Received: 20 April 2016 Revised: 23 June 2017 Accepted: 5 July 2017

DOI: 10.1002/job.2216

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Inspired to perform: A multilevel investigation of antecedents

and consequences of thriving at work
Fred O. Walumbwa1 | Michael K. Muchiri2 | Everlyne Misati1 | Cindy Wu3 |

Meiliani Meiliani4

1
Department of Management and
International Business, Florida International Summary
University, Miami, Florida, U.S.A. Emerging research evidence across multiple industries suggests that thriving at work is critically
2
School of Management, College of Business, important for creating sustainable organizational performance. However, we possess little under-
RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, standing of how factors across different organizational levels stimulate thriving at work. To
Australia
3
address this gap, the current study proposes a multilevel model that simultaneously examines
Hankamer School of Business, Baylor
University, Waco, Texas, U.S.A.
contextual and individual factors that facilitate thriving at work and how thriving relates to pos-
4 itive health and overall unit performance. Analysis of data collected from 275 employees, at mul-
Faculty of Business and Economics,
University of Bengkulu, Bengkulu, Indonesia tiple time periods, and their immediate supervisors, representing 94 work units, revealed that
Correspondence servant leadership and core self‐evaluations are 2 important contextual and individual factors
Everlyne Misati, Department of Management that significantly relate to thriving at work. The results further indicated that thriving positively
& International Business, Florida International
relates to positive health at the individual level, with this relationship partially mediated by affec-
University, 11200 SW 8th Street, MANGO
Building, Miami, Florida 33199, USA. tive commitment. Our results also showed that collective thriving at work positively relates to
Email: emisa001@fiu.edu collective affective commitment, which in turn, positively relates to overall unit performance.
Taken together, these findings suggest that work context and individual characteristics play sig-
nificant roles in facilitating thriving at work and that thriving is an important means by which man-
agers and their organizations can improve employees0 positive health and unit performance.

KEY W ORDS

core self‐evaluations, performance, positive health, servant leadership, thriving

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N annually in lost productivity (Forbes, 2013; Gallup, 2013). Indeed,

In today0 s fast growing and competitive knowledge‐based service
economy, a thriving workforce is essential for an organization0 s
competitive advantage and sustainable performance (Fritz, Lam, &
Spreitzer, 2011; Prem, Ohly, Kubiceki, & Korunka, 2017; Spreitzer &
Porath, 2012, 2014; Spreitzer, Porath, & Gibson, 2012). This is because
thriving at work—defined as “the psychological state in which
individuals experience both a sense of vitality and a sense of learning
at work” (Spreitzer, Sutcliffe, Dutton, Sonenshein, & Grant, 2005, p.
538)—helps mitigate problems such as absenteeism that may result
from burnout, stress, low morale, disengagement, depression, and
other illnesses, and may cost organizations up to about $84 billion
We thank the Action Editor and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable
comments, feedback, and guidance. An earlier version of this manuscript was
presented at the 2016 annual meeting of the Academy of Management in Ana-
heim, CA, USA, and an abridged version was published in the best paper
proceedings.
emerging research suggests that thriving at work relates to a number
of important organizational outcomes, such as performance, low
burnout or stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment
across different industries (Gerbasi, Porath, Parker, Spreitzer, & Cross,
2015; Parker, Gerbasi, & Porath, 2013; Spreitzer & Porath, 2012,
2014; Spreitzer et al., 2012). This research further suggests that
thriving people tend to be healthier, miss much less work, and report
significantly fewer doctor visits, which translates into health care
savings and a reduction in lost time for their organizations (Porath,
Spreitzer, Gibson, & Garnett, 2012; Spreitzer et al., 2012).
Although scholars have highlighted the importance of thriving for
organizations (Gerbasi et al., 2015; Spreitzer et al., 2005; Spreitzer
et al., 2012; Spreitzer & Porath, 2012), “research on thriving at work
has been quite sparse” (Niessen, Sonnentag, & Sach, 2012, p. 468).
For example, although “how much thriving potential is realized
depends on the organizational context” (Spreitzer et al., 2012, p.
158), the role of the work context in enabling employees to thrive

J Organ Behav. 2018;39:249–261. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 249
250
has yet to be theoretically fleshed out or empirically examined. For
example, “the role of leaders or supervisors in promoting thriving at
work has been understudied in the extant thriving literature”
(Paterson, Luthans, & Jeung, 2014, p. 443). Similarly, we know very
little about how employee individual characteristics relate to thriving
at work (Fritz et al., 2011; Spreitzer et al., 2005). As a consequence,
we know very little about how contextual and personal factors
independently and jointly relate to employee thriving at work. Further,
although thriving at work has been shown to be positively associated
with important organizational outcomes such as employee health and
performance (Carmeli & Spreitzer, 2009; Cullen, Gerbasi, &
Chrobot‐Mason, 2015; Niessen et al., 2012; Paterson et al., 2014;
Porath et al., 2012; Wallace, Butts, Johnson, Stevens, & Smith, 2016),
we do not know how and/or why this is the case. That is, we do not
yet understand the process through which thriving relates to such
outcomes. Because affective commitment reflects a force that binds
individuals to a course of action (Meyer, Becker, & Vandenberghe,
2004; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001), we suggest that affective
commitment may be an important mediating mechanism that explains
how thriving at work translates into better or positive health
and performance.
Drawing from Chen and Kanfer0 s (2006) multilevel theory of work
motivation, the purpose of this study was to develop and test a multi-
level model that simultaneously examines the contextual and individual
enablers that facilitate thriving at work and how thriving at work
relates to better or positive health and performance at different levels
of analysis. Chen and Kanfer0 s (2006) multilevel theory takes into
account the dynamic, mutual influences of the individual and the unit
context on individual, and unit motivational processes and motivation
outcomes, such as performance. It also emphasizes the role of both
contextual and individual factors to account for additional variance in
individual and unit motivation and thus may help understand how
thriving at work serves as an adaptive function that helps individuals
navigate and change their work contexts to promote their own learn-
ing and development (Spreitzer et al., 2005; Tsui & Ashford, 1994).
Drawing from this model, we consider servant leadership as an impor-
tant contextual factor that facilitates the emerging state of thriving
because this particular leader behavior emphasizes the development
of others, which is achieved through helping followers to realize their
full potential by prioritizing the fulfillment of their needs (Greenleaf,
1977, 2002). We then consider core self‐evaluations as an individual
factor that stimulates thriving at work because it represents the funda-
mental appraisal one makes about one0 s worthiness, competence, and
capabilities in relation to one0 s environment (Seibert, Wang, &
Courtright, 2011). We further postulate that at the individual level,
thriving at work relates to better or positive health—defined as “a state
beyond the mere absence of disease” (i.e., a combination of excellent
status on biological, subjective, and functional measures; Seligman,
2008, p. 3), with this relationship at least partially mediated by affec-
tive commitment. At the unit level, we posit that collective thriving
at work positively relates to collective affective commitment, which
in turn, positively relates to overall unit performance.
By examining our multilevel model, the present study makes at
least four important contributions to the extant literature. First,
although thriving continues to gain increased research attention, little
WALUMBWA ET AL.
consideration has been devoted to how thriving at work across levels
relates to important organizational outcomes. This is particularly
concerning because scholars have argued that ignoring multilevel
issues may lead to a number of problems, including incomplete
understanding of behaviors occurring at different levels of analysis,
generalization, and disregard for the effects of context (Hitt, Beamish,
Jackson, & Mathieu, 2007; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Ployhart &
Moliterno, 2011). Hence, our contribution is that we test a more
robust multilevel model that simultaneously takes into account
contextual and individual characteristic factors that stimulate thriving
at work and its consequences (Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Diez‐Roux,
2000; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).
