Open access

Research articleFirst published online October, 2024

Effect of Leader Kindness on Service Sabotage and the Role of Feeling of Elevation and Employee Wellbeing: A Study of Municipal Employees in Kirikkale Province of Turkey

and

All Articleshttps://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241293554

Abstract

While the stimuli related to negative situations like disasters affect people emotionally negatively, good behaviors toward those in difficult situations can cause us to experience positive emotions or reduce the effects of them. However, it is seen that exposure to kindness related stimuli and perceptions about them have not been sufficiently examined in the organizational context. In this research, the effect of perceptions toward leader’s kindness behaviors on service sabotage and the mediating role of feeling of elevation and employee well-being are investigated through a descriptive field study. In this direction, a questionnaire containing the research variables was applied to the employees of a municipality in Kırıkkale province of Turkey. As a result, it was found that perceptions toward leader kindness behaviors affect service sabotage in the negative direction, and employees’ sense of elevation and well-being positively. In addition, employee wellbeing was found to play a mediating role in the effect of perceptions toward kindness on service sabotage. The findings of the study suggest that perceptions about leader kindness behaviors may have important organizational outcomes. Finally, recommendations for researchers and organizations were developed.

Plain Language Summary

Leader kindness and organisational effects

Although leadership is researched in terms of behaviors toward employees, general kindness or kindness behaviors toward out of organization is not take scientific attention. In this research, the effect of perceptions toward leader’s kindness behaviors on service sabotage and the mediating role of feeling of elevation and employee well-being are investigated through a descriptive field study. In this direction, a questionnaire containing the research variables was applied to the employees of a municipality in Kırıkkale province of Turkey. As a result, it was found that perceptions toward leader kindness behaviors affect service sabotage in the negative direction, and employees’ sense of elevation and well-being positively.

Keywords

kindness perceptions service sabotage leader elevation employee wellbeing

Introduction

Nowadays, in which worries of people are widespread due to problems like international conflicts or health diseases, it is seen that even small kindness behaviors can make people happy like donating or saying hello to a stranger. According to a recent American Psychiatric Association poll, about % 90 of people making or receiving an act of kindness, feel better (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2023). On the other hand, scientific knowledge about organizational effects of kindness is limited. Although different leadership, management and organization approaches acknowledge the importance of issues such as setting ethical standards, being an example to followers in terms of ethics, being virtuous, justice and altruism, it is seen that these are mostly addressed in terms of approaches toward employees and behaviors in the work environment. On the other hand, from the perspective of “Positive Psychology,” the organizational effects of ordinary or heroic acts of kindness toward others or non-organizational units have not been investigated. In fact, acts of kindness can affect those who witness the kindness as well as the recipient and the doer of the kindness. Considering that especially in recent times, communication that includes kindness related stimuli arising from internet technologies is much more common and easy, investigating the effects of witnessing the kindnesses of certain stakeholders such as leaders or managers in the workplace toward humanity or other people has the potential to contribute to achieving organizational goals. Kindness can be expected to be one of the effective methods to lead employees in today’s world where negative emotions such as anxiety are widely experienced.

One of the ways leaders can positively influence their followers is to make them experience positive emotions (Bono et al., 2007; Diener et al., 2020; Goswami et al., 2016; Liang & Steve Chi, 2013; Ozcelik et al., 2008; Zhou et al., 2014). Indeed, the positive effects of positive emotions in the workplace have recently attracted attention (Behnke et al., 2023; Diener et al., 2020; Dreer, 2024; Staw et al., 1994). At this point, it is seen that kindness, which is expressed as behaviors performed for the benefit of others (in terms of exposure, witnessing, etc.) (Hake & Post, 2023; Youngs et al., 2023), can cause people to experience positive emotions (Fredrickson et al., 2008; Kearney et al., 2014; Ouweneel et al., 2014). Since kindness can reduces stress and creates interpersonal bonds, it is possible that it can be used in the work environment, especially by leaders (Fryburg, 2023). However, the effects of kindness on organizational stakeholders, such as employees, have not received enough attention, especially in terms of the leader’s kindnesses to other people outside the organization. So the main purpose of this study is to answer the question of “what can be specific effects of the leader’s kindness behaviors can be in organizational context?.”

Literature Review

Under this title, the concepts of kindness, the effects of kindness in general, feeling of elevation, employee well-being and service sabotage are explained as the main variables of the research.

