationallevel stems from a high level of consensus inpersistent gratitude at the individual level. This iswhatChan (1998) referred to as a direct consensusmodel, the focus being on agreement across in-dividual employees’ experiences. Later in thisarticle we consider factors that are likely to fa-cilitate the emergence of gratitude at the organi-zational level. However, we also note that suchemergence is likely to be facilitated by theuniquely relational nature of gratitude itself. Un-like many other emotions, gratitude is highlysocial and other oriented (Watkins, 2014). Inter-secting lines of research have noted that grati-tude tends to be expressed explicitly, boththrough words of thanks to one’s benefactorsand through action (Eisenberg, Miller, Shell,McNalley, & Shea, 1991). Thus, employees arelikely to be particularly aware of others’ grati-tude, facilitating emotional contagion and sociallearning.

The implications of sustained, shared,organizational-level gratitude are significant.Once formed, collective gratitude acts as part ofthe social context of the organization (Ferris et al.,1998). In otherwords, it becomesadefining featureof the organization itself, shaping the way em-ployees construe the organization and their placewithin it.

Proposition 2: Collective gratitude atthe organizational level emerges frompersistent gratitude at the individuallevel.

Key Assumptions: Reciprocal Dynamics andGratitude’s Targets

Although not formalized as propositions, twoassumptions regarding the structure of gratitudein organizations deserve attention. First, collec-tive gratitude and persistent gratitude are likelyto have additional top-down effects that reinforcegratitude at the event and individual levels. Wepresume that collective gratitude will exert a top-down positive effect on episodic and persistentgratitude, consistent with the broader literatureon the assimilative pressures of organizationsand their associated norms (Schein, 2010). Simi-larly, we presume that episodic and persistentgratitude are reciprocally related. Second, wenote that gratitude is likely to have many distinct

yet overlapping targets. Apay raisemight leadanemployee to feel grateful for both her immediatesupervisor and the organization’s upper-levelleadership. Similarly, an employee who receiveshelp meeting a deadline might experience grati-tude toward the helpful coworker as well as thesupervisor who encouraged the employees towork together. However, we adopt a more holisticapproach that encompasses multiple targets andpresumes that they are interrelated.

ANTECEDENTS OF GRATITUDE

Gratitude’s antecedents are multifaceted andoccur at multiple levels of analysis. Our focusis on the organizational-level antecedents ofgratitude, allowing for an understanding of theprecise role of the organization itself in gratitudeemergence. At this level the most direct pathto influencing employee gratitude is throughgratitude-focused HR practices, which we termgratitude initiatives. Drawing from the HR liter-ature and the gratitude literature, we identifythree initiatives particularly likely to facilitateemployee gratitude—appreciation programs,contact with beneficiaries, and developmentalfeedback—and examine their effects on episodicgratitude (Ostroff, Kinicki, & Tamkins, 2003). Ourgoal is not to provide a comprehensive accountof initiatives that facilitate gratitude but, rather,to provide concrete, illustrative examples of howorganizationsmightbegin theprocessof fosteringgratitude.

Appreciation Programs

Everyday interactions with peers, supervisors,and subordinates provide many opportunitiesfor gratitude. Employees frequently go above andbeyond their assigned tasks by helping eachother and engaging in proactive, prosocial be-havior. These extra-role efforts are typicallyaimed at improving their colleagues’ lives andthe functioning of the organization (Van Dyne,Cummings, & Parks, 1995). However, in fast-paced and performance-driven work environ-ments, beneficiaries may not always take thetime to express gratitude, leaving benefactorsfeeling as though their actions are overlookedand ignored. From an organizational practiceperspective, one path to addressing this issueand fosteringgratitude is employee appreciationprograms.


Roberts, Dutton, Spreitzer, Heaphy, andQuinnconceptualized formal appreciation programsas “occasions in which organizations haveplanned and institutionalized opportunities toendow individuals with expressions of positiveaffirmation” (2005: 718). Common examples in-clude retirement events and celebrations ofproduct launches (Mosley & Irvine, 2015). At oneconsulting firm, top management emails de-scriptions of team members’ core strengths—and why they are appreciated—to the head ofthe company. These emails are then sharedwiththe entire team (Roberts et al., 2005). Organiza-tions can also benefit from the formalization ofpractices that are typically less formal. Dutton(2003) detailed the story of a meeting that beganwith an appreciative introduction in which themeeting’s facilitator expressed appreciation forthe strengths of each person in the room. At theAdministration and Finance office at the Uni-versity of California, Berkeley, an appreciationwebsite allows employees to document eachother’s contributions. These documents are thenshared with the entire organization (Smith, 2013).

Appreciation programs are most likely tofoster gratitude when they focus on praisingemployees and teams for their effort and per-severance. Conversely, they are less likely tofoster gratitude when they single out one em-ployee’s performance at the expense of others,such as rewarding a top sales associate at a cardealership (Brun & Dugas, 2008). From the re-cipient’s perspective, appreciation programshave the potential to show employees that theyare valued by the organization, ensuring thatthey do not perceive themselves as taken forgranted or otherwise ignored by their coworkersand managers. From a third-party perspective,these person-focused programs can help em-ployees recognize the integral role that theircolleagues play in their own success andthe success of the organization as a whole, canstrengthen interpersonal relationships, andcan institutionalize gratitude by showing em-ployees that the organization values gratefulemotions.

Proposition 3: Appreciation programsincrease episodic gratitude.

Contact with Beneficiaries

Althoughpeople frequently feel gratitudewhenthey receive help from others, past research has

demonstrated that they also feel gratitude for theopportunity to give help to others. For example, ina two-week study of hospital personnel, Cheng,Tsui, and Lam (2015) found that employees fre-quently listed their ability to help their patients asan important source of daily gratitude. Althoughmany organizations cite their positive impact oncustomers’ lives as a core component of theirmissions, the link between employees’ actionsand the benefits they produce is often unclear(Grant, 2007). We argue that organizations caninculcate gratitude by highlighting these con-nections through beneficiary contact programs.Research has identified contact with benefi-

ciaries as an important job design principle(Grant, 2007; Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Somejobs, such as janitorial work, involve infrequentdirect contact with beneficiaries, whereas otherjobs, such as firefighting, involve more frequentand meaningful contact (Wrzesniewski & Dutton,2001). Interest in these differences across in-dustries has sparked research on interventionsthat can increase employees’ contact with bene-ficiaries. For example,Grant et al. (2007) institutedan organizational practicewhereby employees ata university donations call center directly inter-acted with their beneficiaries (in this case schol-arship recipients). Among their effects, suchinterventions have been shown to improve em-ployees’ feelings of social worth, prosocial moti-vation, and job persistence (Grant & Berg, 2012;Grant & Gino, 2010). Moreover, Dutton, Roberts,and Bednar (2010) suggested that prosocial char-acteristics such as kindness, benevolence, andhelpfulness becomemore accessible through bene-ficiary contact.Past research has typically focused on the im-

pact of beneficiary contact programs for em-ployee performance and commitment, butbeneficiary contact should also directly impactemployee gratitude. Individuals intrinsicallyenjoy helping each other (Schwartz & Sendor,1999), actively seek out meaningful work whenchoosing their careers (Bunderson & Thompson,2009), and directly acknowledge their impact onothers as a principle source of gratitude in theworkplace (Cheng et al., 2015). Grant, Dutton, andRosso (2008) proposed that opportunities to helpothers serve a psychological benefit, promotingemployee gratitude by enhancing the fulfillmentemployees find in their work. Anecdotal evidencelikewise supports the link between gratitudeand beneficiary contact. In one example a florist


discussed her appreciation for the opportunity togive her customers useful advice and help thempick the “right” bouquet (Bowe, Bowe, & Streeter,2009).

Proposition 4: Beneficiary contact in-terventions increase episodic gratitude.

Developmental Feedback

Beyond the help received and given to others,employees may also feel gratitude for the per-sonal growth and competencies they develop onthe job (Hackman&Oldham, 1976). Unfortunately,in many organizations leaders offer employeeslimited feedback on their development, leavingthem unaware of their progress (Kluger & DeNisi,1996). For example, in one survey 70 percent ofemployees indicated that they had never hada meaningful discussion about performance withtheir managers (Schneier, 1995). As a result, em-ployees often feel anxious, unsure of their prog-ress, and unsatisfiedwith their relationshipswiththeir leaders. Developmental feedback can playa key role in addressing these issues, providingemployees with a clear understanding of theirpersonal growth trajectories while producinggratitude for the progress they have made.