Second, following arguments that when employees thrive, their
units and/or organizations also thrive (Spreitzer & Porath, 2012), we
examine the extent to which thriving at the work unit level relates to
overall unit performance. Our research, therefore, answers calls for
more understanding of how thriving at work relates to performance
(Spreitzer et al., 2005) and the unique relationship between unit as well
as individual level thriving and work outcomes. Third, our research
extends existing research on thriving by identifying affective commit-
ment as a potential mechanism that explains how thriving at work
relates to better or positive health, thus addressing Spreitzer et al.0 s
(2005) call for more research attention linking thriving at work and
human health. In doing so, we demonstrate the potential benefits of
thriving at work in terms of enhancing employee better or positive
health (Panaccio & Vandenberghe, 2009). Finally, we also contribute
to servant leadership literature, and leadership in general. Although
there is evidence suggesting that servant leadership has the potential
to explain a wide range of outcomes (Hoch, Bommer, Dulebohn, &
Wu, 2016; Liden, Panaccio, Meuser, Hu, & Wayne, 2014; van
Dierendonck, 2011), “limited attention has been devoted to
uncovering the underlying mechanisms for how and why this occurs”
(Liden, Wayne, Liao, & Meuser, 2014, p. 1449). Our study answers calls
by researchers such as Liden, Wayne, et al. (2014) for more research
on the process by which servant leadership relates to followers0 and
their organizations0 outcomes in order to develop solid theoretical
understanding of this leadership behavior. We achieve this objective
by identifying collective thriving at work as a potential intervening
variable that may further explain how and why servant leadership
relates to overall unit performance. We tested our model, shown in
Figure 1, using time‐lagged data from focal employees and their
immediate unit supervisors.
2 | THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS
DEVELOPMENT
2.1 | Thriving at work
The notion of thriving is important and relevant because it serves as
“an adaptive function that helps individuals navigate and change their
work contexts to promote their own development” (Spreitzer et al.,
2005, p. 537). Thriving has been found to relate to a number of
important organizational outcomes, including performance, better
health, innovation, low burnout, and self‐development (Paterson
WALUMBWA ET AL.
FIGURE 1 Hypothesized multilevel of the
antecedents and consequences of thriving
at work
et al., 2014; Porath et al., 2012; Wallace et al., 2016). In their seminal
work, Spreitzer et al. (2005) distinguished thriving from related
constructs such as resilience. For example, while acknowledging that
resilience and thriving share some conceptual space, the authors
argued that the two constructs are different in important ways. First,
“resilience focuses on rebounding in the face of particularly extreme
and extenuating circumstances” whereas “thriving can occur with or
without adversity, such that people can experience learning and vitality
without necessarily encountering significant, sustained hardship or
challenge” (Spreitzer et al., 2005, p. 538). Second, “whereas resilience
refers to behavioral capacities that allow one to bounce back from
untoward events, thriving focuses on the positive psychological expe-
rience of increased learning and vitality to develop oneself and grow at
work” (Spreitzer et al., 2005, p. 538). Initial empirical evidence also sug-
gests that thriving is distinct from related constructs, such as positive
and negative affect, learning and performance goal orientations, and
proactive personality (Porath et al., 2012). Spreitzer et al. (2005)
argued that “if the right enabling conditions and resources are present,
there is an increased likelihood that individuals will thrive, even under
onerous conditions” (Spreitzer et al., 2005, p. 539). We conceptualized
these enabling conditions and resources as contextual and individual
factors that stimulate thriving at work.
2.2 | Unit‐level antecedent of thriving at work
2.2.1 | Servant leadership and thriving at work
Extant research suggests that servant leadership relates to a variety of
important outcomes, such as citizenship behaviors, creativity,
innovation, and performance at different levels of analysis (see Hoch
et al., 2016; Liden, Panaccio, et al., 2014; van Dierendonck, 2011, for
reviews). Servant leadership is a group‐oriented and positive leader-
ship approach that entails demonstrating behaviors that underscore
the well‐being of group members (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber,
2009; Liden, Wayne, et al., 2014). Servant leaders achieve this objec-
tive by emphasizing serving others and team work through active lis-
tening, empathy, affirmation, confidence building, and by providing
feedback and resources while nurturing the broader potential of
individual members (Greenleaf, 1977, 2002). Servant leadership also
emphasizes “the importance of follower outcomes in terms of personal
growth” and accentuates “accountability by giving people clear goals to
strive for but also holding them responsible for achieving these goals
and requiring managers to share knowledge and information to ensure
that employees develop the necessary skills” (van Dierendonck, 2011,
251
pp. 1237–1238). Additionally, such leaders not only place more
emphasis on offering followers task and psychological flexibility and
motivating them to help and identify with each other, they have also
been suggested to display more interpersonal acceptance and
authenticity in the presence of their followers compared with other
types of leaders, such as transformational leaders (Chen, Zhu, & Zhou,
2015; Liden, Wayne, et al., 2014; van Dierendonck, 2011).
According to Chen and Kanfer (2006, p. 252), “leadership arguably
represents the most important of all contextual factors” that may
facilitate emergent states, such as collective thriving at work.
Greenleaf (1977) identified key elements of servant leadership to
include the psychological growth and development of followers.
Therefore, we expect servant leadership to foster collective thriving
at work for several reasons. First, because such leaders provide their
followers with opportunities to develop new skills and with feedback
on their task effectiveness (Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010), fol-
lowers of such leaders are more likely to experience vitality because
they are engaged in their work (Spreitzer et al., 2005). Similarly, when
work unit members are provided the opportunity by their leader to
develop and grow, they are more likely to feel accountable and respon-
sible for the outcomes of their jobs and to remain committed to
perform better, which contributes to active learning. Second, servant
leaders motivate their followers to engage in creative behaviors and
episodic future thinking while also encouraging them to plan ahead
and find ways to improve performance (Chen et al., 2015; Neubert,
Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, & Roberts, 2008). Research suggests that
employees tend to thrive when they are encouraged to take more
initiatives to seek out opportunities to grow and learn (Spreitzer
et al., 2012)—a script that servant leaders often follow.
Finally, servant leaders provide feedback and resources and are
said to act in the best interests of their followers, including by
developing their skills, knowledge, and abilities (Walumbwa et al.,
2010). By creating a social context in which followers interact with
their leader, followers of such leaders are more likely to see the prob-
lems they encounter as a positive challenge, and thus seek out novel
solutions through continuous learning. Consistent with our reasoning,
Spreitzer et al. (2012) found that collaboration skills (i.e., communicat-
ing effectively both verbally and nonverbally, cooperating, and
problem‐solving) were among the strongest predictors of thriving at
work. Similarly, in a qualitative study of three organizations where
the focal questions asked centered on participants0 thriving
experiences, Sonenshein, Dutton, Grant, Spreitzer, and Sutcliffe
(2013) documented the importance of immediate supervisors as
252
ambient stimuli in promoting thriving at work. Others (e.g., Paterson
et al., 2014) have also found that supervisor support climate
—behaviors consistent with servant leadership—was an important con-
textual factor that promotes thriving at work. Therefore, based on
theory and research, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 1. Servant leadership positively relates to
collective thriving at work.
2.3 | Individual‐level antecedent of thriving at work
Thriving is a state rather than a trait (Spreitzer et al., 2005), and it
serves as a measure that individuals use to assess progress in their
self‐regulatory process (Spreitzer & Porath, 2014). We argue that
because thriving is a desirable subjective experience, individual
characteristics, such as personality, may be particularly important in
enhancing thriving at work (Spreitzer & Porath, 2014). In this paper,
we focus on the personality trait of core self‐evaluations.
2.3.1 | Core self‐evaluations
Core self‐evaluations refers to the “fundamental assessments that
people make about their worthiness, competence, and capabilities”
(Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005, p. 257). As a dispositional trait,
we expect core self‐evaluations to serve as a key discretional stimulus
that triggers thriving at work in a number of ways. For example, when
individuals feel worthy, competent, and capable, they are more likely to
focus on their everyday work, thus enhancing thriving at work
(Spreitzer et al., 2005). As Spreitzer et al. (2005) argued, “thriving is a
desirable subjective experience that allows individuals to gauge
whether what they are doing and how they are doing it is helping them
to develop in a positive direction” (p. 537). Therefore, individuals with
high core self‐evaluations are more likely to thrive because they
believe in their capabilities (Aryee, Walumbwa, Mondejar, & Chu,
2017). Additionally, these individuals seek out stimulating roles that
provide greater opportunity to make their work more intrinsically
exciting while also helping coworkers to achieve the same level of
excitement and performance (Chang, Ferris, Johnson, Rosen, & Tan,
2012). Moreover, when individuals are self‐confident and competent
(i.e., being able to perform, cope, persevere, and succeed), they are
more likely to be less threatened by new or challenging situations
(Judge, 2009) and thus are more likely to feel positive energy and
engage in more learning. This is because self‐confident and competent
individuals tend to perceive themselves as having control over their
work environment (Aryee et al., 2017). Similarly, when individuals feel
that they are worthy, they are more likely to believe that they are
valued by the organization and thus are more likely to engage in more
learning to benefit the organization (Spreitzer et al., 2005). Worthiness
can also foster a sense of vitality. For example, those who believe that
they are worthy are more likely to cooperate and look out for one
another for the effective functioning of the unit or organization; they
are also more able and likely to help others and provide social support,
resulting in increased affective and physiological energy (Spreitzer
et al., 2005). Those who feel worthless tend to withdraw because to
them they are not trusted and valued by the organization (Judge,
Locke, & Durham, 1997), and thus are not likely to thrive at work.