Kindness and Its Effects

In the literature, it is seen that kindness can be defined in different ways. For example, kindness can be expressed as behaviors that are voluntarily performed for the benefit of others (Chancellor et al., 2018), not as a result of an obligation or an official order, but as a result of a desire inherent in human nature (Johnstone, 2010). As another example, students may explain kindness as helping others (Binfet & Passmore, 2019), while others may use it instead of words such as empathy, altruism or compassion. However, kindness has differences from these concepts. For example, empathy, which is a sense of sharing emotions of others, does not always involve kindness (Haskins et al., 2018) and requires resonating with emotions of others. Altruism or generosity, which usually involve certain costs, may not involve feelings or attitudes of kindness. Therefore, kindness can also be explained as behaviors motivated by genuine warm feelings for others and can be especially recognized by the perceptions of the recipient of the kindness (Canter et al., 2017). Hake and Post (2023) define kindness in the context of health care as behaviors for the benefit of others that are also perceived as kindness by the recipient. For example, behaviors such as greeting patients with a smile and asking them questions about their daily life are perceived as good by patients. In the face of the intangibility and difficulty of measuring concepts such as compassion and empathy, the fact that kindness can be portrayed in concrete behaviors increases interest in the concept in terms of teaching and promoting it.

Studies show that kindness affects the wellbeing of those who perform these behaviors and related variables (anxiety, stress, negative emotions, etc.) (Curry et al., 2018; Galante et al., 2014; Otake et al., 2006; Perkins et al., 2022; Rowland & Curry, 2019). Beyond the acts of kindness performed, remembered (Ko et al., 2021), received, and witnessed acts of kindness can also affect people positively. For example, Buchanan and Sandstrom (2023) have shown in their research that news with negative tones such as death and violence drive the media, that these negatively affect people’s mental health and perceptions of humanity, and that witnessing the kindness of others can play a role in reducing these negative effects. In their experimental research, they concluded that exposure to bad news such as terrorist attacks and immorality (murder, pedophilia etc.) followed by exposure to good news such as volunteering, philanthropy and caring for the homeless maintains positive mood and leads to the belief that others are good. Therefore, it is inevitable that kindness content encountered on social networks such as YouTube (Dale et al., 2017), where inspirational posts about kindness are often encountered alongside posts about evil (Dale et al., 2020), will have positive effects on people. For example, early-adolescents may encounter content and interactions such as bullying on social media, as well as experiences that make them feel good (Lenhart et al., 2011). It is thought that researches on the scope of kindness (routine daily kindness, heroic kindness) or the characteristics of the doer (acquaintance, stranger, leader, colleague, etc.) will contribute to understanding the effects of kindness related stimuli in different contexts.

Indeed, it is observed that witnessing goodness or the moral excellence of others may not always affect solidarity intentions. For example, in Zhang et al.’s (2020) experimental study in which participants were exposed to videos with kindness (helping the elderly, etc.) or control content (city advertisement, etc.), it was found that kindness related stimuli exposure does not affect the individual’s intention to be pro-social. Therefore, exposure to all types of kindness stimuli may not have the same effect, at least in terms of reflection on behaviors, and especially the daily kindnesses that people frequently encounter may not affect social advocacy (Zhang et al., 2020). At this point, behaviors and stimuli related to kindness in the organizational context can be expected to affect employees. It is thought that perceptions about kindness behaviors of leaders who guide and motivate employees with their communication is a topic worthy of research. As a matter of fact, it is seen that kindness attracts limited attention in different approaches and classifications related to leadership.

Feeling of Elevation

Moral elevation refers to an emotional response to moral beauty or excellence (Pohling & Diessner, 2016), feeling moved, impressed and inspired by them (Oliver et al., 2015). As far as it is known, the feeling of elevation, which was first described by Haidt (2000), is explained as a feeling of warmth or joy in the chest that makes the individual want to be more moral.

People can be moved to action by the virtues of others. However, emotions based on the kindness behaviors have not received as much attention in psychology as happiness. In this context, unlike emotions such as amusement and joy, feeling of elevation, gratitude and admiration can arise when witnessing kindness. Elevation is defined as a positive emotion (Freeman et al., 2009; Haidt, 2000) that is stimulated by seeing strong virtues such as forgiveness, loyalty, and generosity (Algoe & Haidt, 2009) and can be felt when witnessing behaviors such as helping a third person or group in a virtuous way as the high good nature of humanity.

Kindness and Leadership

The relationship between leadership kindness and wellbeing can be evaluated primarily in terms of the “internalized moral perspective” dimension of authentic leadership. This dimension means that the leader makes decisions based on values or acts according to internal moral standards (Couris, 2021). In addition to this leadership style, the effects of virtues in the workplace have been widely researched in the literature on ethics. As a leader who can lead followers to higher moral standards or exhibit ethical behaviors, the type of “transformational leadership” (Bass, 1990; Howell & Avolio, 1992) and the type of “authentic transformational leadership” (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999) in which moral values are prioritized can be evaluated in this respect.