Developmental feedback refers to a manager’sefforts to provide employees with useful in-formation enabling them to learn and developtheir skills (Zhou, 2003). Unlike routine perfor-mance evaluations, developmental feedback isfuture oriented and focused on employees’ per-sonal improvement (Li, Harris, Boswell, & Xie,2011). It is designed to leverage employees’ in-trinsic motivation, helping them see how they areprogressing and where they might go next. At thebroadest level, developmental feedback can beconceptualized as a component of high-qualitymentoring relationships, which “promote mutualgrowth, learning, and development” (Ragins,2012: 519). Past research has shown that de-velopmental feedback, when delivered in a con-text that emphasizes mutual trust and respect,helps employees be more creative (Zhou, 2003)and more effective performers (Li et al., 2011).

Here we propose that developmental feedbackis positively associated with employee gratitude.For example, hospital employees expressed asa key source of gratitude opportunities to developnew clinical skills (Cheng et al., 2015). As noted byRagins (2012), interactions such as mentoring are

likely to be directly related to employees’ thrivingat work, helping them develop their skills andbecome the best people they can be (Moss &Sanchez, 2004). Developmental feedback thussignals to employees that others in the organiza-tion care about their personal and professionalwell-being, leading them to become aware of thebenefits provided by the job and the organizationfor their self-improvement.

Proposition 5: Developmental feedbackincreases episodic gratitude.

CONTINGENCIES OF GRATITUDE EMERGENCE

Although gratitude initiatives have the poten-tial to positively impact employees, they alsoexist within an institutional framework thatpresents challenges and risks. If perceived asa means of pressuring employees to compete orwork longer hours, appreciation programs andbeneficiary contact initiatives might lead to jeal-ousy and envy (Smith & Kim, 2007) and increasestressandburnout (Bunderson&Thompson, 2009).Similarly, developmental feedback initiativesmight produce cynicism when perceived as dis-ingenuous, or might otherwise lead to excessivepride. These risks are not unique to gratitudeinitiatives. The effects of organizational practicesare often inconsistent, hinging on a variety ofmoderating factors (Hong, Liao, Hu, & Jiang, 2013).Similarly, many factors may moderate the emer-gence of gratitude across levels of analysis(Fulmer & Ostroff, 2016). In this section we high-light several key contingencies of gratitudeinitiatives and gratitude emergence at the indi-vidual and organizational levels. Each of thesecontingencies and their associated risks is sum-marized in Table 2.

Contingencies of Episodic Gratitude Emergence

Gratitude can be a particularly challengingemotion to cultivate. People often acclimate to thebenefits they receive, causing gratitude to giveway to indifference and even entitlement (Harvey& Dasborough, 2015). To avoid such acclimation,scholars have argued that a beneficiary must (a)be aware of the benefits he or she receives, (b)perceive the intentions of the benefactor to begenuine (rather than instrumental), and (c) per-ceive the received benefits to be costly to thebenefactor (Tesser, Gatewood, & Driver, 1968;


Woodet al., 2008). Drawing from this literature,weargue that gratitude initiatives are most likely tofacilitate gratitude in the context of attentivenessto alternative outcomes, benevolent HR attribu-tions, and humility.

Recognizing the benefit: Attentiveness to alter-native outcomes. Gratitude initiatives provideemployees with many beneficial experiences.However, employees’ feelings of gratitude arecontingent on their recognition of those benefits,which can be difficult to sustain. According toFrijda’s (1988) “law of habituation,” people tend tobecome accustomed to their situations and arelikely to experience decreasingly intense emo-tional reactions to the benefits they consistentlyreceive over time.

One of the most direct ways for employees tomaintain a recognition of the benefits that grati-tude initiatives provide is to attend to possiblealternatives. As noted by Frijda, “Adaptation tosatisfaction can be counteracted by constantlybeing aware of how fortunate one’s condition isand how it could have been otherwise, or actuallywas otherwise before” (1988: 354). Attention to al-ternative outcomes is consistentwith the notion ofcounterfactual thought (Kahneman &Miller, 1986)and is particularly relevant to gratitude whendirected toward less desirable alternative out-comes, such as working for an organization with

less helpful colleagues or fewer opportunities(Epstude & Roese, 2008). Similarly, gratitude canbe expected to emerge by considering the chal-lenges one has faced in the past (Fagley, 2012).Although individuals canbe expected to vary in

their dispositional attentiveness to alternativeoutcomes, social cognitive research suggests thatthese alternatives can also be made more salientby the situation (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Evidenceindicates that one of the most reliable elicitors ofattentiveness to an alternative outcome is thepsychological closeness of that outcome (Morris&Moore, 2000). For example, individuals who en-tered the workforce during the recession (andtherefore faced poor employment prospects) wereparticularly grateful for their jobs (Bianchi, 2013).Beyond timing, research suggests that attentive-ness to alternatives is particularly likely whenone’s situation is counter to the norms of a partic-ular region, industry, or organization (Buck &Miller, 1994).

Proposition 6: Attentiveness to alterna-tive outcomes facilitates theemergenceof episodic gratitude from gratitudeinitiatives.

Recognizing the benefactor: Benevolent HRattributions. Another step in inculcating grati-tude is for employees to recognize that the

TABLE 2Contingencies of Gratitude Emergence

Contingency

Effect onGratitudeEmergence

Level of GratitudeAffected Risks If Not Addressed

Attentiveness to alternativeoutcomes

Positive Episodic Employees will habituate to thebenefits they receive from gratitudeinitiatives

Benevolent HR attributions Positive Episodic Gratitude initiatives will producefeelings of anger and contempt

Humility Positive Episodic Gratitude initiatives will producefeelings of pride and envy

Rumination Positive Persistent Employees will lose sight of the timesthey recently felt grateful

Disruptive events Negative Persistent Employees will begin to focus oncompetition and entitlement insteadof gratitude

HR alignment Positive Collective Onlyasmallnumberof employeeswhoengage in specific HR practices willdevelop persistent gratitude

Interdependent work practices Positive Collective Persistent gratitude will not bereinforced across employeesbecause of a lack of sharing andsocial learning


benefactor is acting benevolently, rather thaninstrumentally. To this end, HR attributionsare likely to play a critical role. Nishii, Lepak,and Schneider defined HR attributions as“causal explanations that employees makeregarding management’s motivations for us-ing particular HR practices” (2008: 507). Em-ployees’ attributions for their organizations’HR practices are a central contingency of theireffects. Thus, “the effect of HR practices is notlikely to be automatic and always as expected;instead, their effect will reside in the mean-ings that employees attach to those practices”(Nishii et al., 2008: 504).

In particular, we focus on benevolent HR attri-butions. Benevolent attributions reflect a beliefthat an HR practice was enacted to improve em-ployees’ well-being. Less benevolent HR attribu-tions conversely reflect a belief that an HRpractice was enacted to extract more output fromemployees. When employees attribute gratitudeinitiatives to benevolent motives, they are likelyto respondwith enthusiasmand engagement. Forinstance, theymight nominate their coworkers forappreciation awards, attend events that providebeneficiary contact, and follow up with theirmentors after developmental feedback sessions.In contrast, when employees attribute such ini-tiatives to less benevolent motives, they are un-likely to engage with the initiatives. Instead, theymight feel manipulated and coerced and ex-perience negative emotions such as anger andcontempt.

As with other attributional phenomena, HRattributions can be expected to emerge fromboth dispositional and situational forces(Kelley, 1973). For example, some individualsare more dispositionally cynical than others,and by association they tend to hold morecynical attributions for prosocial behavior(Rioux & Penner, 2001). Attributions can like-wise be shaped by the signals sent by the otherparty. Employees are particularly likely todevelop benevolent HR attributions when theorganization treats them justly and manage-ment demonstrates its trustworthiness overtime (Ployhart & Ryan, 1997).

Proposition 7: Benevolent HR attribu-tions facilitate the emergence of episodicgratitude from gratitude initiatives.