WALUMBWA ET AL.
We further speculate that when employees perceive that their job
requirements are thrilling and important (Chang et al., 2012), they are
more likely to spend more effort on their jobs (active learning) and to
search for solutions using multiple techniques (positive energy) to ben-
efit the organization, thus enhancing thriving at work. In support,
Porath et al. (2012, p. 253) made three important observations:
(a) those with low self‐esteem will tend to overgeneralize negative
outcomes as personal failings, which, subsequently, impedes their
learning and vitality; (b) those high in generalized self‐efficacy are more
likely to engage actively in tasks because they are more confident in
their potential success, and such task engagement is likely to generate
vitality and to enhance possibilities for learning and, ultimately, thriv-
ing; and (c) internal locus of control may predispose an individual to
thrive, as it impacts a person0 s willingness to act agentically.
Importantly, these observations are consistent with Chen and
Kanfer0 s (2006) multilevel theory, which identifies individual‐level fac-
tors, such as personality traits, as discretionary stimuli that stimulate
individual motivational processes, such as thriving. Thus, we expect a
positive relationship between core self‐evaluations and thriving at
work, and propose the following:
Hypothesis 2. Core self‐evaluations positively relates to
individual‐level thriving at work.
2.4 | Consequences of thriving at work
According to Spreitzer and Porath (2014), “thriving is a desirable sub-
jective experience that helps individuals to understand what and how
they are doing, and whether it is increasing their individual functioning
and adaptability at work” (p. 247). Spreitzer and colleagues (e.g.,
Spreitzer & Porath, 2012, 2014; Spreitzer et al., 2005; Spreitzer
et al., 2012) argue that when individuals feel a sense of vitality and
aliveness, they are less likely to be anxious and depressed and thus
more likely to be mentally and physically healthy (Keyes, 2002). This
is because “positive experiences such as vitality enable individuals to
be more physiologically resilient to stressful situations” (Porath et al.,
2012, p. 260). These authors further argue that a sense of learning
can contribute to positive physical health, because those learning at
work are more likely to report that work contributed positively to their
mental and physical health (Ettner & Grzywacz, 2001). Although thriv-
ing at work has been found to directly relate to positive health (Porath
et al., 2012), we propose that this link is at least partially mediated by
affective commitment to the organization, defined as an emotional
attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization
(Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1997).
2.4.1 | Thriving at work, affective commitment, and posi-
tive health
Affective commitment is a psychological bond that reflects dedication
and responsibility to the organization (Klein, Molloy, & Brinsfield,
2012; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001; Meyer et al., 2004). Meyer and
Allen (1997) identified one major source of affective commitment as
work experience, and we argue that one key organizational work expe-
rience that may enhance affective commitment is thriving at work
(Spreitzer & Porath, 2012; Spreitzer et al., 2012). Because thriving is
WALUMBWA ET AL.
a desirable subjective experience that helps individuals to understand
what and how they are doing, and whether they can increase their
individual functioning and adaptability at work (Spreitzer & Porath,
2014), thriving can serve as an internal gauge that individuals use
to assess how well they are doing in terms of their work, thereby
enhancing affective commitment to the organization. Thriving can
also serve as an adaptive function that helps individuals to navigate
and change their work contexts to promote their own development
and success (Spreitzer & Porath, 2014) and, in so doing, enhance
their level of affective commitment to the organization. Indeed,
Spreitzer et al. (2005) argued that thriving is a coarse‐grained indica-
tor that one is emerging in a positive direction. This suggests that
thriving at work may serve as a type of subjective positive reinforce-
ment for emotional attachment, identification with, and involvement
in the organization. A sense of thriving at work is also likely to
enhance affective commitment because when people think of them-
selves as being successful in goal pursuits, they are more likely to be
emotionally attached, identify with, and be involved with the work
unit or organization because they see the opportunity to learn,
develop, and grow. Individuals who feel more energized at work
are also more likely to expend more effort, thus enhancing their
levels of commitment to their work and organization (Spreitzer &
Sutcliffe, 2007).
Research also suggests that affective commitment relates to
employee general health (Meyer & Maltin, 2010; Meyer, Stanley,
Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). According to Begley and Czajka
(1993), affective commitment can buffer the negative influence of
work stressors on employee health, because commitment enables
individuals to attach direction and meaning to their work (Kobasa,
1982). It also provides a sense of security, stability, and feelings of
belonging that can buffer the negative effects of stress on health
(Begley & Czajka, 1993). Panaccio and Vandenberghe (2009) argued
that affective commitment is a valuable source of protection from
stress and its negative consequences, possibly resulting in better or
positive health (i.e., feeling well physically, mentally, and emotionally,
and therefore happy, fulfilled, and worthy or valued). This is because
individuals who experience affective commitment likely have access
to valued resources to face the demands of their work involvements
(Panaccio & Vandenberghe, 2009). We therefore expect affective
commitment to serve as a potential mediator through which thriving
at work relates to better or positive health. We propose
the following:
Hypothesis 3. The positive relationship between thriv-
ing at work and positive health at the individual level is
partially mediated by affective commitment.
2.5 | Collective thriving at work, collective affective
commitment, and unit performance
Research indicates that thriving at work positively relates to individual
job performance (Paterson et al., 2014; Porath et al., 2012; Spreitzer &
Porath, 2012; Wallace et al., 2016). However, relatively little research
has been devoted to examining the relationship between collective
thriving and group or organizational performance. As such, we know
253
very little about how thriving at work might operate at the group or
unit levels. In accordance with Chen and Kanfer0 s (2006) theorizing
that work unit motivation processes directly facilitate work unit per-
formance, we expect a positive relationship between collective thriv-
ing at work and overall unit performance. When unit members are
thriving, they are more likely to assist each other to perform their
tasks, thus increasing overall performance of the work unit. Similarly,
when people experience more learning at work, they are more likely
to leverage such learning for performance improvement. This is
because thriving helps “individuals to understand what and how they
are doing and whether it is increasing their functioning and adaptability
at work” (Spreitzer & Porath, 2014, p. 247). In what follows, we first
present the hypothesis regarding the relationship between collective
thriving at work and collective affective commitment. Next, we explain
the relationship between collective affective commitment and overall
unit performance.
2.5.1 | Collective thriving and collective affective
commitment
Because psychological states or processes are likely to retain the same
meaning and function across levels of analysis (Chen & Kanfer, 2006;
Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen, 2007), we expect the collective
thriving and collective affective commitment relationship at the work
unit level of analysis to be similar. Specifically, we argue that thriving
at work will increase if unit members observe that their colleagues
are demonstrating the same relevant behaviors at work. When collec-
tive thriving at work is high, it should contribute to increased collective
affective commitment among unit members because everyone feels
that they have a support system at work (Spreitzer et al., 2012). Thus,
we propose that
Hypothesis 4. Collective thriving at work positively
relates to collective affective commitment.
2.5.2 | Collective affective commitment and overall unit
performance
Theory and research suggest that collective affective commitment may
contribute to unit performance because employees with high levels of
affective commitment embrace the organization0 s values of providing
superior service to their customers (Liao & Chuang, 2007). For exam-
ple, units with high levels of collective affective commitment are more
likely to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization, believ-
ing that their efforts will ultimately result in superior performance to
benefit the organization. Moussa, Boyer, and Newberry (2016) suc-
cinctly argued that if you want to be competitive in a demanding,
fast‐paced work environment, you need to rely on a high‐performing
and committed team. Supporting this idea, that collective affective
commitment may contribute to overall unit performance, research
demonstrates a positive relationship between team commitment and
unit or team performance (Bishop, Scott, & Burroughs, 2000;
Neininger, Lehmann‐Willenbrock, Kauffelf, & Henschel, 2010).
Therefore, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 5. Collective affective commitment posi-
tively relates to overall unit performance.