On the other hand, from a Positive Psychology perspective, which is utilized by organization researchers in terms of positive psychology interventions at work (Donaldson et al., 2019; Meyers et al., 2013), importance of positive psychology at work (J. Mills et al., 2013; Turner et al., 2002), or organizational stressors and effect of positive organizational behaviors in workplace (Froman, 2010), it is stated that leadership types such as ethical or transformative leadership are far from determining the characteristics or behaviors of virtuous leaders (Ozkan & Ardic, 2022). As a matter of fact, in the conceptualization of virtuous leadership, in addition to leadership theories, the approaches of Confucius (humanitarianism, trustworthiness) and Aristotle (courage, temperance, justice and prudence) have been used (Hackett & Wang, 2012) and virtue-based ethical leadership measurements have been developed (Riggio et al., 2010). In short, this type of leadership, which refers to having moral passion in decisions and behaviors (Yang, 2021) and consists of dimensions such as courage, temperance, justice, prudence and humanity (G. Wang & Hackett, 2016), and its effects have become a subject of research in the organizational context. However, in this leadership approach, virtues were mostly addressed in terms of the behaviors performed toward organizational stakeholders. On the other hand, leader’s good behaviors toward other people outside the organization and the effects of the perceptions about these behaviors on employees did not attract attention. Since the kindness of the leaders include behaviors for the wellbeing of others beyond the employees, it is thought that it would be useful to investigate the concept of kindness in terms of by this viewpoint.

Employee Wellbeing

Employee well-being, which is defined as the happiness or wellness of employees, is an important variable that affects general life (Yüksel & Yılık, 2022). Employee wellbeing can be measured by a combination of variables such as psychological wellbeing, social wellbeing, workplace wellbeing, subjective wellbeing (Pradhan & Hati, 2022), life satisfaction, workplace satisfaction (Zheng et al., 2015). However, employee wellbeing can also be determined specifically by wellbeing at the workplace, prior to dimensions related to general happiness. From this perspective, employee wellbeing is measured based on positive feelings at work (Aboobaker, 2022).

It is seen that many manager related factors such as manager support (Yin & Wu, 2023), workplace safety (Subramony et al., 2022), organizational wellness climate (Reynolds & Bennett, 2023) are effective in increasing employee wellbeing. In this study, the effect of employee perceptions toward leader’s kindness on increasing employee wellbeing is examined.

Service Sabotage

It is possible for employees to deliberately provide poor service to customers or service recipients. Service sabotage, which is among employee misbehavior commonly encountered in manufacturing or service sectors, refers to not performing the service properly (rudeness, rushing, delaying, etc.) and negatively affects employees, team spirit, friendly relations between employees and customers, service and business performance. Despite the attention paid to variables such as service quality and customer satisfaction in the literature, conscious service sabotage behaviors have not been sufficiently examined (Harris & Ogbonna, 2002, 2006, 2012).

Hypothesis Development

Under this title, research hypotheses were tried to be developed. In this respect, first of all, it should be noted that there is no research on the direct effect of employee perceptions about leader’s kindness behaviors on service sabotage and other variables. On the other hand, research on kindness in different contexts contributed to the development of the research hypotheses.

The Effect of Perception Toward Leader’s Kindness Behaviors on Service Sabotage

Studies about effects of kindness show positive behavioral consequences. For example Algoe and Haidt’s (2009) experimental study shows that kindness motivates people to engage in solidarity behaviors. Within the scope of the research, it is suggested and tested that perceptions about kindness behavior of the leader can affect employees’ service sabotage.

Although there are no studies directly addressing these variables, there are studies showing that perceiving the leader as virtuous affects employees’ commitment to work, relative wellbeing, performance (Tripathi, 2024), moral characteristic (Adewale, 2020), moral behavior (Alshehri & Elsaied, 2022; Hadi & Sahib, 2023; Matokwe, 2021), and organizational citizenship behaviors (Thun & Kevin Kelloway, 2011). Therefore, it can be expected that perceiving the leader as someone who does kindness for others will affects service sabotage behavior (it can be considered as anti organizational, unmoral or ethically problematic). In addition to these, several research shows benevolent leadership affects positive work behaviors or attitudes (Ho & Le, 2023; Grego-Planer, 2022; Rui & Xinqi, 2020; Shen et al., 2023). Based on these explanations, the first hypothesis of the study is put forward to be tested:

H1: Employee perceptions toward the leader’s kindness behaviors influence service sabotage.

The Effect of Perception Toward Leader’s Kindness Behaviors on Feeling of Elevation

Although no research has been conducted in the context of leadership, it is observed that exposure to kindness related stimuli causes feelings of elevation. Elevation is an emotion that arises in the face of virtue or moral beauty (Haidt, 2003) or occurs in response to the moral excellence of others (Algoe & Haidt, 2009). This emotion, which causes warm feelings in the individual’s chest and motivates them to act more virtuously, has received almost no attention compared to emotions such as gratitude. It is argued that the feeling of elevation is important in understanding human morality (Haidt, 2003).

The idea that exposures to kindness cause feeling of elevation and that kindness affects people through this feeling has been supported in many studies. Oliver et al. (2015) found that inspirational videos about kindness are the source of the feeling of elevation and that this leads to the formation of a common bond between the self and humanity, which in turn leads to a greater sense of connectedness. In Krämer et al.’s (2017) study, it was found that watching videos about kindness caused more feelings of elevation than others (beauty of the world, entertainment, etc.). In short, a large number of studies show that the main outcome of kindness related stimuli is a feeling of elevation.