Recognizing the cost: Humility. As a third stepinensuring thatorganizations’gratitude initiatives

are successful, employees must perceive thatthe benefits they receive carry more costs forthe benefactor than what might be reasonablyexpected. In this final contingency of episodicgratitude, employee humility is likely to playa critical role.At its core, humility entails a recognition and

acceptance that “something greater than theself exists” (Ou et al., 2014: 37). It connotes awillingness to view oneself accurately, an ap-preciation of others’ strengths and contribu-tions, and an openness to feedback and newideas (Owens, Johnson, & Mitchell, 2013), withpositive implications for employee perfor-mance and adaptiveness (Owens & Hekman,2012).Initiatives such as beneficiary contact pro-

vide many opportunities for employees to feelgratitude, but they also provide opportunitiesfor employees to feel excessive pride. Em-ployees might become overly enamored withtheir impact on the organization’s stakeholders,improving their self-efficacy but reducing theirconnectedness to others. As previously noted,gratitude only emergeswhen individuals perceivethat others have exerted effort and have sacrificedto help them (Wood et al., 2008). When individualsperceive the benefit they receive as wholly com-mensurate with their own efforts, pride is morelikely to emerge than gratitude (Hu & Kaplan,2015). As noted by Owens et al., humility “entailsthe recognitionandappreciation of knowledgeandguidance beyond the self” (2013: 1518) and, thus, isuniquely situated to temper feelings of pride.Humility has been characterized as a mal-

leable interpersonal trait that is susceptibleto change over time (Owens & Hekman, 2016).Therefore, although it is an individual differ-ence, it can be influenced by interventions.Owens et al. (2013) have noted that humilitynotably involves accurate self-perception,including a reduction in overconfidence and aconcomitant recognition that forces beyond theself are a necessary component of success. In-deed, scholars have begun to examine the effi-cacy of humility interventions (Romanowska,Larsson, & Theorell, 2015) and humility-basedleadership training programs (Hayes & Comer,2010).

Proposition 8: Humility facilitates theemergence of episodic gratitude fromgratitude initiatives.


Contingencies of Persistent GratitudeEmergence

As previously discussed, persistent grati-tude entails the development of an emotionschema, and it is therefore predicated on fre-quent and strong feelings of gratitude withinthe organization. However, episodic gratitudeby itself is unlikely to be sufficient for persis-tent gratitude to readily emerge. To developa gratitude schema, employees must also en-gage in continual retroactive thought abouttheir gratitude. Furthermore, disruptive expe-riences that run counter to this schema must beminimized.

Reinforcing a schema: Rumination. Individ-uals differ in the extent to which they areinfluenced by affective episodes, and one keypredictor of these differences is rumination.Whereas scholars typically discuss ruminationwithin the context of negative emotions(Whitmer & Gotlib, 2013), it is also possible toruminate over positive emotions. Gilbert,Nolen-Hoeksema, and Gruber have definedthis positive rumination as “the tendency torespond to the positive state with recurrentthoughts of one’s positive emotional state andpositive self-qualities” (2013: 737). It is an in-ternal, cognitive process that involves consciouslythinking about a positive emotion after it occurs—involving such termsas reminiscingandbasking(Martin & Tesser, 1996)—which continues overan extended period of time (Wang, Liao, Zhan, &Shi, 2011).

Research on positive rumination suggests thatemployees who tend to savor and focus on theirindividual gratitude experiences will be mostlikely to translate their episodic gratitude intopersistent gratitude. Positive rumination en-hances the benefits of individuals’ positiveemotions, leading to higher levels of self-esteemand lower levels of depression (Feldman,Joormann, & Johnson, 2008). In contrast, a failureto ruminate over positive events can create per-sistent negative moods and even depressivesymptoms (Rottenberg, Kasch, Gross, & Gotlib,2002). Most directly, research has demonstratedthat individuals who tend to ruminate over pos-itive emotions subsequently experience themmore frequently than their peers (Quoidbach,Berry, Hansenne, & Mikolajczak, 2010). In con-trast, individuals who do not ruminate tend todampen their positive emotions, focusing on the

low likelihood that the emotions will be experi-enced in the future. Here we hypothesize thatrumination will facilitate the development ofgratitude-based emotion schemas, heighteningthe accessibility of individuals’ gratitude-inducing experiences and ultimately strengthen-ing the link between episodic and persistentgratitude.

Proposition 9: Rumination facilitatesthe emergence of persistent gratitudefrom episodic gratitude.

Weakeninga schema:Disruptive events.Emotionschemas develop from persistent patterns ofemotion in a given context. However, schemadevelopment may be compromised by disrup-tive events (Morgeson, 2005;Morgeson,Mitchell,& Liu, 2015). In past research scholars haveexamined the notion of disruptive events ina multitude of ways, typically focusing on howa variety of exogenous shocks (Vergne, 2012)and unexpected disturbances (Yukl, 2002) in-terrupt employee perceptions and outcomes. Forexample, Holtom, Mitchell, Lee, and Inderrieden(2005) found that environmental shocks such asjob offers, corporate mergers, layoffs, and high-intensity arguments with coworkers dramaticallyshifted employees’ perceptions of their organiza-tionsandultimately exhibiteda significant impacton employee turnover.Disruptive events, particularly those that are of

high intensity, are most likely to mitigate theemergence of persistent gratitude when they di-rectly counter the association between gratitudeand the work environment. Examples includethe arrival of a new CEO who encouragestransactional leadership principles and the in-troduction of new performance standards thatpit employees against each other. Such eventsare likely to introduce variability in employees’experiences with gratitude in the organization,disrupting the emergence process for persistentgratitude (Harvey & Dasborough, 2015). Withmixed messages about the link between grati-tude and the organizational context, it no longerremains clear how to interpret ambiguous in-formation, and the gratitude-based emotionschemas that employees develop are likely to beless strong and stable.

Proposition 10: Disruptive events miti-gate the link between episodic grati-tude and persistent gratitude.


Contingencies of Collective GratitudeEmergence

Following the development of persistent grati-tude, an important question is whether collectivegratitude might emerge at the organizationallevel of analysis. Here we argue that this is mostlikely to occur when the organizational contextfacilitates a convergence of persistent gratitudeacross individuals, induced through HR align-ment and interdependent work practices.

Sending clear signals: HR alignment. The no-tion of HR alignment is rooted in the strategichuman resources management literature, whichshows that HR practices are most effective whenthought of as “bundles” around a coherent cultureor goal (Becker & Huselid, 2006). For example,some HR bundles are oriented toward work-family balance (Perry-Smith & Blum, 2000), withinterrelated practices that ensure such balancethrough their compensation systems, trainingprograms, and leave policies.

Within the context of gratitude, an organizationcould be said to possess an aligned system ofgratitude-oriented practices if it deploys multi-ple distinct gratitude initiatives in tandem. Anorganization with strong HR alignment simulta-neously employs appreciation programs, contactwith beneficiaries, developmental feedback pol-icies, and related practices. In contrast, an orga-nization with weak HR alignment might utilizeappreciationprogramsbut offer fewopportunitiesfor beneficiary contact. Similarly, an organizationwith weak HR alignment might employ its prac-tices inconsistently across people and time(Bowen & Ostroff, 2004).

A fundamental assumption of the HR literatureis that HR systems send stronger signals toemployees when they are aligned (Schneider,Salvaggio, & Subirats, 2002). Following this logic,HR alignment should strengthen the link betweenpersistent gratitude and collective gratitude. Asingle HR initiative aimed at employee gratitudeconveysweakandambiguous signalsand, thus, islikely to create high variability in persistent grat-itude across employees. For example, whereassome employees might develop persistent grati-tude through their experiences with a beneficiarycontact program, othersmight fail todo sobecauseof their experiences with a poor feedback system.Thus, HR systems aligned toward employee grat-itude are most likely to send strong signals thatwill facilitate collective gratitude emergence.

Proposition 11: HR alignment facilitatesthe emergence of collective gratitudefrom persistent gratitude.

Facilitating interaction: Interdependent workpractices. Organizations vary dramatically inhow they structure their work. One importantcomponent of this variation is interdependence(Wageman, 1999). In some organizations work ishighly independent: communication is minimalamong employees, and reward systems em-phasize individual achievement. Prototypical ex-amples include real estate agencies and cardealerships, where employees are given in-dependent responsibility for particular sales andpaid a commission based on their individualperformance. In other organizations work ishighly interdependent: employees communicatefrequently andmust rely on each other to achievethe desired outcome. Common examples includemedical teams and advertising agencies, whereemployees must rely on each other’s expertiseand are collectively judged on group outcomes,such as patient mortality (Klein, Ziegert, Knight,& Xiao, 2006; Wageman, 1995).Interdependent work practices have a wide

range of implications for group processes andperformance. For example, they tend to increaseinformation sharing (Crawford & Haaland, 1972)and help groups leverage the benefits of in-formational diversity (Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale,1999). Herewepropose that interdependentworkstructures also increase the likelihood thatpersistent gratitude will emerge as collectivegratitude at the organizational level. In in-terdependent work structures employees mustrely on each other as a fundamental aspect ofdaily work. They become more emotionally con-nected and attuned to each other’s actions (Kanovet al., 2004). As a result, employees in interde-pendent organizations will be more likely to dis-cuss their feelings of gratitude, as well asdemonstrate their gratitude nonverbally. Suchinteractions and communications facilitate thespreadof emotionswithin the organization (Kelly& Barsade, 2001). Thus, persistent gratitude ismost likely to become a shared feature of theorganization when interdependent work struc-tures are in place (Lissack & Letiche, 2002).