254
3 | METHODS
3.1 | Research design and participants
This research was conducted in a regional government agency in Indo-
nesia (South East Asia). Participants were public servant employees
from all units of the civil service, including departments of Mining,
Agriculture, Forestry, Tourism, Public Transport and Road construction,
and Fisheries. Employees were considered to be members of the same
work unit if they shared a common supervisor and worked together in
the same unit. The government is the regulator of industrial and busi-
ness activities undertaken by many organizations including multina-
tional organizations in Indonesia, and employees are engaged in a
variety of services that require a high level of coordination and motiva-
tion. Employees of each unit worked very closely together (i.e., inter-
dependently) to achieve their collective responsibility as a work unit.
The government is also the largest employer in Indonesia, which makes
the work units relatively stable, while also allowing unit members time
and opportunity to interact more often and to work well together (in
this sample, participants had been working together for an average
of about 6.22 years at the time of the survey). In this complex and
dynamic environment, thriving is especially important for effective ser-
vice delivery. The entire survey was translated from English into
Bahasa Indonesia and then back‐translated into English by two inde-
pendent bilingual experts to ensure equivalency of meaning following
the standard procedure recommended by Brislin (1980). The translated
version was pretested using 15 employees in the same government
agency who were asked to comment on any item that they found
ambiguous or difficult to understand (these 15 employees did not par-
ticipate in the final research project). This final process did not lead to
any changes to the items.
With the exception of the overall unit performance data, which we
obtained from immediate unit supervisors, data on all other variables
were obtained from employees. However, following the recommenda-
tion of Ployhart and Vandenberg (2010), that researchers should con-
sider time lags between the independent (X) and mediator (M) to
reduce common‐source bias, we collected each wave of data at differ-
ent points with an interval of approximately 2 weeks in between time
periods to reduce common method variance bias (Podsakoff, MacKen-
zie, & Podsakoff, 2012). We elected to use a 2‐week time lag to maxi-
mize participants0 participation. Ployhart and Vandenberg (2010)
noted that although introducing lags can be powerful, the challenge is
to ensure that the time lags are not too short or too long. Thus, we felt
that the 2‐week interval was enough to allow us the possibility of reduc-
ing transient sources of inflation. At Time 1, employees completed mea-
sures of servant leadership and core self‐evaluations, as well as
demographic information. Employees were also requested to provide
their names and work units so that we could match follow‐up surveys
across the time periods. However, they were assured that this informa-
tion would only be used for research purposes and would not be
reported or shared in any form or shape with their employer. Partici-
pants, who completed Time 1 measures, completed a measure of thriv-
ing at work at Time 2, affective commitment at Time 3, and positive
health at Time 4, respectively. Supervisors evaluated the overall perfor-
mance of their respective work units as a whole about the same time
WALUMBWA ET AL.
when employees were completing the final wave of data collection on
positive health. All surveys were completed and returned in sealed
envelopes to designated areas during regularly scheduled work hours.
Questionnaires were originally distributed to 450 employees, and
323 completed surveys were returned at Time 1. All employees who
responded at Time 1 were contacted at Times 2, 3, and 4. However,
after screening for missing data and information and matching
employees to their work units, and accounting for attrition in between
time periods, we ended up with 275 representative usable surveys
from employees (an effective response rate of about 61%)
representing 94 work units (two to three employees per work unit).
Fifty four percent of employees were female with a mean age of
38.19 (SD = 9.12) years and a mean tenure with immediate supervisor
of 3.05 (SD = 4.30) years. In terms of education, 53.1% had bachelor0 s
degrees, 12.4% had master0 s degrees, and 33.5% had diplomas (an
equivalent of a 2‐year college diploma in the United States). All super-
visors completed the survey (N = 94), and 34% were female, with a
mean age of 46.78 (SD = 5.98) years and a mean tenure in the organi-
zation of 14.94 (SD = 9.48). Fifty five percent had bachelor0 s degrees,
35.5% had master0 s degrees, and 9.7% had diplomas or lower.
3.2 | Measures
3.2.1 | Core self‐evaluations
We measured core self‐evaluations with a 12‐item scale from Judge,
Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2003) based on a 5‐point format (1 = strongly
disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Core self‐evaluations is a multidimensional
construct comprising self‐esteem, generalized self‐efficacy, emotional
stability, and locus of control. It differs from other personality traits
because it is broader in scope and thus may produce higher validity
coefficients (Chang et al., 2012). In this study, we use the direct
approach, which measures core self‐evaluations itself rather than its
traits (Judge et al., 2003). Sample items include “I determine what will
happen in my life” and “When I try, I generally succeed” (α = .80).
3.2.2 | Servant leadership
To measure servant leadership, we used the 14‐item scale developed
and validated by Ehrhart (2004) and anchored on a 5‐point format
(1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Employees rated their imme-
diate work unit supervisor, and thus, the work unit was the referent. In
a referent‐shift model, rather than simply averaging individual scores
to the unit level, individuals are asked to respond to survey items in
reference to the unit (Chan, 1998). This conceptualization is consistent
with previous servant leadership research (e.g., Chen et al., 2015;
Liden, Wayne, et al., 2014; Walumbwa et al., 2010). Sample items
include “My work unit leader creates a sense of community among
employees within the work unit” and “My work unit leader0 s decisions
are influenced by work unit employees0 input” (α = .84). To assess the
appropriateness of aggregating individual scores of servant leadership
to the work unit level, we first assessed interrater agreement using the
rwg(j) statistic (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). We then calculated two
intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The ICC1 indicates the pro-
portion of variability at the individual level that can be attributed to
group membership, whereas the ICC2 refers to the reliability of the
group‐level means (Bliese, 2000). The mean rwg(j) value was .98,
WALUMBWA ET AL.
whereas the ICC1 and ICC2 values were .59 and .81, respectively, with
the one‐way analyses of variance (ANOVA) statistically significant
(p < .05), thus justifying aggregation (LeBreton & Senter, 2008).
3.2.3 | Thriving at work
We measured thriving at work at the individual level because thriv-
ing is a temporary internal property of an individual and is more
about individual psychological growth (Spreitzer & Porath, 2014;
Spreitzer et al., 2005), and thus is better understood from an individ-
ual perspective. We used the 10‐item scale developed and validated
by Porath et al. (2012) to measure thriving at work based on a 6‐
point format (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree), with five
items, each capturing learning and vitality, respectively (α = .88).
Because our primary interest is on thriving as a whole, we chose
to operationalize thriving at work as a combination of the two
dimensions of learning and vitality together (Porath et al., 2012), as
has been done in previous research (e.g., Cullen et al., 2015; Gerbasi
et al., 2015; Niessen et al., 2012; Paterson et al., 2014; Wallace
et al., 2016). Sample items include “I find myself learning often”
and “I feel alive and vital.”
Because we hypothesized both the individual‐ and unit‐level
antecedents and consequences of thriving at work (see Figure 1),
we also assessed the appropriateness of aggregating individual
scores to the work unit level. The mean rwg(j) value was .92 whereas
the ICC1 and ICC2 values were .10 and .25, respectively, with the
one‐way ANOVA statistically significant (p < .05). Because thriving
at work yielded an ICC1 of .10, we concluded that there was suffi-
cient individual‐ and unit‐level variance to explain, and therefore we
felt that it was appropriate for us to further examine its individual‐
and unit‐level predictors simultaneously, as hypothesized (LeBreton
& Senter, 2008).
3.2.4 | Affective commitment
We assessed affective commitment (α = .73) using five items from Por-
ter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian (1974) based on a 7‐point format
(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Sample items include “I feel
very little loyalty to this organization” (reversed) and “Deciding to work
for this organization was a definite mistake on my part” (reversed). We
conceptualized affective commitment also at both individual and unit
levels, and therefore, we assessed the appropriateness of aggregating
individual responses to the unit level. The mean rwg(j) value was .68,
whereas the ICC1 and ICC2 values were .28 and .53, respectively, with
the one‐way ANOVA statistically significant (p < .05). Once again,
because affective commitment yielded an ICC1 of .28, we concluded
that there was sufficient individual‐ and unit‐level variance to explain,
and therefore we felt that it was appropriate for us to further examine
its individual‐ and unit‐level predictors simultaneously, as hypothe-
sized (LeBreton & Senter, 2008).