There is a growing literature about seeing kindness activates elevating and positive emotions (Fryburg, 2022; Fryburg et al., 2021). In psychology, it is possible that the feeling of elevation, which is seen to arise due to kindness, may also arise from stimuli related to kindness in the organizational context. In particular, it is possible that being exposed to the leader’s kindness toward those outside the organization may cause a feeling of elevation in employees. However, it is thought that there is a need for research addressing kindness in this respect. In the study of Vianello et al. (2010), it was found that leader’s interpersonal justice and self sacrifice affect the feeling of elevation. Similarly, stimuli related to the leader’s kindness toward others can be expected to affect employees’ feeling of elevation. Based on these explanations, the following research hypothesis is put forward to be tested:

H2: Employee perception toward leader’s kindness behaviors affects their feeling of elevation.

The Effect of Employee Perceptions Toward Leader’s Kindness Behaviors on Employee Wellbeing

The perception about leader’s acts of kindness toward those outside the organization can be expected to affect employee wellbeing. Although there are no findings directly related to this claim, research on similar variables shows that this hypothesis is worth testing. At this point, first of all, many negative situations such as pandemics, disasters, accidents and news about them cause people to experience emotions such as worry, hopelessness and anxiety (Gasteiger et al., 2021; Johnston & Davey, 1997; McNaughton-Cassill et al., 2009; Riehm et al., 2020) and ultimately lead to reduced wellbeing (Buchanan et al., 2021) and that bad news is more influential or attracts attention than good news (negativity bias; Baumeister et al., 2001; Rozin & Royzman, 2001). On the other hand, it is seen that situations related to kindness affect people positively and can reduce the effects of negative news. At this point, it is argued that watching wellbeing videos can be used as an important method to create positive emotions such as happiness and relaxation to healthcare providers and recipients who experience stress intensely and commonly (Fryburg, 2022). In Fryburg et al.’s (2021) experimental study in a pediatric and dental clinic, it was found that those who watched kindness media felt happier, relaxed, grateful, less disturbed, and more generous compared to watching a children’s program.

In a study conducted by Chancellor et al. (2018) with employees in a workplace, it was concluded that those who observed solidarity behaviors increased their prosaically behaviors. Accordingly, behaviors such as bringing a drink to a colleague at work, helping him/her with his/her task, cheering him/her up when he/she is in a bad mood, helping to carry things or telling him/her something he/she did well can be expected to have organizational effects. Therefore, it is understood that solidarity behaviors as a type of kindness among employees in the work environment positively affect employees.

In addition, researchers, politicians and the general public have argued that kindness can enhance wellbeing. For example, in Cotney and Banerjee’s (2019) focus group study conducted with adolescents aged 11 to 15, it was found that the wellbeing of both the recipient and the doer of kindness was positively affected. As another example; “catastrophe compassion” (Zaki, 2020), which emerges from empathy, causes people to make more donations and voluntary acts of kindness during periods such as pandemics, and such altruistic behaviors contribute to people overcoming stressful situations (Titova & Sheldon, 2022).

Moreover, even if people cannot help others, they may feel relieved when exposed to stimuli related to helping behaviors (Zaki, 2020). As a matter of fact, witnessing the kindness of others can cause people to think that others are good and that there is a solution to suffering, and can lead to emotional and cognitive recovery or increased morale (Algoe & Haidt, 2009; Schnall et al., 2010). Moreover, research on virtuous leadership suggests that virtuous leadership affects employee happiness (Q. I. Wang, 2011), work related wellbeing (through job satisfaction, work-related emotions and dedication to work, and trust in the manager), and trust in the manager (Hendriks et al., 2020). Based on these explanations and the findings in the literature, the third hypothesis of the study is put forward.

H3: Employee perceptions toward leader’s kindness behaviors affect employee wellbeing.

The Role of Feeling of Elevation and Employee Wellbeing

Researches on wellbeing show that the effects of kindness occur mostly through elevation (Pohling & Diessner, 2016). It is stated that the feeling of elevation motivates social bias and commitment behaviors (Algoe & Haidt, 2009). In addition, the feeling of elevation can influence moral or altruistic behaviors (Layous et al., 2017) such as volunteering (Cox, 2010), helping (Schnall et al., 2010) or forgiving (Thomson & Siegel, 2013). Xing et al. (2022) found that ethical leadership affects employee elevation and concluded that the feeling of elevation mediates the effect of ethical leadership on organizational citizenship behaviors. In the study of Vianello et al. (2010), it was concluded that the feeling of elevation mediated the effect of the leader’s ethical behaviors on the ethical behaviors of the followers. In addition, it was found that elevation fully mediated the effect of followers’ organizational citizenship behaviors and emotional commitment to the organization.