Proposition 12: Interdependent workpractices facilitate the emergence ofcollective gratitude from persistentgratitude.


CONSEQUENCES OF GRATITUDE

Gross andThompsonargued that “emotions notonly make us feel something, they make us feellike doing something” (2007: 5). Here we suggestthat gratitude results in a targeted set of outcomesfor employees, their relationships, and the orga-nization. As shown in Figure 1, gratitude at eachlevel of analysis is likely to have outcomes at thesame level. Nonetheless, we recognize that cross-level effects are likely. For instance, it is reason-able to suspect that grateful emotionswill producemomentary shifts in well-being (Watkins, 2014).

Episodic Gratitude and Citizenship

Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) re-fer to employee behaviors that indirectly contributeto the functioning of the organization but are lessformally rewarded and more discretionary thanin-role job tasks (Organ, Podsakoff, &MacKenzie,2006). Examples include filling in for a coworkerduring an emergency andmaking new employeesfeel welcome. These OCBs, in turn, make organi-zationsmoreattractiveplaces towork (Organetal.,2006), facilitate effective organizational function-ing (Bolino, Turnley, & Bloodgood, 2002), and havedirect links to organizational performance(Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009).

Scholars have long argued that feelings of grati-tude encourage prosocial behavior, facilitating in-terpersonal exchange and acts of sacrifice (Algoe,Haidt, & Gable, 2008). Several mechanisms for thiseffect have been posited. Despite their brevity,feelings of gratitude can shift how beneficiariesperceive their benefactors, as well as other peoplein general. Specifically, research suggests thatgratitude draws beneficiaries’ attention to others’positive qualities. As a result, they aremorewillingto associate with other people when they feelgrateful than when they do not (Algoe et al., 2008).Individuals also become more approach orientedand report greater interest in spending time withothers and strengthening their relationships whenfeeling grateful (Watkins, 2004). They similarly be-come more motivated to enhance others’ reputa-tions (Algoe et al., 2008). One recent study providedempirical support for these arguments, demon-strating that daily changes in employees’ feelingsof gratitude are positively associated with dailyOCBs (Spence, Brown, Keeping & Lian, 2014).

Proposition 13: Episodic gratitude in-creases organizational citizenship.

Persistent Gratitude and Well-Being

Subjective well-being is a multifaceted phe-nomenon, broadly defined by individuals’evaluations of their lives as a whole (Diener,Diener, & Diener, 1995: 851). Individuals whoreport high levels of subjective well-being tendto exhibit low levels of anxiety, depression, andsocial dysfunction (Diener, Lucas, & Scollon,2006), with positive implications for their em-ployment behavior and performance (Ford,Cerasoli, Higgins, & Decesare, 2011).Several streams of research converge to sup-

port the effects of persistent gratitude on well-being. Themost compelling work has employedexperimental designs, examining the causaleffect ofgratitude. Lambert, Fincham,andStillman(2012) experimentally demonstrated that gratitudedecreases depressive symptoms through positivereframing. Kaplan et al. (2014) similarly demon-strated a direct effect of a gratitude writing in-tervention on employee well-being. Research onthemechanismsunderlying theseeffects indicatesthat gratitude draws attention to positive events(Lambert, Graham, & Fincham, 2009) and facili-tates the persistent use of effective coping strat-egies, including support-seeking behavior anda tendency to identify growth opportunities(Wood, Froh, &Geraghty, 2010;Wood et al., 2008).As gratitude experiences coalesce into a per-sistent schema, individuals become more con-sistently attuned to positive life events andbetter able to cope with the challenges theyface, with lasting implications for their long-term well-being (Lambert et al., 2009).

Proposition 14: Persistent gratitude in-creases well-being.

Persistent Gratitude and Communal Exchange

Employees have many different types of re-lationships with their coworkers, managers,and other organizational stakeholders. Oneway to differentiate these relationships isaccording to their reliance on a communal normversus an exchange-based norm. Exchange-based norms are characterized by a short-termfocus, where benefits are given in exchange forbenefits received. Communal norms, in con-trast, are need based and do not clearly specifyobligations. Whereas communal norms arecharacterized by trust and closeness, exchangenorms are not (Clark & Mills, 2011). As noted


by Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005), communalnorms evolve within organizations when em-ployees develop future-orientated relationshipscharacterized by high levels of trust betweenparties.

Drawing from this literature, we argue thatpersistent gratitude is likely to fundamentallyshift how employees think about workplace re-lationships, moving from an exchange-basednorm toward a communal-based norm. Scholarshave demonstrated that, over time, gratitude isassociatedwith the development of high-qualityrelationships (Kaplan et al., 2014; Lambert,Clark, Durtschi, Fincham, & Graham, 2010).From the beneficiary’s perspective, gratitudedraws attention to the benevolence and affectionof the benefactors, providing a supportive con-text for their relationship (Clark, 1983). From thebenefactor’s perspective, gratitude draws at-tention to the beneficiary’s future intentions,letting the benefactor know that the recipientvalues the benefactor and is likely to engage infuture relationship maintenance behaviors(Algoe, 2012). In this manner gratitude drivesa positive spiral of reciprocity and altruisticnorms in relationships.

Proposition 15: Persistent gratitude in-creases communal exchange.

Collective Gratitude and OrganizationalResilience

Organizations face many threats to theirlong-term survival. Fluctuating market condi-tions, changing consumer demands, and manyother forces constantly challenge organiza-tions’ viability. In the face of such adversity,some organizations thrive. Many even use ad-versity as an opportunity for growth and de-velopment (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). Caza andMilton (2012) refer to this capacity of an orga-nization to exhibit effective adaptation in theface of adversity as resilience. In resilient or-ganizations employees respond to new de-mands with optimism and persistence. Forexample, Meyer (1982) detailed the story ofa hospital that exhibited resilience by suc-cessfully adapting to a strike. In less resil-ient organizations adversity leads to lastingproblems with employee stress, counterpro-ductive work behavior, and turnover.

Sutcliffe and Vogus (2003) explicated a num-ber of factors that predict organizations’ capacity

for resilience and suggest a direct link to collec-tive gratitude. First, resilience is most likely tooccur in organizations with significant relationalcapital. As already noted, gratitude is closelyaligned with the maintenance of such capital(Watkins, 2014). Gratitude initiatives set the stagefor high-quality relationships, strengthening em-ployees’ dedication and increasing their willing-ness to voice their concerns (Lambert & Fincham,2011). Second, resilience is most likely to occur inorganizations when employees see a direct linkbetween the organization and their personalgrowth. This aspect of resilience is directly as-sociated with employees’ shared gratitude fordevelopmental opportunities embedded in orga-nizations’ HR systems. Finally, resilience is mostlikely to occur in organizations where employeesenjoy high levels of trust, which past research hasdirectly linked to gratitude (Dunn & Schweitzer,2005). Thus, collective gratitude can be theorizedas promoting organizational resilience by ensur-ing sustained relational capital, opportunities forpersonal growth, and interpersonal trust.

Proposition 16: Collective gratitudeincreases organizational resilience.