3.2.5 | Positive health
We used the General Health Questionnaire0 s (GHQ) 12‐item scale
(Goldberg & Blackwell, 1970; see also Jacob, Bhugra, & Mann, 1997)
to measure positive health (α = .91) based on a 4‐point format
(0 = not at all; 1 = no more than usual; 2 = rather more than usual;
255
3 = much more than usual). The GHQ has been extensively used in dif-
ferent settings and different cultures and has shown excellent reliabil-
ity in previous studies (e.g., Porath et al., 2012). The GHQ scale
assesses employees0 general health by asking participants whether
they have experienced a particular symptom or behavior over the last
few weeks (Jackson, 2007). Sample items include “Have you recently …
been able to enjoy your normal day to day activities?” and “… been
feeling reasonably happy, all things considered?”
3.2.6 | Overall unit performance
We used a 15‐item scale used by Bono and Judge (2003) to measure
overall unit performance, which measures both task performance and
initiative aspects of performance, including innovation, personal initia-
tive, and self‐direction. Supervisors rated the performance of the
work unit as a whole (α = .85) based on a 5‐point format (1 = need
improvement, 5 = excellent). Sample items include “Employees in this
work unit … come up with new ideas” and “… find improved ways
to do things.”
3.3 | Analytic strategy
Because we operationalized and measured the constructs at both the
individual and unit levels, and because we obtained multiple responses
from each unit and thus the observed data were not independent (i.e.,
nested within each unit), we tested our model by conducting multilevel
structural equation modeling (ML‐SEM) using Mplus 7.11 (Muthén &
Muthén, 1998–2015) with maximum likelihood estimation. Specifi-
cally, multilevel structural equation modeling partitions variance and
creates latent group‐level variables, which allows for testing the
within‐ and between‐unit influences simultaneously. Moreover,
because thriving at work and affective commitment were hypothe-
sized at both the individual and group levels, we centered them around
group means, so that the group mean centered portions of the two
variables are used to model the individual‐level relationships and the
means are used to model the group‐level relationships (see also
D0 innocenzo, Luciano, Mathieu, Maynard, & Chen, 2016).
4 | RESULTS
4.1 | Confirmatory factor analysis
We first conducted a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) that
included all employee‐rated measures (i.e., servant leadership, core
self‐evaluations, thriving at work, affective commitment, and positive
health) and compared this model to several plausible alternative
models. We use multilevel CFA because it simultaneously fits both
the lower‐ and upper‐level CFA to a multilevel dataset and thus can
be used to test whether the structure of any construct differs across
levels of analysis (Dyer, Hanges, & Hall, 2005; Lüdtke et al., 2008).
We followed recommendations of Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand,
and Magley (1997) as well as Little, Rhemtulla, Gibson, and Schoemann
(2013) and formed two multi‐item indicators for each construct on the
basis of the items0 psychometric properties, in order to yield more sta-
ble parameter estimates (Kishton & Widaman, 1994; Landis, Beal, &
Tesluk, 2000; Robert, Probst, Martocchio, Drasgow, & Lawler, 2000;
256 WALUMBWA ET AL.

Yuan, Bentler, & Kano, 1997) while also offering improved reliability 4.2 | Descriptive statistics
and relationships with other variables (Brown, 2006; Kishton &
Table 1 summarizes the descriptive statistics including the study
Widaman, 1994). For thriving at work, we used the two dimensions
variables0 means, standard deviations at both individual and group
(learning and vitality) as its indicators. We used these indicators for
levels, internal reliabilities, and ICC(1)s. We also examined the correla-
the four Level 1 latent variables (core self‐evaluations, thriving at work,
tions between follower demographics (i.e., age and gender), and we
affective commitment, and positive health), and the means of the indi-
found that they were not significantly correlated with any of the study
cators of servant leadership, thriving at work, and affective commit-
variables. Given this, we concluded that these demographics could not
ment for the three Level 2 latent variables.
serve as problematic omitted variables in our analyses (Becker, 2005).
The CFA results for the seven‐factor model (i.e., core self‐evalua-
Therefore, in the interest of considering statistical power, given that
tions, thriving at work, affective commitment, and positive health at
we are testing a relatively complex model, follower demographics were
Level 1, and servant leadership, thriving at work, affective commitment
not included in final analyses. As anticipated, core self‐evaluations and
at Level 2) demonstrated an acceptable model fit to the data, χ2
servant leadership were positively correlated with thriving at work,
(20) = 61.89, p < .01, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .09, compared to other plau-
whereas thriving at work was positively correlated with positive health
sible alternative models: six‐factor model where Level 1 affective com-
and overall unit performance. Thus, it appears that servant leadership
mitment and Level 1 thriving at work are combined as one factor, χ2
(ambient stimuli) and core self‐evaluations (discretionary stimuli) have
(23) = 169.24, CFI = .81, RMSEA = .15, Δχ2(3) = 107.35, p < .01; six‐
stronger relationships with thriving at work, which also relates to out-
factor model where Level 2 affective commitment and Level 2 thriving
come variables. We further test these relationships below.
at work are combined as one factor, χ2(22) = 69.69, CFI = .94,
RMSEA = .09, Δχ2(2) = 7.8, p < .05); five‐factor model where Level 1
thriving at work, core self‐evaluations, and Level 1 affective commit- 4.3 | Hypothesis testing
ment are combined as one factor, χ (25) = 182.17, CFI = .79,
2
The multilevel model fit the data well, χ2(6) = 9.59, p > .05, CFI = .99,
RMSEA = .15, Δχ2(5) = 120.28, p < .01; five‐factor model where ser-
RMSEA = .05. Therefore, we continued to test the hypotheses.
vant leadership, Level 2 thriving at work, and Level 2 affective commit-
Figure 2 reports all the standardized path coefficients. As shown in
ment are combined as one factor, χ2(23) = 72.14, CFI = .94,
Figure 2, we found support for Hypothesis 1 (γ = .67, p < .01), which
RMSEA = .09, Δχ2(3) = 10.25, p < .05; four‐factor model where core
stated that servant leadership would be positively related to unit‐level
self‐evaluations, Level 1 thriving at work, Level 1 affective commit-
thriving at work. Hypothesis 2, which posited that core self‐evalua-
ment, and health are combined as one factor, χ2(26) = 650.11, CFI = .18,
tions would be positively related to individual‐level thriving at work,
RMSEA = .30, Δχ2(6) = 588.22, p < .01; and two‐factor model where all
was also supported (γ = .55, p < .01).
the Level 1 indicators were combined into one factor and all the Level
Hypothesis 3 stated that the positive relationship between thriv-
2 indicators were combined into the other factor, χ2(29) = 577.61,
ing at work and positive health would be partially mediated by affec-
CFI = .28, RMSEA = .26, Δχ2(9) = 515.72, p < .01. Taken together,
tive commitment at the individual level. We tested significance of
these results provide evidence that our self‐rated measures of servant
direct, indirect, and total effects to verify the mediation effect by com-
leadership, core self‐evaluations, thriving at work, affective commit-
puting 95% confidence intervals (CI) around each standardized path
ment, and positive health are distinct. They also fit with our a priori
coefficient. Ninety five percent CIs were calculated using normal
multilevel factor structure.
approximation methods for direct and total effects, whereas Monte
Carlo methods were used to calculate indirect effects (Preacher,
Zhang, & Zyphur, 2011). Partial mediation was supported as the total
effect (.29 [.09, .49]) was composed of an indirect effect (.12 [.03,
TABLE 1 Multilevel descriptive statistics and correlations .21]) along with a direct effect of thriving at work on positive health
Scales 1 2 3 4 5 6 (.17 [.01, .33]), where none of the 95% CIs included 0. Hypothesis 3
1. Organizational (.72) .22** .23** .41** .43** ‐ was therefore supported.
commitment Hypothesis 4 stipulated that collective thriving at work positively
2. Servant leadership .28** (.84) .12* .12* .26** ‐ relates to collective affective commitment at the unit level. As
3. Core self‐evaluations .33** .21** (.80) .54** .08 ‐ Figure 2 indicates, the significant path (γ = .88, p < .01) offered support
4. Thriving at work .47** .22* .47** (.88) .32** ‐ for this hypothesis. Finally, Hypothesis 5, which stated that collective
5. Positive health .46** .26* .09 .35** (.91) ‐ affective commitment positively relates to overall unit performance at
6. Unit performance .46** .48** .23* .37** .40** (.85) the unit level, also received support (γ = .81, p < .01).
Grand mean 5.66 3.46 3.67 4.79 1.85 3.45
Individual‐level SD .92 .53 .54 .69 .62
Unit‐level SD .67 .45 .31 .43 .44 .51 5 | DISCUSSION
ICC(1) .28 .59 .05 .10 .24 ‐
One of the most recent concepts to receive interest in the positive
Note. Unit‐level correlations are given below the diagonal; individual‐level
correlations are given above the diagonal. Scale reliabilities are shown in organizational behavior and scholarship movements is thriving
parentheses along the diagonal. Level 1, n = 275. Level 2, n = 94. (Paterson et al., 2014). However, despite increased interest in the con-
*p < .05; **p < .01. cept of thriving, limited multilevel research exists that explains how
WALUMBWA ET AL.