In addition, Reizer et al. (2019) found that negative emotions and decreased job satisfaction mediate the effect of motivation on job performance. Therefore, it can be expected that a leader who can make his/her employees experience a feeling of elevation and increase their wellbeing through acts of kindness will influence their attitudes and behaviors in favor of the organization through these variables. Based on these explanations, the following hypotheses of the study are put forward:

H4: Employee feeling of elevation affects service sabotage.

H5: Employee wellbeing affects service sabotage.

H6: Employee feeling of elevation affects employee wellbeing.

H7: There is a mediating effect of feeling of elevation on the effect of employee perceptions toward leader’s kindness behaviors on service sabotage.

H8: There is a mediating effect of employee wellbeing on the effect of employee perceptions toward leader’s kindness behaviors on service sabotage.

H9: There is a joint mediating effect of feeling of elevation and employee wellbeing on the effect of employee perceptions toward leader’s kindness behaviors on service sabotage.

The research model including research variables and relationships among them is shown in Figure 1. In the research model, employee perception toward the leader’s kindness behaviors is the independent variable, service sabotage is the dependent variable, and feeling of elevation and employee wellbeing are the mediating variables:

Figure 1.

The research model.

A Field Survey of Municipal Employees

Method

In the study, a survey was conducted with the employees of a district municipality in Kırıkkale province of Turkey. A cross sectional quantitative approach was considered appropriate because it examined the specified perceptions, emotions and behaviors of employees and the relationships between them in organizational contexts. At this point, due to the difficulty of access to organizational sample, through convenience sampling method, 256 municipal employees were reached with the permission and facilitating support of the municipal administration. The self-managed questionnaire forms were hand distributed to the participants in printed form who could be reached at working hours. It took approximately 4 to 5 minutes to fill out the questionnaire. The data collection process was carried out between 24 August and 30 September 2023. With the encouraging support of the municipal administration to scientific research, employees working in departments of the municipality were asked if they were willing to participate in the survey. The survey was administered to those who volunteered to complete it and had the time. The questionnaires were handed over to the employees and were collected on the same day from those who were able to fill them out in a short time. Questionnaires were left to those who wanted to participate in the survey but did not have time due to work, and were visited and collected within the same week. In addition, institution visits were made again to reach those who were not at work, and the same process was carried out for these employees. Participants were informed about the general aim study and voluntary nature of the participation. The collected forms were coded and transferred to the computer environment. The ethical evaluation of the questionnaire is done by Social and Human Sciences Research Ethics Committee of Kırıkkale University and ethical permission was obtained on 18.08.2023.

In designing the research questionnaire, the researches in which the variables were measured were utilized. Accordingly, the six items prepared to measure the perceptions about the kindness of the leader were adapted from Youngs et al. (2023), Gherghel et al. (2021), Canter et al. (2017) and Otake et al.’s (2006) studies. The scale is in five-point Likert form with response options ranging from 1—Never to 5—Always. For the seven items created for the measurement of the feeling of elevation, the measurement in Layous et al.’s (2017) research was utilized. The scale response options are the same as the perceived well-being scale. For the six items about the employee wellbeing at workplace, the scale developed by Zheng et al. (2015) was translated to Turkish. The response options of the scale are in five-point Likert form ranging from 1—Strongly Disagree to 5—Strongly Agree. In order to determine service sabotage, the nine-item scale developed by Harris and Ogbonna (2006) was utilized through translation. The response options the scale is the same as the employee wellbeing at workplace scale. In addition, questions were included to determine demographic characteristics of the participants.

SPSS program version 25 was used for the analyses conducted in the research. Reliability and validity analyses of the measurement tools were conducted and regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses. The mediation effect was measured and reported following the procedure introduced to the literature by Hayes (2018).

Findings

In this section, research findings are presented. Firstly, the demographic characteristics of the sample are presented. Then, normal distribution, reliability and validity analyses, and hypothesis tests were conducted.

Demographic information about the sample is given in Table 1. Accordingly, 70.1% of the participants are male. In terms of marital status, 54.7% of them are married. In terms of age range, 18 to 26 and 27 to 34 age groups correspond to 73.9% of the sample. The education level is mostly high school and below with 59.8%. When the duties of the employees in the organization are analyzed, the rate of employees working as company personnel is the highest with 58.6%. In addition, when the duration of employment in the organization is analyzed, the proportion of employees working between 1 and 5 years is the highest with 62.9%. Seventy-three percent of the employees have an income of 15,1000 TL or less. Finally, 85.9% of participants do not have administrative duties.

Table 1.

Demographic Information of the Sample.