Collective Gratitude and CorporateSocial Responsibility

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has beendefined as “actions that appear to further somesocial good, beyond the interests of the firm andthat which is required by law” (McWilliams &Siegel, 2001: 117). The scope of CSR initiatives isbroad. CSR might include the development ofa sustainable supply chain, a community en-gagement program, or a customer safety ini-tiative. Although CSR research has traditionallyremained in the purview of business ethicists andcorporate strategists, scholars have increasinglydisplayed an interest in the microfoundations ofCSR (Jones, Willness, & Madey, 2013). Within thisliterature scholars have emphasized that CSRdepends upon employees who engage in extra-role behavior aimed at acting in a socially re-sponsible manner (Vlachos, Panagopoulos, &Rapp, 2014).Converging lines of research suggest a direct

link between collective gratitude and CSR. Aspreviously noted, gratitude promotes an otherorientation characterized by enhanced connec-tion to others and prosocial behavior, includinga pay-it-forward distribution of benefits to third


parties (McCullough, Kimeldorf, & Cohen, 2008).This suggests that when gratitude emerges asa collective organizational-level phenomenon,the organization will become increasingly re-ceptive to an organizational strategy aimedat promoting others’ well-being. Consistent withthis notion, grateful employeeswill showahigherconcern with the organization’s social re-sponsibility than will less grateful employees(Andersson,Giacalone,& Jurkiewicz, 2007). As oneanecdotal example of this link, Panasonic bothlists gratitude among its core values and investsheavily in CSR (Panasonic, 2015). In sum, CSRrepresents an expansive prosocial response togratitude at the organizational level. It extendsthroughout and beyond the organization, even toindividuals with whom employees seldom di-rectly interact.

Proposition 17: Collective gratitude in-creases corporate social responsibility.

DISCUSSION

Gratitude is a powerful force with a widearray of desirable consequences, reflected byits prominence in philosophy, literature, andreligions throughout the world. Although so-cieties have long recognized the benefits ofgratitude, little is known about its role inmodern organizations. As noted by Emmons,“There is virtually no hard research on grati-tude in organizations” (2003: 84), highlightingthe need for theoretical development. Un-fortunately, little progress has been madesince Emmons’ original comment more thana decade ago. In this article we have offereda model that begins to examine how organi-zations can develop employee gratitude andthat identifies some of the key benefits andchallenges of this effort.

Theoretical Contributions

Our article makes a number of theoreticalcontributions. First, we broaden scholars’ un-derstanding of gratitude itself and arguethat a multilevel approach to gratitude in orga-nizations is vital (Ashkanasy & Ashton-James,2007; Rosenberg, 1998). The most widely exam-ined form of gratitude—episodic gratitude—isat the event level. However, over time, gratitudecan emerge at the individual level in the

form of persistent gratitude and as a collectivegratitude that is shared by the organization’smembers.Second, we contribute to research by moving

beyond the gratitude literature’s primaryfocus on gratitude’s event-level antecedentsand proposing that organizations can reapthe benefits of gratitude by implementinggratitude-targeted HR initiatives. In doing sowe situate gratitude research squarely withinthe organizational sciences. By highlightingthe benefits of a set of coherent organizationalpractices, we also complement past researchon positive organizing around such phenom-ena as compassion (Dutton, Worline, Frost, &Lilius, 2006) and forgiveness (Fehr & Gelfand,2012).Third, we contribute to the literature by con-

sidering the contingencies of gratitude emer-gence across levels and, in so doing, furtherexplicating patterns of gratitude emergence atthe event, individual, and organizational levels.Looking beyond gratitude’s antecedents andcontingencies, we contribute to the literatureby considering gratitude’s consequences. Re-search on the outcomes of emotion-based phe-nomena is limited within the organizationalsciences, especially with respect to positiveemotions (Hu & Kaplan, 2015). As a result, prac-titioners are left with little guidance as to thelikely long-term implications of employees’workplace emotions. Our model connects grat-itude to critical outcomes such as employeecitizenship and organizational resilience. Inthis way we emphasize that gratitude can exertinfluences on the micro, meso, and macro as-pects of organizations.Finally, we note that our research has impli-

cations for understanding the role of otheremotions in organizations. Beyond gratitude,organizations interested in cultivating emo-tions such as pride, hope, and compassion canbenefit from examining how their organiza-tional practices facilitate these emotions. Forexample, organizations characterized as doing“dirty work” might benefit from practices thatincrease employees’ pride (Ashforth & Kreiner,1999). Similarly, organizations facing difficultchallenges and low odds of success might ben-efit from cultivating hope. A complete under-standing of the emotional life of employeesrequires a nuanced approach that differentiatesdiscrete emotions across levels of analysis.


Practical Considerations

Balancing the benefits and risks of gratitude. Inthis articlewe have painted a primarily positiveview of gratitude in organizations. Nonetheless,it is important to note that efforts to cultivategratitude come with risks and challenges. Iflaunched in a cynical environment or with anoveremphasis on instrumental outcomes, ap-preciation programs might lead employees todevelop feelings of jealousy and anger. Bene-ficiary contact programs might lead to em-ployee burnout if they increase employees’perceived workloads, and developmental feed-back sessions could lead to resentment if em-ployeesviewthemcynically.Eventheconsequencesof gratitude may come with risks. Scholars haveshown that the desire to engage in organiza-tional citizenship can lead to unethical behav-ior, such as lying on behalf of the organization(Umphress, Bingham, & Mitchell, 2010). Simi-larly, CSR programs might negatively impactfinancial performance if launched withouta consideration of an organization’s strategicmission (Porter &Kramer, 2006). From these risksit is clear that although gratitude presentsmany opportunities, it also requires carefulmanagement.

Maintaining gratitude over time. For organi-zations seeking to cultivate long-term grati-tude, a central challenge is ensuring thatemployees maintain their gratitude over time.To address this challenge, we emphasize thepractical importance of focusing on gratitude’scontingencies both within the episodic leveland across levels. For example, if employeesbegin to react to gratitude initiatives withcynicism, the organization might need to ex-amine its culture and work to create a moretrusting environment. Similarly, if employeesbegin to react to gratitude initiatives with in-difference, the organization might need to ex-amine employees’ attentiveness to alternativeoutcomes and minimize the presence of dis-ruptive events. Presumably, employee grati-tude is most likely to be sustained over timewhen it successfully emerges at the individuallevel as an emotional schema, as well as at theorganizational level.

How should gratitude be measured? As animportant next step in organization-basedgratitude research, scholars must give care-ful consideration to gratitude measurement.

Looking first to episodic gratitude, gratitudecan be measured with emotion checklists ina manner similar to other emotions, suchas anger and compassion. In this processscholars should be particularly careful to dis-tinguish gratitude from other related emotions,such as inspiration and awe (Haidt, 2003). Tomeasure persistent gratitude, scholars mustassess the frequency with which employeestend to experience gratitude in the workplace.An example item, for instance, might state,“While at work, I often feel a sense of grati-tude.” Scholars might also adopt a more gran-ular approach, examining the tendency to feelgratitude within a particular unit of the orga-nization or while interacting with a particularcolleague. When examining persistent grati-tude, researchers must also carefully differ-entiate the construct from related phenomena,such as perceived organizational support. Atthe organizational level, we recommend thatcollective gratitude be measured via a directconsensus approach (Chan, 1998), and we en-courage scholars to explore patterns of col-lective gratitude across subgroups (Harrison &Klein, 2007).We also note the importance of measuring

gratitude’s emergence across levels. There isa dearth of quantitative research on emergencein general (Kozlowski & Chao, 2012), which islargely because of methodological challenges.For researchers to document emergence, longi-tudinal research is necessary (Fulmer &Ostroff,2016). To examine emergence from episodicgratitude to persistent gratitude, researcherscan utilize experience sampling methods. Toexamine emergence from persistent to collec-tive gratitude, researchers can measure per-sistent gratitude within an organization andassess its convergence over time. Ideally, re-searchers can survey employees at key points intime, such as when a new unit forms or a newinitiative is enacted. Such research can providevaluable information about the length of timeneeded for collective gratitude to emerge andcan assess the role of specific situational con-straints and affordances.

Conclusion

Most people believe that gratitude is a desir-able positive emotion (Gallup, 1999). Nonethe-less, there is a fundamental lack of attention to


what gratitude “looks like” in organizations andto the organizational practices that enable em-ployees to experience gratitude on a daily basis.As noted by McCraty and Childre, “In the ab-sence of conscious efforts to engage, build, andsustain positive perceptions and emotions, weall too automatically fall prey to feelings such asirritation, anxiety, worry, frustration, judgmen-talness, self-doubt, and blame” (2004: 242). Bymaking gratitude a fundamental part of the em-ployee experience, leaders and managers canleverage the benefits of gratitude for employeesand the organization as a whole.

REFERENCES

Algoe, S., Haidt, J., & Gable, S. 2008. Beyond reciprocity:Gratitude and relationships in everyday life. Emotion, 8:425–429.

Algoe, S. B. 2012. Find, remind, and bind: The functions ofgratitude in everyday relationships. Social and Person-ality Psychology Compass, 6: 455–469.