FIGURE 2 Results of multilevel model
contextual factors and individual characteristics jointly promote thriv-
ing at work and the consequences of thriving at work, at different
levels of analysis. We sought to address this research deficit by simul-
taneously testing a multilevel model that articulates the contextual and
individual agentic enablers of thriving at work and its consequences at
different levels of analysis. We found that servant leadership and core
self‐evaluations positively relate to thriving at work at different levels
of analysis. We also found that thriving at work positively relates to
positive health at the individual level, with this relationship partially
mediated by affective commitment. At the unit level, collective thriving
at work positively relates to collective affective commitment, which in
turn, positively relates to overall unit performance. We discuss the the-
oretical and practical implications of our findings below.
5.1 | Theoretical implications
The primary purpose of this study was to develop and test a
multilevel model that simultaneously examines contextual and
individual enablers of agentic work behaviors that promote thriving
at work and explicates how and why thriving at work relates to
positive health and overall unit performance at multiple levels of
analysis. We found that both unit‐level (servant leadership) and
individual‐level (core self‐evaluations) factors significantly relate to
thriving at work. The finding that servant leaders promote work unit
thriving supports the notion that leadership or supervisor support is
an important contextual variable for employee thriving at work
(Paterson et al., 2014; Porath et al., 2012; Sonenshein et al., 2013).
In particular, our results suggest that organizational leaders, who
focus on developing their employees, emphasize task effectiveness
for both individual and team work, serving others, and future creative
thinking, are likely to foster thriving at work.
The finding that core self‐evaluations exhibited a strong positive
relationship with thriving at work supports the notion that “individuals
with high CSEs [core self‐evaluations] are more likely to concentrate
on the positive aspects of the task at hand, hence fostering more
internally regulated motivation, goal commitment, and persistence”
(Chang et al., 2012, p. 91). In other words, individuals with high core
self‐evaluations are more likely to thrive at work because they are
more likely to set and seek out more challenging goals and roles, per-
haps owing to their strong approach to motivation (Chang et al.,
2012). Taken together, we contribute to the development of thriving
257
at work research by integrating and examining how organizational
and work‐related contexts (servant leadership) and individual charac-
teristics (core self‐evaluations) simultaneously promote thriving at
work. Importantly, these findings are in line with Chen and Kanfer0 s
(2006) multilevel theory of work motivation, which suggests that
ambient stimuli (servant leadership) and discretionary stimuli (core
self‐evaluations as a motivational trait) differentially stimulate motiva-
tional processes (thriving at work). Furthermore, although existing
research has linked thriving at work to important organizational out-
comes, such as better health and performance (Paterson et al., 2014;
Porath et al., 2012; Spreitzer & Porath, 2012, 2014; Spreitzer et al.,
2012; Wallace et al., 2016), little effort has been made to examine
how thriving at work relates to these outcomes at multiple levels of
analysis. First, we link thriving at work to positive health at the individ-
ual level and overall unit performance at the unit level of analysis.
These results suggest that individuals are more likely to have better
health and performance when they find themselves in a thriving work
environment, thus confirming Chen and Kanfer0 s (2006) assertion that
motivational processes do indeed relate to motivational outcomes,
such as performance.
Finally, although existing research has linked thriving at work to
important organizational outcomes, such as positive health and per-
formance (Paterson et al., 2014; Spreitzer & Porath, 2012, 2014;
Spreitzer et al., 2012; Wallace et al., 2016), little effort has been made
to examine how and why this relationship occurs. Our findings
revealed that affective commitment partially mediates the relation-
ship between thriving at work and positive health at the individual
level, whereas at the unit level, collective thriving at work positively
relates to collective affective commitment, which in turn, relates to
overall unit performance. These results suggest that employee atti-
tudes, such as affective commitment, may play a significant role in
linking thriving at work to important organizational outcomes. These
findings are theoretically important because they suggest that thriving
at work is a critical internal psychological and motivational state that
employees can use to develop themselves at work and to achieve a
form of healthy self‐adaptation (Spreitzer et al., 2005; Tsui & Ashford,
1994). Therefore, we provide new insights into how individuals can
self‐adapt in the context of work (Spreitzer et al., 2005). Given these
promising preliminary results, the question of how unit and organiza-
tional thriving develops over time becomes both theoretically and
practically relevant.
258
5.2 | Practical implications
Our study also has important practical implications. First, our results
suggest that to capitalize on the potential advantages of thriving at
work, organizations should actively focus on factors that enhance
thriving at work. Specifically, our results suggest that organizations
should focus their attention on selection and training programs where
managers can learn and demonstrate the key characteristics of servant
leadership, such as listening, empathy, awareness, persuasion, fore-
sight, stewardship, and awareness (Greenleaf, 1977; Spears, 2004).
Managers who place priority on these key characteristics may be
instrumental in developing and enhancing employee thriving at work
by providing tangible and emotional support through role modeling
(Liden, Wayne, et al., 2014), which increases employees0 levels of col-
lective thriving at work. And when employees thrive, our findings sug-
gest that they are likely to be more committed to the organization, thus
enhancing overall unit performance. Second, our finding that thriving
at work might be an effective approach for enhancing positive health
in organizations underscores the importance of thriving at work as an
instrument that employees can use to deal with everyday challenges
and pressures at work. Improved employee health is not only beneficial
for organizational performance, it also helps organizations to reduce
high health care costs (Spreitzer et al., 2012), and thus contributes to
potential organizational survival in today0 s dynamic business environ-
ment. Finally, the finding that core self‐evaluations promotes thriving
at work suggests that organizations and their agents should focus their
attention to selecting employees who have positive self‐evaluation
traits as this might help to “establish a workforce that is more willing
and able to show initiative and take an active role in improving perfor-
mance” (Seibert et al., 2011, p. 996), and thus thrive at work.
5.3 | Limitations and future research directions
This study has some limitations. First, although we are confident in the
robustness of our findings, we cannot claim causality because this is a
correlational study. We encourage future researchers to consider
experimental or quasi‐experimental and longitudinal studies to allow
for stronger causal inferences (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010;
Podsakoff et al., 2012). We also encourage future researchers to con-
sider qualitative studies to unearth other contextual factors within the
organization that are most likely to relate positively to employee thriv-
ing at work (Sonenshein et al., 2013). Second, although we tested a
fairly complex multilevel model, we did not measure other forms of
leadership in this study. Therefore, we cannot determine the extent
to which servant leadership explains incremental variance in the critical
outcome of thriving at work beyond other related constructs such as
leader–member exchange, authentic leadership, ethical leadership,
empowering leadership, and transformational leadership. Although
there is some empirical evidence suggesting that servant leadership
may be “a stand‐alone leadership approach that is capable of helping
leadership researchers and practitioners better explain a wide range
of outcomes” (Hoch et al., 2016, p. 2), we encourage future research
investigating the relationship between servant leadership and thriving
at work to control for at least one form of positive leadership or inte-
grate these leadership theories into their design to determine the
WALUMBWA ET AL.
utility of servant leadership. We also did not measure other constructs
that likely overlap with thriving at work, such as job involvement,
engagement, and psychological empowerment, which would have
made our findings much stronger. It would be beneficial for future
research to include measures that empirically and theoretically relate
to thriving at work to allow for a stronger demonstration of the unique
and predictive power of thriving at work.
Third, we did not hypothesize any interactions; however, we
explored potential interactions post hoc but found nonsignificant
results. Given the important role of organizational context in shaping
thriving at work (Spreitzer & Porath, 2014), future research should
examine how different contextual factors synergistically interact with
individual‐level variables to foster thriving at work, in line with sugges-
tions that multilevel research should consider the conditions under
which multilevel relationships manifest (Hackman, 2012). For example,
future research should explore how specific aspects of organization or
work climates moderate the relationship between core self‐evalua-
tions or any other personality trait, such as the Big Five personality
traits, and thriving at work. Personality variables may also moderate
the relationship between thriving at work and important outcomes.