Gender	f	%	Marital status	f	%
Male	182	71,1	Married	140	54,7
Female	74	28,9	Single	116	45,3
Task at the Institution	f	%	Age	f	%
Officer	42	16,4	18–26	79	30,9
Worker	56	21,9	27–34	110	43,0
Contracted worker	8	3,1	35–42	51	19,9
Firm worker	150	58,6	43 and above	16	6,3
Education	f	%	Income	f	%
High school and below	153	59,8	15.000 TL and below	187	73,0
Associate	53	20,7	15.001–29.999 TL	57	22,3
Undergraduate	44	17,2	30.000–44.999 TL	8	3,1
Master’s degree and above	6	2,3	45.000 TL and above	4	1,6
Duration of Employment at the Institution	f	%	Management Position	f	%
Less than1 year	58	22,7	Yes	36	14,1
1–5 years	161	62,9	No	220	85,9
6–10 year	27	10,5
11–15 years	10	3,9

Statistical information about the measurement tools is given in Table 2. According to this, the levels elevation feeling, kindness behavior perception and employee wellbeing have a value above the average according to the five-point Likert scale. On the other hand, service sabotage has a value below the average with 2.26. Kline (2011) emphasizes that if the absolute value of skewness is above 3 and the absolute value of kurtosis is above 10, this indicates a problem. Therefore, it can be assumed that normal distribution is realized for the values calculated in this range. In this study, it is assumed that the distribution is normal within the framework of the skewness and kurtosis values obtained.

Table 2.

Statistical Information of Measurement Tools.

	Average	Std. deviation	Skewness (0,152 std error)	Kurtosis (0,303 std. error)
Perceptions toward leader’s kindness behaviors (A)	4,50	0,74	−1,851	3,535
Feeling of elevation (B)	4,39	0,75	−1,616	3,238
Employee wellbeing (C)	4,54	0,66	−1,887	3,654
Service Sabotage (D)	2,26	1,03	0,47	-0,90

Reliability and validity analyses of the measurement tools are given in Table 3. Accordingly, principal component factor analysis and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was applied for each scale. EFA is used in evaluating new metrics (Yong & Pearce, 2013) and is often used in evaluating psychological variables (Goretzko et al., 2021). The main purpose of the EFA is to evaluate the structure of the measured variables or identify latent constructs (Fabrigar et al., 1999). Since this research contains adapted scales used in a different context, conducting EFA is preferred. The suitability of the scales for factor analysis was examined by KMO and Bartlett’s test. In addition, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was calculated for reliability. All scales are suitable for factor analysis and Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients are at a sufficient level. The perceived kindness behavior scale is unidimensional. The total explained variance is 66.85%. Factor loadings vary between 0.96 and 0.69. Feeling of elevation scale is unidimensional. The total explained variance is 67.44%. Factor loadings vary between 0.87 and 0.77. The employee wellbeing scale is unidimensional. The total explained variance is 64.40%. Factor loadings vary between 0.86 and 0.77. Service sabotage scale is also unidimensional. The total explained variance is 74.17%. Factor loadings vary between 0.92 and 0.75. Cross questions in this scale were excluded from the analysis because they disrupted the scale structure. In the context of these information, it is seen that the explaining level of the measurement tools is quite high.

Table 3.

Reliability and Validity Analyses of Measurement Tools.

/table>

The linear effects between the variables are given in Table 4. Accordingly, model 1 for the linear effect of kindness perception on service sabotage is significant. The explanation rate is 7.5% and the standard effect size is −0.274. Therefore, it is seen that perception about kindness behavior has a meaningful negative effect on service sabotage. Therefore, the first hypothesis (H1: Employee perceptions toward the leader’s kindness behaviors influence service sabotage) is supported.

Table 4.