Andersson, L. M., Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. 2007. Onthe relationship of hope and gratitude to corporate socialresponsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 70: 401–409.

Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. 1999. “How can you do it?”:Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positiveidentity. Academy of Management Review, 24: 413–434.

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Ashton-James, C. E. 2007. Positive emotionin organizations: Amulti-level framework. InC. L. Cooper &D. Nelson (Eds.), Positive organizational behavior: Accent-ing the positive at work: 57–73. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Bargh, J. A., & Ferguson, M. J. 2000. Beyond behaviorism: Onthe automaticity of higher mental processes. Psychologi-cal Bulletin, 126: 925–945.

Bartlett, M. Y., & DeSteno, D. 2006. Gratitude and prosocialbehavior: Helping when it costs you. Psychological Sci-ence, 17: 319–325.

Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. 2006. Strategic human resourcesmanagement: Where do we go from here? Journal ofManagement, 32: 898–925.

Bertocci, P. A., & Millard, R. M. 1963. Personality and the good:Psychological and ethical perspectives. New York: DavidMcKay.

Bianchi, E. C. 2013. The bright side of bad times: The affectiveadvantages of entering the workforce in a recession.Administrative Science Quarterly, 58: 587–623.

Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. 2002. Citi-zenship behavior and the creation of social capital inorganizations. Academy of Management Review, 27:505–522.

Bowe, J., Bowe, M., & Streeter, S. 2009. Gig: Americans talkabout their jobs. New York: Broadway Books.

Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. 2004. Understanding HRM–firmperformance linkages: The role of the “strength” of theHRMsystem.Academy ofManagement Review, 29: 203–221.

Bower, G. H. 1981. Mood and memory. American Psychologist,36: 129–148.

Brun, J. P., & Dugas, N. 2008. An analysis of employee recog-nition: Perspectives on human resources practices. In-ternational Journal of Human Resource Management, 19:716–730.

Buck, M. L., & Miller, D. T. 1994. Reactions to incongruousnegative life events. Social Justice Research, 7: 29–46.

Bunderson, J. S., & Thompson, J. A. 2009. The call of the wild:Zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword ofdeeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 54: 32–57.

Cameron, K. S., & Spreitzer, G. M. 2012. What is positive inpositive organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron &G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positiveorganizational scholarship: 1–16. New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Caza, B. B., & Milton, L. P. 2012. Resilience at work. Buildingcapability in the face of adversity. In K. S. Cameron &G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positiveorganizational scholarship: 895–908. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in thesame content domain at different levels of analysis: Atypology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 83: 234–246.

Cheng, S. T., Tsui, P. K., & Lam, J. H. 2015. Improving mentalhealth in health care practitioners: Randomized con-trolled trial of a gratitude intervention. Journal of Con-sulting and Clinical Psychology, 83: 177–186.

Clark, M. S. 1983. Reactions to aid in communal and exchangerelationships. In J. D. Fisher, A. Nadler, & B. M. DePaulo(Eds.), New directions in helping: 281–304. New York:Academic Press.

Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. 2011. A theory of communal (andexchange) relationships. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W.Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theoriesof social psychology: 232–250. Los Angeles: Sage.

Compton, R. J. 2003. The interface between emotion and at-tention: A review of evidence from psychology and neuro-science. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews,2: 115–129.

Crawford, J. L., & Haaland, G. A. 1972. Predecisionalinformation-seeking and subsequent conformity in thesocial influence process. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 23: 112–119.

Cropanzano, R., &Mitchell, M. S. 2005. Social exchange theory:An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31:874–900.

DeCoster, J., & Claypool, H. M. 2004. A meta-analysis ofpriming effects on impression formation supportinga general model of informational biases. Personality andSocial Psychology Review, 8: 2–27.

DeWall, C. N., Lambert, N. M., Pond, R. S., Kashdan, T. B., &Fincham, F. D. 2012. A grateful heart is a nonviolent heart:Cross-sectional, experience sampling, longitudinal, and


experimental evidence. Social Psychological and Per-sonality Science, 3: 232–240.

Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. 1995. Factors predicting thesubjective well-being of nations. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 69: 851–864.

Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. N. 2006. Beyond the he-donic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61: 305–314.

Dunn, J. R., & Schweitzer, M. E. 2005. Feeling and believing:The influence of emotion on trust. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 88: 736–748.

Dutton, J., Roberts, L., & Bednar, J. 2010. Prosocial practices,positive identity, and flourishing at work. In S. Donald-son, M. Csikszentmihalyi, & J. Nakamura (Eds.), Appliedpositive psychology: Improving everyday life, schools,work, health, and society: 427–431. New York: Routledge.

Dutton, J. E. 2003. Energizing your workplace: Building andsustaining high quality relationships at work. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dutton, J. E., Worline, M. C., Frost, P. J., & Lilius, J. 2006.Explaining compassion organizing. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 51: 59–96.

Eisenberg, N., Miller, P. A., Shell, R., McNalley, S., & Shea, C.1991. Prosocial development in adolescence: A longitu-dinal study. Developmental Psychology, 27: 849–857.

Elfenbein, H. A. 2008. Emotion in organizations: A review andtheoretical integration. Academy of Management Annals,1: 315–386.

Emmons, R. A. 2003. Acts of gratitude in organizations. In K. S.Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive or-ganizational scholarship: Foundations of a new disci-pline: 81–93. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. 2003. Counting bless-ings versus burdens: An experimental investigation ofgratitude and subjective well-being in daily life.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84:377–389.

Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (Eds.). 2004. The psychol-ogy of gratitude. New York: Oxford University Press.

Epstude, K., & Roese, N. J. 2008. The functional theory ofcounterfactual thinking. Personality and Social Psychol-ogy Review, 12: 168–192.

Fagley, N. S. 2012. Appreciation uniquely predicts life satis-faction above demographics, the Big 5 personalityfactors, and gratitude. Personality and Individual Dif-ferences, 53: 59–63.

Fehr, R., & Gelfand, M. J. 2012. The forgiving organization: Amultilevel model of forgiveness at work. Academy ofManagement Review, 37: 664–688.

Feldman, G. C., Joormann, J., & Johnson, S. L. 2008. Responsesto positive affect: A self-report measure of ruminationand dampening. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32:507–525.

Ferris, G. R., Arthur, M. M., Berkson, H. M., Kaplan, D. M.,Harrell-Cook, G., & Frink, D. D. 1998. Toward a socialcontext theory of the human resource management–

organization effectiveness relationship. Human ResourceManagement Review, 8: 235–264.

Fisk, G. M. 2010. “I want it all and I want it now!” An exami-nation of the etiology, expression, and escalation of exces-sive employee entitlement. Human Resource ManagementReview, 20: 102–114.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. 1991. Social cognition. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Ford, M. T., Cerasoli, C. P., Higgins, J. A., & Decesare, A. L. 2011.Relationships between psychological, physical, and be-havioral health and work performance: A review andmeta-analysis. Work & Stress, 25: 185–204.

Frijda, N. H. 1988. The laws of emotion.American Psychologist,43: 349–358.

Frijda, N. H., Ortony, A., Sonnemans, J., & Clore, G. L. 1992. Thecomplexity of intensity: Issues concerning the structure ofemotion intensity. Review of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 13: 90–121.

Fulmer, C. A., & Ostroff, C. 2016. Convergence and emer-gence in organizations: An integrative framework andreview. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(S1):S122–S145.

Gallup. 1999. Survey results on “gratitude,” adults and teen-agers. Emerging Trends, 20: 4-5, 9.

Gelfand, M. J., Leslie, L. M., & Keller, K. M. 2008. On the etiologyof conflict cultures. Research in Organizational Behavior,28: 137–166.

Gilbert, K. E., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Gruber, J. 2013. Positiveemotion dysregulation across mood disorders: How am-plifying versus dampening predicts emotional reactivityand illness course. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 51:736–741.

Grant, A. M. 2007. Relational job design and the motivation tomake a prosocial difference. Academy of ManagementReview, 32: 393–417.

Grant, A. M., & Berg, J. M. 2012. Prosocial motivation. In K. S.Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbookof positive organizational scholarship: 28–44. New York:Oxford University Press.

Grant, A. M., Campbell, E. M., Chen, G., Cottone, K.,Lapedis, D., & Lee, K. 2007. Impact and the art of mo-tivation maintenance: The effects of contact withbeneficiaries on persistence behavior. Organiza-tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103:53–67.

Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. D. 2008. Giving com-mitment: Employee support programs and the prosocialsensemaking process. Academy of Management Journal,51: 898–918.

Grant, A. M., & Gino, F. 2010. A little thanks goes a long way:Explaining why gratitude expressions motivate prosocialbehavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,98: 946–955.

Grant, A. M., & Wrzesniewski, A. 2010. I won’t let you down . . .or will I? Core self-evaluations, other-orientation, antici-pated guilt and gratitude, and job performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 95: 108–121.


Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. 2007. Emotion regulation: Con-ceptual foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook ofemotion regulation: 3–24. New York: Guilford Press.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1976. Motivation through thedesign of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behaviorand Human Performance, 16: 250–279.

Haidt, J. 2003. The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R.Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affectivesciences: 852–870. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. 2007. What’s the difference? Di-versity constructs as separation, variety, and disparity inorganization. Academy of Management Review, 32: 1199–1228.

Harvey, P., & Dasborough, M. T. 2015. Entitled to solutions: Theneed for research on workplace entitlement. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 36: 460–465.

Harvey, P., & Martinko, M. J. 2009. An empirical examination ofthe role of attributions in psychological entitlement andits outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30:459–476.

Hayes, M. A., & Comer, M. D. 2010. Start with humility: Lessonsfrom America’s quiet CEOs on how to build trust and in-spire followers. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf.

Hobman, E. V., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. 2009.Abusive supervision in advising relationships: Investi-gating the role of social support. Applied Psychology:An International Review, 58: 233–256.

Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Inderrieden, E. J.2005. Shocks as causes of turnover: What they are andhow organizations can manage them. Human ResourceManagement, 44: 337–352.

Hong, Y., Liao, H., Hu, J., & Jiang, K. 2013. Missing link in theservice profit chain: A meta-analytic review of the ante-cedents, consequences, and moderators of service cli-mate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 237–267.

House, R. J., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. 1995. Themeso paradigm: A framework for the integration of microand macro organizational behavior. Research in Organi-zational Behavior, 17: 71–114.

Hu, X., & Kaplan, S. 2015. Is “feeling good” good enough?Differentiating discrete positive emotions at work. Jour-nal of Organizational Behavior, 36: 39–58.

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. 1999. Why differ-ences make a difference: A field study of diversity, con-flict, and performance in workgroups. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 44: 741–763.

Jenkins, J. M., & Oatley, K. 1996. Emotional episodes andemotionality through the lifespan. In C. Magai & S. H.McFadden (Eds.), Handbook of emotion, adult develop-ment, and aging: 421–437. San Diego: Academic Press.

Jones, D., Willness, C., & Madey, S. 2013. Why are job seekersattracted by corporate social performance? Experimentaland field tests of three signal-based mechanisms. Acad-emy of Management Journal, 57: 383–404.

Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. 1986. Norm theory: Comparingreality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93: 136–153.

Kanov, J. M., Maitlis, S., Worline, M. C., Dutton, J. E., Frost, P., &Lilius, J. M. 2004. Compassion in organizational life.American Behavioral Scientist, 47: 808–827.

Kaplan, S., Bradley-Geist, J. C., Ahmad, A., Anderson, A.,Hargrove, A., & Lindsay, A. 2014. A test of two positivepsychology interventions to increase employee well-being. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29: 367–380.

Kelley, H. H. 1973. The process of causal attributions. Ameri-can Psychologist, 28: 107–128.

Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. 2001. Mood and emotions in smallgroups and work teams. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 86: 99–130.

Klein, K. J., Ziegert, J. C., Knight, A. P., & Xiao, Y. 2006. Dynamicdelegation: Shared, hierarchical, and deindividualizedleadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 51: 590–621.

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. 1996. The effects of feedback in-terventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.Psychological Bulletin, 119: 254–284.

Kozlowski, S. W. J. 2012. Groups and teams in organizations:Studying the multilevel dynamics of emergence. In A. B.Hollingshead & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Methods for studyingsmall groups: A behind-the-scenes guide: 260–283. NewYork: Routledge.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Chao, G. T. 2012. The dynamics ofemergence: Cognition and cohesion in work teams.Managerial and Decision Economics, 33: 335–354.

Lambert, N. M., Clark, M. S., Durtschi, J., Fincham, F. D., &Graham, S. M. 2010. Benefits of expressing gratitude:Expressing gratitude to a partner changes one’s view ofthe relationship. Psychological Science, 21: 574–580.

Lambert, N. M., & Fincham, F. D. 2011. Expressing gratitudeto a partner leads to more relationship maintenancebehavior. Emotion, 11: 52–60.

Lambert, N. M., Fincham, F. D., & Stillman, T. F. 2012. Gratitudeand depressive symptoms: The role of positive reframingand positive emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 26: 615–633.

Lambert, N. M., Graham, S. M., & Fincham, F. D. 2009. A pro-totype analysis of gratitude: Varieties of gratitude expe-riences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35:1193–1207.

Leventhal, H. 1980. Toward a comprehensive theory of emo-tion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 13:139–197.

Li, N., Harris, T. B., Boswell, W. R., & Xie, Z. 2011. The role oforganizational insiders’ developmental feedback andproactive personality on newcomers’ performance: Aninteractionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,96: 1317–1327.

Lissack, M. R., & Letiche, H. 2002. Complexity, emergence,resilience, and coherence: Gaining perspective on orga-nizations and their study. Emergence, 4: 72–94.

Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. 1996. Some ruminative thoughts.Advances in Social Cognition, 9: 1–47.

McCraty, R., & Childre, D. 2004. The grateful heart: The psy-chophysiology of appreciation. In R. A. Emmons & M. E.


McCullough (Eds.), The psychology of gratitude: 230–256.New York: Oxford University Press.

McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. A. 2002. Thegrateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topog-raphy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82:112–127.

McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson,D. B. 2001. Is gratitude a moral affect? PsychologicalBulletin, 127: 249–266.

McCullough, M. E., Kimeldorf, M. B., & Cohen, A. D. 2008. Anadaptation for altruism? The social causes, social effects,and social evolution of gratitude. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 17: 281–285.

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 2001. Corporate social re-sponsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy ofManagement Review, 26: 117–127.

Meyer, A. D. 1982. Adapting to environmental jolts. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 27: 515–537.

Morgeson, F. 2005. The external leadership of self-managingteams: Intervening in the context of novel and disruptiveevents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 497–508.

Morgeson, F., Mitchell, T., & Liu, D. 2015. Event systemtheory: An event-oriented approach to the organiza-tional sciences. Academy of Management Review, 40:515–537.

Morris, M.W., &Moore, P. C. 2000. The lessons we (don’t) learn:Counterfactual thinking and organizational account-ability after a close call. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 45: 737–765.

Mosley, E., & Irvine, D. 2015. The power of thanks: How socialrecognition empowers employees and creates a bestplace to work. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Moss, S. E., & Sanchez, J. I. 2004. Are your employeesavoiding you? Managerial strategies for closing thefeedback gap. Academy of Management Executive,18(1): 32–44.

Mueller, M. P. 2012. How to manage (and avoid) entitledemployees. New York Times, March 23: http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/managing-and-avoiding-entitled-employees/.

Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. 2008. Employee at-tributions of the “why” of HR practices: Their effects onemployee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satis-faction. Personnel Psychology, 61: 503–545.

Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 2006. Or-ganizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents,and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Tamkins, M. M. 2003. Organiza-tional culture and climate. In W. C. Berman, D. R. Ilgen, &R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology. Volume 12:Industrial and organizational psychology: 565–593. NewYork: Wiley.

Ou, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Kinicki, A. J., Waldman, D. A., Xiao, Z., &Song, L. J. 2014. Humble chief executive officers’ connec-tions to top management team integration and middlemanagers’ responses. Administrative Science Quarterly,59: 34–72.

Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. 2012. Modeling how to grow:An inductive examination of humble leader behaviors,contingencies, and outcomes. Academy of ManagementJournal, 55: 787–818.

Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. 2016. How does leaderhumility influence team performance? Exploringthe mechanisms of contagion and collective promo-tion focus. Academy of Management Journal, 59: 1088–1111.

Owens, B. P., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R. 2013. Expressedhumility in organizations: Implications for performance,teams, and leadership. Organization Science, 24: 1517–1538.

Panasonic. 2015. Code of conduct. http://www.panasonic.com/global/corporate/management/code-of-conduct.html.