For example, extraverts may be more likely to seek out social interac-
tions that promote positive health, and thus strengthen the relation-
ship between thriving at work and positive health.
Fourth, this study focused on thriving of followers and established
a link between core self‐evaluations and thriving at work. However,
given recent arguments that core self‐evaluations may indirectly relate
to outcomes by influencing the actions in which individuals engage
(Chang et al., 2012), to extend our findings, future research should
consider motivational mechanisms and conditions under which core
self‐evaluations relates to thriving at work. For example, future
research may investigate other motivational strategies, such as the
approach/avoidance motivational framework to account for the rela-
tionship between core self‐evaluations and thriving at work (Chang
et al., 2012). Thriving is also important for leaders0 effectiveness
(Spreitzer et al., 2012). Future research should examine how leaders0
thriving may trickle down to followers as has been found with other
leadership behaviors (Hirst, Walumbwa, Aryee, ButarButar, & Chen,
2016; Liu, Liao, & Loi, 2012; Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne, &
Marinova, 2012; Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador,
2009; Schaubroeck et al., 2012).
Fifth, our results revealed partial mediation in the relationship
between thriving at work and positive health, suggesting that other
variables may be at work here. We encourage future researchers to
consider other mechanisms to account for the relationship between
thriving at work and performance outcomes at different levels of anal-
ysis. It is likely that thriving at work does a number of things to
enhance work‐related outcomes, and thus other mechanisms might
be at play. For example, because thriving people are more likely to be
committed to the organization (Spreitzer & Porath, 2012; Spreitzer
et al., 2012) and our results suggest the same, future researchers
may consider the role of different foci of commitment or identification
as potential mechanisms that link thriving at work and performance at
different levels of analysis. Additionally, future research should con-
sider how potential moderators, such as organizational climate or cul-
ture, may enhance or inhibit the relationship between thriving at
WALUMBWA ET AL.
work and performance. Future research should also investigate the
antecedents and emergence of unit and organizational thriving to
determine whether the antecedents differ, depending on the level of
analysis, and over an extended time. A final limitation relates to the
context of this study—a single regional government in Indonesia, which
constrains the generalizability of our findings. For example, it can be
argued that in this specific work context, it is difficult to measure the
output of work compared to private business employees. Therefore,
we encourage future research to extend our research findings to other
occupational and business contexts where output performance may
have different meanings. Moreover, the extent to which employees
thrive at work may also be influenced by cultural values, because cul-
tural values serve to evaluate the meaning of various motivational
techniques as to a person0 s self‐worth and well‐being (Erez, 1997).
We encourage future researchers to extend our findings to other cul-
tural contexts. Future research should also consider the nature or type
of jobs as potential moderators that might enhance or inhibit thriving
at work.
Despite the above limitations, this study has some notable
strengths. First, we collected multisource data from employees and
their immediate supervisors, and where data came from the same
source, they were obtained at different points in time. These
approaches helped to reduce the threat of monomethod and method
variance bias (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010; Podsakoff et al., 2012),
thus providing more confidence in our results. Moreover, we tested a
multilevel model that provides a more comprehensive test of the ante-
cedents and consequences of thriving at work by allowing us to
account for the influence of some variables while controlling for the
influence of others, at different levels of analysis (Hitt et al., 2007;
Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Ployhart & Moliterno, 2011). Implicit in our
theoretical framework is the recognition that organizational context
(e.g., leadership) and individual characteristics (e.g., core self‐evalua-
tions) work jointly to facilitate thriving at work, which in turn, pro-
motes employee better health and overall unit performance. Thus,
our study arguably represents an insightful extension of thriving at
work literature by taking a multilevel approach. We hope this approach
will further stimulate research on thriving at work.
ORCID
Everlyne Misati http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8191-7838
RE FE R ENC E S
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of
affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Mondejar, R., & Chu, C. W. L. (2017). Core self‐
evaluations and employee voice behavior: Test of a dual‐motivational
pathway. Journal of Management, 43, 946–966.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. (2009). Leadership: Current
theories, research and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology,
60, 421–449.
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables
in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommenda-
tions. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 274–289.
Begley, T. M., & Czajka, J. M. (1993). Panel analysis of the moderating
effects of commitment on job satisfaction, intent to quit, and health
259
following organizational change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
552–556.
Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., & Burroughs, S. M. (2000). Support, commitment,
and employee outcomes in a team environment. Journal of Manage-
ment, 26, 1113–1132.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within‐group agreement, non‐independence, and reli-
ability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein, &
S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in orga-
nizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self‐concordance at work: Toward under-
standing the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy
of Management Journal, 46, 554–557.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written
material. In H. C. Triandis, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross‐cul-
tural psychology (Vol. 2) (pp. 349–444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Carmeli, A., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2009). Trust, connectivity, and thriving:
Implications for innovative behaviors at work. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 43, 169–191.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relationships among constructs in the same
content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composi-
tion models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.
Chang, C.‐H., Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A. (2012).
Core self‐evaluations: A review and evaluation of the literature. Journal
of Management, 38, 81–128.
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Toward a systems theory of motivated
behavior in work teams. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 223–
267.
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multi-
level study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 331–346.
Chen, Z., Zhu, J., & Zhou, M. (2015). How does a servant leader fuel the ser-
vice fire? A multilevel model of servant leadership, individual self
identity, group competition climate, and customer service performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 511–521.
Cullen, K. L., Gerbasi, A., & Chrobot‐Mason, D. (2015). Thriving in central
network positions: The role of political skill. Journal of Management.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315571154
D0 innocenzo, L., Luciano, M. M., Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., & Chen, G.
(2016). Empowered to perform: A multilevel investigation of the influ-
ence of empowerment on performance in hospital units. Academy of
Management Journal, 59, 1290–1307.
Diez‐Roux, A. V. (2000). Multilevel analysis in public research. Annual
Review of Public Health, 21, 171–192.
Dyer, N. G., Hanges, P. J., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Applying multilevel confirma-
tory factor analysis techniques to the study of leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 16, 149–167.
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as ante-
cedents of unit‐level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel
Psychology, 57, 61–94.
Erez, M. (1997). A culture based approach to work motivation. In C. P.
Earley, & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/
organizational psychology (pp. 92–242). San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.
Ettner, S. L., & Grzywacz, J. (2001). Workers0 perceptions of how jobs affect
health: Asocial ecological perspective. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 6, 101–113.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J.
(1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organi-
zations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
578–589.
Forbes. (2013). The causes and costs of absenteeism in the workplace.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/investopedia/2013/07/10/the‐causes‐
260
and‐costs‐of‐absenteeism‐in‐the‐workplace/#4ffa949b3eb6.
Retrieved on 30, May, 2017.
Fritz, C., Lam, C. F., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2011). It0 s the little things that mat-
ter: An examination of knowledge workers0 energy management.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 25, 28–39.
Gallup. (2013). In U.S., poor health tied to big losses for all job types. http://
www.gallup.com/poll/162344/poor‐health‐tied‐big‐losses‐job‐types.
aspx. Retrieved on 30, May, 2017.
Gerbasi, A., Porath, C. L., Parker, A., Spreitzer, G., & Cross, R. (2015).
Destructive de‐energizing relationships: How thriving buffers their
effect on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1423–1433.
Goldberg, D. P., & Blackwell, B. (1970). Psychiatric illness in general prac-
tice: A detailed study using a new method of case identification.
British Medical Journal, 1, 439–443.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership. New York, NY: Paulist Press.
Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legit-
imate power & greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Hackman, J. R. (2012). From causes to conditions in group research. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 33, 428–444.
Hirst, G., Walumbwa, F., Aryee, S., ButarButar, I., & Chen, C. J. H. (2016). A
multilevel investigation of authentic leadership as an antecedent to
helping behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 139, 485–499.
Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E., & Mathieu, J. E. (2007). Building
theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in
management. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1385–1399.
Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2016). Do ethical,
authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond
transformational leadership? A meta‐analysis. Journal of Management.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316665461
Jackson, C. (2007). The general health questionnaire. Occupational Medi-
cine, 57, 79.
Jacob, K. S., Bhugra, D., & Mann, A. H. (1997). The validation of the 12‐item
General Health Questionnaire in ethnic Indian women living in the
United Kingdom. Psychological Medicine, 27, 1215–1217.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within‐group
inter‐rater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69, 85–98.