Regression Models.
Scale 1: Perceptions toward kindness behaviors of leader (A) (1 dimension, 6 item)	Factor loading
OV: Bir hastayla karşılaştığında, yakını olmasa da ihtiyacını karşılamaya çalışır (kan bağışı vb.)	0,86
EV: When he come across a patient, he tries to meet his/her needs even if he/she is not a relative (blood donation, etc.)	0,86
OV: Derdi olanları dinleyip çıkar beklemeden onlara moral verir.	0,86
EV: He listens to those who have problems and cheers them up without expecting any benefit.	0,86
OV: Mutsuz birini gördüğünde, onun iyi olmasınıönemsediğinden, neşelenmesi için elinden geleni yapar.	0,84
EV: When he sees an unhappy person, he does his best to cheer him/her up because he cares about wellbeing of those in difficult situations.	0,84
OV: Zor durumda olanların (afetzede vb.) acılarını azaltmak için gönüllüçaba gösterir.	0,84
EV: Makes voluntary efforts to reduce the suffering of those in difficult situations (disaster victims, etc.)	0,84
OV: İhtiyacı olanlara (gelirsiz, evsiz, hasta, yaşlı, engelli vb.) karşılık beklemeden yardımlar yapar (bağış yapar, zaman ayırır vb.).	0,80
EV: Provides help (donates, spares time, etc.) to those in need (without income, homeless, sick, elderly, disabled, etc.)	0,80
OV: İmkânı varsa hayati bir tehlike içerisinde olan biri için kendisi zarar görme pahasına elinden geleni yapar.	0,69
EV: If he can, he will do his best for someone in life –threatening danger, even at the risk of being harmed himself	0,69
KMO = 0880 Bartlett K2=905,243 p = 0,00Total explained variance = %66,85 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0893
Scale 2: Feeling of Elevation (B) (1 dimension, 7 item)	Factor loading
OV: Kalbimde sıcak bir duygu hissederim	0,87
EV: I feel a warm feeling in my heart
OV: Mutlu hissederim	0,85
EV: I feel happy
OV: Canlanmış hissederim	0,83
EV: I feel energized
OV: Diğerlerine yardım etmeyi arzu ettiğimi hissederim	0,81
EV: I feel a desire to help others
OV: Daha iyi bir insan haline gelmeyi istediğimi hissederim	0,80
EV: I feel that I want to become a better person
OV: İnsanlık hakkında iyimser hissederim	0,80
EV: I feel optimistic about humanity
OV: Duygusal hissederim	0,77
EV: I feel emotional
KMO = 0919 Bartlett K2=1131,078 p = 0,00Total explained variance = %67,44 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0917
Scale 3: Employee wellbeing (C) (1 dimension, 6 item)	Factor loading
OV: Genel olarak mevcut işimden oldukça memnunum	0,86
EV: In general, I feel fairly satisfied with my present job
OV: İşimden gerçek bir keyif alırım	0,83
EV: I find a real enjoyment in my work
OV: Her zaman çalışmamı zenginleştirmenin yollarını bulabilirim	0,79
EV: I can always find ways to enrich my work
OV: Mevcut işimde elde ettiğim başarılardan memnuniyet hissediyorum	0,78
EV: I feel satisfied with my work achievement in my current job
OV: Çalışma benim için anlamlı bir deneyimdir	0,77
EV: Work is a meaningful experience for me
OV: İş sorumluluklarımdan memnunum	0,77
EV: I am satisfied with my work responsibilites
KMO = 0864 Bartlett K2=815,111 p = 0,00Total explained variance = %64,40 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0888
Scale 4: Service Sabotage (D) (1 dimension, 7 item)	Factor loading
OV: Buradaki çalışanlar işleri kendilerine kolaylaştırmak için hizmet kurallarını görmezden gelir.	0,92
EV: People here ignore company service rules to make things easier for themselves
OV: Buradaki çalışanlar istediği zaman sunduğu hizmeti aceleye getirir (geçiştirir)	0,89
EV: People here hurry customers when they want to
OV: Belediyecilik hizmetlerinde (bu sektörde) hizmet alanlardan intikam almak yaygın bir uygulamadır	0,89
EV: It is a common practice in this industry to “get back” at customers
OV: Bazen buradaki çalışanlar, diğerlerini güldürmek için hizmet alanlara alaycı yaklaşır.	0,87
Scale 4: Service Sabotage (D) (1 dimension, 7 item)	Factor loading
EV: Sometimes, people here “get at customers” to make the rest of us laugh
OV: Hizmet alanlar fakına varmadığında, buradaki çalışanlar bazen kasıtlışekilde hizmeti kötüleştirir	0,86
EV: Sometimes, when customers aren’t looking, people here deliberately mess things up
OV: Buradaki çalışanlar istediği zamanlarda hizmeti yavaşlatır	0,83
EV: People here slow down service when they want to
OV: Buradaki çalışanlar kaba davranan hizmet alanlara gereken karşılığı aynı sertlikte verir.	0,75
EV: People here take revenge on rude customers.
KMO = 0928 Bartlett K2=1541,367 p = 0,00Total explained variance = %74,17 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0940
EV: English back translation or original version of the scale item.OV: Turkish translated or adapted version of the item as used in survey.

Model					Regression				%95 C. Interval
Model No	r	r2	p	Path	Coeff.	Std. Coeff.	Std. error	p	L. limit	U. limit
1	0275	0075	0,00	A > D	−0,381	−0,274	0084	0,00	−0,546	−0,216
2	0455	0207	0,00	A > B	0460	0455	0056	0,00	0348	0571
3	0637	0406	0,00	A > C	0253	0285	0048	0,00	0158	0348
3	0637	0406	0,00	B > C	0399	0455	0047	0,00	0305	0493
4	0395	0156	0,00	A > D	−0,149	−0,107	0095	0,12	−0,336	0039
				B > D	−0,052	−0,038	0101	0,61	−0,251	0147
				C > D	−0,479	−0,306	0118	0,00	-0,71	−0,247

Note. A = kindness perception; B = feeling of elevation; C = employee wellbeing; D = service sabotage.

Model 2 for the linear effect of perception about leader kindness behavior on the feeling of elevation is significant. Explanation rate is 20.7% and standard effect size is 0.455. Therefore, it is seen that kindness has a positive effect on the feeling of elevation and the second hypothesis (H2: Employee perception toward leader’s kindness behaviors affects their feeling of elevation) is supported.

Model 3 for the linear effect of perception toward kindness behavior and feeling of elevation on employee wellbeing is significant. Explanation rate is 40.1% and standard effect sizes are 0.285 for kindness and 0.455 for feeling of elevation. Therefore, it is seen that kindness perception and elevation have a positive effect on employee wellbeing. Therefore, third (H3: Employee perceptions toward leader’s kindness behaviors affect employee wellbeing) and sixth hypotheses (H6: Employee feeling of elevation affects employee wellbeing) are supported.