Perry-Smith, J. E., & Blum, T. C. 2000. Work-family humanresource bundles and perceived organizational per-formance. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 1107–1117.

Ployhart, R. E., & Ryan, A. M. 1997. Toward an explanationof applicant reactions: An examination of organiza-tional justice and attribution frameworks. Organiza-tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72:308–335.

Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume,B. D. 2009. Individual- and organizational-level conse-quences of organizational citizenship behaviors: Ameta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 122–141.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. 2006. Strategy and society:The link between competitive advantage and corpo-rate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review,84(12): 78–92.

Quoidbach, J., Berry, E. V., Hansenne, M., & Mikolajczak, M.2010. Positive emotion regulation and well-being: Com-paring the impact of eight savoring and dampeningstrategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 49:368–373.

Ragins, B. R. 2012. Relational mentoring: A positive ap-proach to mentoring at work. In K. S. Cameron & G. M.Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive orga-nizational scholarship: 519–536. New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. 2001. The causes of organizationalcitizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86: 1306–1314.

Roberts, L. M., Dutton, J. E., Spreitzer, G. M., Heaphy, E. D., &Quinn, R. E. 2005. Composing the reflected best-self por-trait: Building pathways for becoming extraordinary inwork organizations. Academy of Management Review,30: 712–736.

Romanowska, J., Larsson, G., & Theorell, T. 2015. An art-basedleadership intervention for enhancement of self-awareness,humility, and leader performance. Journal of PersonnelPsychology, 13: 97–106.

Rosenberg, E. L. 1998. Levels of analysis and the organizationof affect. Review of General Psychology, 2: 247–270.


http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/managing-and-avoiding-entitled-employees/



http://www.panasonic.com/global/corporate/management/code-of-conduct.html

http://www.panasonic.com/global/corporate/management/code-of-conduct.html

Rottenberg, J., Kasch, K. L., Gross, J. J., & Gotlib, I. H. 2002.Sadness and amusement reactivity differentially predictconcurrent and prospective functioning inmajor depressivedisorder. Emotion, 2: 135–146.

Rousseau, D. M. 1985. Issues of level in organizational re-search: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Re-search in Organizational Behavior, 7: 1–37.

Schein, E. H. 2010.Organizational culture and leadership. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A. N., & Subirats, M. 2002. Climatestrength: A new direction for climate research. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87: 220–229.

Schneier, C. E. 1995. Capitalizing on performance manage-ment, recognition and rewards systems. In D. G. Shaw, C.E. Schneier, R. W. Beatty, & S. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Performancemeasurement, management and appraisal sourcebook:360–368. Amherst, MA: Human Resource DevelopmentPress.

Schwartz, C. E., & Sendor, R. M. 1999. Helping others helpsoneself: Response shift effects in peer support. SocialScience and Medicine, 48: 1563–1575.

Siegel, J. T., Thomson, A. L., & Navarro, M. A. 2014. Exper-imentally distinguishing elevation from gratitude:Oh, the morality. Journal of Positive Psychology, 9:414–427.

Smith, J. A. 2013. Five ways to cultivate gratitude at work.Greater Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life, May 16:http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/five_ways_to_cultivate_gratitude_at_work.

Smith, R. H., & Kim, S. H. 2007. Comprehending envy. Psy-chological Bulletin, 133: 46–64.

Spence, J. R., Brown, D. J., Keeping, L. M., & Lian, H. 2014.Helpful today, but not tomorrow? Feeling grateful asa predictor of daily organizational citizenship behaviors.Personnel Psychology, 67: 705–738.

Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. J. 2003. Organizing for resil-ience. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.),Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations ofa new discipline: 94–110. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Tesser, A., Gatewood, R., & Driver, M. 1968. Some determi-nants of gratitude. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 9: 233–236.

Tomkins, S. S. 1995. In E. V. Demos (Ed.), Exploring affect: Theselected writings of Silvan S. Tomkins. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Tsang, J. 2006. Gratitude and prosocial behaviour: An exper-imental test of gratitude. Cognition and Emotion, 20:138–148.

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. 2010. The narcissism epi-demic: Living in the age of entitlement. New York: AtriaPaperback.

Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. 2010.Unethical behavior in the name of the company: Themoderating effect of organizational identifica-tion and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical

pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 95: 769–780.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. 1995. Extra-rolebehaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitionalclarity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17: 215–285.

Veenhoven, R. 2000. Freedom and happiness: A comparativestudy of forty-four nations in the early 1990s. In E. Diener &E. M. Suh. (Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being:257–288. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vergne, J. P. 2012. Stigmatized categories and public disap-proval of organizations: A mixed-methods study of theglobal arms industry, 1996–2007. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 55: 1027–1052.

Vlachos, P. A., Panagopoulos, N. G., & Rapp, A. A. 2014. Em-ployee judgments of and behaviors toward corporate so-cial responsibility: A multi-study investigation of direct,cascading, and moderating effects. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 35: 990–1017.

Vogel, C. 2006. A field guide to narcissism. Psychology Today,39: 68–74.

Wageman, R. 1995. Interdependence and group effectiveness.Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 145–180.

Wageman, R. 1999. The meaning of interdependence. In M.Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory andresearch: 197–217. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Wang, M., Liao, H., Zhan, Y., & Shi, J. 2011. Daily customermistreatment and employee sabotage against customers:Examining emotion and resource perspectives. Academyof Management Journal, 54: 312–334.

Waters, L. 2012. Predicting job satisfaction: Contributions ofindividual gratitude and institutionalized gratitude. Psy-chology, 3: 1174–1176.

Watkins, P. C. 2004. Gratitude and subjective well-being. InR. A. Emmons & M. E. McCullough (Eds.), The psychol-ogy of gratitude: 167–192. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Watkins, P. C. 2014. Gratitude and the good life: Toward apsychology of appreciation. New York: Springer.

Weng, H. Y., Fox, A. S., Shackman, A. J., Stodola, D. E., Cald-well, J. Z. K., Olson, M. C., Rogers, G. M., & Davidson, R. J.2013. Compassion training alters altruism and neuralresponses to suffering. Psychological Science, 24: 1171–1180.

Whitmer, A. J., & Gotlib, I. H. 2013. An attentional scope modelof rumination. Psychological Bulletin, 139: 1036–1061.

Wilkowski, B. M., Robinson, M. D., Gordon, R. D., & Troop-Gordon, W. 2007. Tracking the evil eye: Trait angerand selective attention within ambiguously hostilescenes. Journal of Research in Personality, 41: 650–666.

Wood, A. M., Froh, J. J., & Geraghty, A. W. A. 2010. Gratitudeand well-being: A review and theoretical integration.Clinical Psychology Review, 30: 890–905.

Wood, A. M., Maltby, J., Gillett, R., Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S.2008. The role of gratitude in the development of social


http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/five_ways_to_cultivate_gratitude_at_work

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/five_ways_to_cultivate_gratitude_at_work

support, stress, and depression: Two longitudinalstudies. Journal of Research in Personality, 42: 854–871.

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. 2001. Crafting a job: Revi-sioning employees as active crafters of their work. Aca-demy of Management Review, 26: 179–201.

Yukl, G. 2002. Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zhou, J. 2003. When the presence of creative coworkers is re-lated to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring,developmental feedback, and creative personality. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 88: 413–422.

Ryan Fehr ([email protected]) is an assistant professor of management at the Michael G.Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Seattle. He received his Ph.D. inorganizationalpsychology fromtheUniversityofMaryland.Hiscurrent research interestsinclude positive organizational scholarship, ethics, morality, and leadership.

Ashley Fulmer ([email protected]) is an assistant professor of psychology at the Na-tional University of Singapore. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Maryland.Her research centers on trust in organizations, international management, and levels ofanalysis issues.

Eli Awtrey ([email protected]) is a doctoral candidate in organizational behavior at theMichael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Seattle. His currentresearch interests center on the dyadic processes that influence performance in teamsand collectives, including collaborative behaviors, interpersonal emotions, anddiversity.

JaredA.Miller ([email protected]) is a doctoral candidate in organizational behavior at theMichael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Seattle. His currentresearch focuses on behavioral ethics, decision making, and prosocial behavior.


mailto:[email protected]




THE GRATEFUL WORKPLACE: A MULTILEVEL MODEL OF GRATITUDE … et al_2017... · THE GRATEFUL WORKPLACE: A MULTILEVEL MODEL OF GRATITUDE IN ORGANIZATIONS RYAN FEHR University of Washington,

Documents