Judge, T. A. (2009). Core self‐evaluations and work success. Current Direc-
tions in Psychological Science, 18, 58–62.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self‐evaluations
and job and life satisfaction: The role of self‐concordance and goal
attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 257–268.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self‐
evaluations scale (CSES): Development of a measure. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 56, 303–331.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes
of job satisfaction: A core‐evaluations approach. In L. L. Cummings, & B.
M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 19) (pp. 151–
188). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to
flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43, 207–222.
Kishton, J. M., & Widaman, K. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus domain rep-
resentative parceling of questionnaire items: An empirical example.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 757–765.
Klein, H. J., Molloy, J. C., & Brinsfield, C. T. (2012). Reconceptualizing work-
force commitment to redress a stretched construct: Revisiting
assumptions and removing confounds. Academy of Management Review,
37, 130–151.
Kobasa, S. C. (1982). Commitment and coping in stress resistance among
lawyers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 707–717.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory
and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent pro-
cesses. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,
WALUMBWA ET AL.
research, and methods in organizations (pp. 3–90). San Francisco:
Jossey‐Bass.
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. (2000). A comparison of approaches to
forming composite measures in structural equation models. Organiza-
tional Research Methods, 3, 186–207.
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about
interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research
Methods, 11, 815–852.
Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2007). Transforming service employees and climate:
A multilevel, multisource examination of transformational leadership in
building long‐term service relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, 1006–1119.
Liden, R. C., Panaccio, A., Meuser, J. D., Hu, J., & Wayne, S. J. (2014). Ser-
vant leadership: Antecedents, processes, and outcomes. In D. V. Day
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 357–
379). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leader-
ship and serving culture: Influence on individual and unit
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1434–1452.
Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the
items versus parcels controversy needn0 t be one. Psychological Methods,
18, 285–300.
Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A three‐level
investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on
employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1187–1212.
Lüdtke, O., Marsh, H. W., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., Asparouhov, T., &
Muthén, B. (2008). The multilevel latent covariate model:Anew, more
reliable approach to group‐level effects in contextual studies. Psycho-
logical Methods, 13, 203–229.
Mawritz, M., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J., Wayne, S., & Marinova, S. (2012). A
trickle‐down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65,
325–357.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009).
How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle‐down model.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 1–13.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commit-
ment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 991–1007.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace:
Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11,
299–326.
Meyer, J. P., & Maltin, E. R. (2010). Employee commitment and well‐being:
A critical review, theoretical framework and research agenda. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 77, 323–337.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affec-
tive, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A
meta‐analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.
Moussa, M., Boyer, M., & Newberry, D. (2016). Committed teams: Three
steps to inspiring passion and performance. New Jersey: Wiley.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998‐2015). Mplus user0 s guide (7th ed.).
Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Neininger, A., Lehmann‐Willenbrock, N., Kauffelf, S., & Henschel, A. (2010).
Effects of team and organizational commitment—A longitudinal study.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 567–579.
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A.
(2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating
structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93, 1220–1233.
Niessen, C., Sonnentag, S., & Sach, F. (2012). Thriving at work—A diary
study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 468–487.
WALUMBWA ET AL.
Panaccio, A., & Vandenberghe, C. (2009). Perceived organizational support,
organizational commitment and psychological well‐being: A longitudinal
study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 224–236.
Parker, A., Gerbasi, A., & Porath, C. L. (2013). The effects of de‐energizing
ties in organizations and how to manage them. Organizational Dynamics,
42, 110–118.
Paterson, T. A., Luthans, F., & Jeung, W. (2014). Thriving at work: Impact of
psychological capital and supervisor support. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 35, 434–446.
Ployhart, R. E., & Moliterno, T. P. (2011). Emergence of the human capital
resource: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Review, 36,
127–150.
Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The
theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36,
94–120.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of
method bias in social science research and recommendations on how
to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.
Porath, C., Spreitzer, G., Gibson, C., & Garnett, F. G. (2012). Thriving at
work: Toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical
refinement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 250–275.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organi-
zational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric
technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603–609.
Preacher, K. J., Zhang, Z., & Zyphur, M. J. (2011). Alternative methods for
assessing mediation in multilevel data: The advantages of multilevel
SEM. Structural Equation Modeling, 18, 161–182.
Prem, R., Ohly, S., Kubiceki, B., & Korunka, C. (2017). Thriving on challenge
stressors? Exploring time pressure and learning demands as
antecedents of thriving at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38,
108–123.
Robert, C., Probst, T. M., Martocchio, J. J., Drasgow, F., & Lawler, J. J.
(2000). Empowerment and continuous improvement in the United
States, Mexico, Poland, and India: Predicting fit on the basis of the
dimensions of power distance and individualism. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 85, 643–658.
Schaubroeck, J., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Lord, R. L.,
Treviño, L. K., … Dimotakas, N. (2012). Embedding ethical leadership
within and across organization levels. Academy of Management Journal,
5, 1053–1078.
Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and conse-
quences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A
meta‐analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 981–1003.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2008). Positive health. Applied Psychology: An Interna-
tional Review, 57, 3–18.
Sonenshein, S., Dutton, J. E., Grant, A. M., Spreitzer, G. M., & Sutcliffe, K. M.
(2013). Growing at work: Employees0 interpretations of progressive
self‐change in organizations. Organization Science, 24, 552–570.
Spears, L. C. (2004). The understanding and practice of servant leadership.
In L. C. Spears, & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Practicing servant‐leadership:
Succeeding through trust, bravery, and forgiveness (pp. 9–24). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.
Spreitzer G., & Porath, C. (2012). Creating sustainable performance,
Harvard Business Review, January–February, 92–99.
Spreitzer, G. M., & Porath, C. (2014). Self‐determination as nutriment for
thriving: Building an integrative model of human growth at work. In
M. Gagné (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation,
and self‐determination theory (pp. 245–258). New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Spreitzer, G., Porath, C. L., & Gibson, C. B. (2012). Toward human sustain-
ability: How to enable more thriving at work. Organizational Dynamics,
41, 155–162.
Spreitzer, G. M., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Thriving in organizations. In D. L.
Nelson, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Positive organizational behavior: Accentu-
ating the positive at work (pp. 74–85). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
261
Spreitzer, G. M., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M.
(2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Sci-
ence, 16, 537–549.
Tsui, A. S., & Ashford, S. J. (1994). Adaptive self‐regulation: A process view
of managerial effectiveness. Journal of Management, 20, 93–121.
van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis.
Journal of Management, 37, 1228–1261.
Wallace, C., Butts, M. M., Johnson, P. D., Stevens, F. G., & Smith, M. B.
(2016). A multi‐level model of employee innovation: Understanding
the effects of regulatory focus, thriving, and employee involvement cli-
mate. Journal of Management, 42, 982–1004.
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, pro-
cedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and
organizational citizenship behavior: A cross‐level investigation. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 95, 517–529.
Yuan, K. H., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1997). On averaging variables in a
confirmatory factor analysis model. Behaviormetrika, 24, 71–83.
Fred O. Walumbwa is on the faculty at the Florida International
University College of Business, Department of Management and
International Business. His research focuses on leadership, positive
organizational behavior and scholarship, organizational climate and
justice, and cross‐cultural issues in management.
Michael K. Muchiri is a Senior Lecturer in Management, School of
Management, College of Business, RMIT University, Melbourne,
Australia. His main research interests are leadership processes,
followership, workplace safety, and positive organizational beha-
vior. His work has been published in the Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology and Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, among other outlets.
Everlyne Misati is a PhD candidate in the Management and Inter-
national Business Department at Florida International University0 s
College of Business. Her primary research interests lie at the inter-
section of strategy, international business, and entrepreneurship.
She is also interested in examining the micro foundations of these
macro areas, for example, the role of individuals, top management
(leaders), and their interaction in driving firm‐level outcomes.
Cindy Wu is an Associate Professor of Management at the
Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University. Her research
focuses on leadership, employee motivation, labor market dyna-
mics, work–life balance, and life course transitions.
Meiliani Meiliani is a Lecturer in Management, Department of
Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of
Bengkulu, Bengkulu, Indonesia. Her research interests are in
human resource management, organizational and individual
behaviors, career development, and leadership.
How to cite this article: Walumbwa FO, Muchiri MK, Misati E,
Wu C, Meiliani M. Inspired to perform: A multilevel investiga-
tion of antecedents and consequences of thriving at work.
J Organ Behav. 2018;39:249–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/
job.2216