Model 4 for the linear effect of perceptions toward kindness behaviors, feeling of elevation and employee wellbeing on service sabotage is significant. Explanation rate is 15.6%. However, in this model, in which the linear effect of each variable is examined at the same time, unlike Model 1, it is seen that the effect of perceptions toward kindness behavior on service sabotage disappears and this gives an idea about the mediation effect of other variables. In addition, as seen in the model, the effects of elevation on service sabotage are not significant, while the effect of employee well-being on service sabotage is significant. Therefore, fourth hypothesis (H4: Employee feeling of elevation affects service sabotage) is not supported and fifth hypothesis (H5: Employee wellbeing affects service sabotage) is supported. In addition, the findings obtained to examine the mediation effects are given in Table 6.

Within the scope of the model with one independent, one dependent and two mediating variables, Table 5 shows the total, direct and indirect (mediating) effects of perceptions toward leader’s kindness behavior on service sabotage. Accordingly, the total effect of this perception on service sabotage is significant. The effect size is −0.381. As a result of examining the independent variables in the same model with the mediating variables, the fact that the significant direct effect of the independent variable becomes non-significant indicates the presence of full mediation effect.

Table 5.

Total, Direct and Indirect Effects.

	Effect	Std. effect	Std. error	p	%95 C. interval
	Effect	Std. effect	Std. error	p	Lower limit	Upper limit
Total Effect of Kindness Perception(Direct + Indirect Effects)	−0,381	—	0084	0,00	−0,216	−0,274
Direct Effect of Kindness Perception	−0,148	—	0095	0,12	−0,336	0039
Mediating Effect of Feeling of Elevation	−0,024	−0,017	0044	—	−0,108	0065
Mediating Effect of Employee Wellbeing	−0,121	−0,087	0039	—	−0,207	−0,052
Joint Mediating Effect	−0,088	−0,063	0027	—	−0,146	−0,041

While evaluating the significance of mediation effects, the presence or absence of a value of “0” in the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence interval is used as a decision criterion, and in the presence of a zero value of “0,” the effect size is interpreted as not significant. Accordingly, the mediating effect of the feeling of elevation on the effect of kindness perception on service sabotage is not significant. The mediating effect of employee wellbeing on the effect of kindness perception on service sabotage is significant. The standard effect size is −0.087. Therefore, a negative mediation effect can be mentioned. In addition, joint mediation effect of feeling of elevation and employee wellbeing on the effect of kindness perception on service sabotage is significant. The standard effect size is −0.063. Therefore, a negative mediation effect can be mentioned. According to these findings, seventh hypothesis (H7: There is a mediating effect of feeling of elevation on the effect of employee perceptions toward leader’s kindness behaviors on service sabotage) is not supported. On the other hand, eighth (H8: There is a mediating effect of employee wellbeing on the effect of employee perceptions toward leader’s kindness behaviors on service sabotage) and ninth (H9: There is a joint mediating effect of feeling of elevation and employee wellbeing on the effect of employee perceptions toward leader’s kindness behaviors on service sabotage) were supported. The support/non-support conditions of the research hypotheses are summarized in Table 6:

Table 6.

Summary of Findings.

Hypothesis number (H)	Finding
H1: Employee perceptions toward the leader’s kindness behaviors influence service sabotage.	Supported
H2: Employee perceptions toward leader’s kindness behaviors affect their feeling of elevation.	Supported
H3: Employee perceptions about leader’s kindness behaviors affect employee wellbeing.	Supported
H4: Employee feeling of elevation affects service sabotage.	Not supported
H5: Employee wellbeing affects service sabotage.	Supported
H6: Employee feeling of elevation affects employee wellbeing.	Supported
H7: There is a mediating effect of feeling of elevation on the effect of employee perceptions toward leader’s kindness behaviors on service sabotage.	Not supported
H8: There is a mediating effect of employee wellbeing on the effect of employee perceptions toward leader’s kindness behaviors on service sabotage.	Supported
H9: There is a joint mediating effect of feeling of elevation and employee wellbeing on the effect of employee perceptions toward leader’s kindness behaviors on service sabotage.	Supported

Discussion

Although there are no studies directly addressing the variables of this research, the findings are generally similar to findings in the literature. In general the findings contribute to the literature by showing that not only the leader’s behavior in the business and organizational context, but also his/her kindness behaviors in general has organizational reflections. The first finding of the study is kindness perceptions toward leader affect service sabotage. This finding can be considered as similar with studies which shows perceptions toward virtuousness of leader affects employees’ commitment to work, performance (Tripathi, 2024), moral behavior (Alshehri & Elsaied, 2022; Hadi & Sahib, 2023; Matokwe, 2021), and organizational citizenship behaviors (Thun & Kevin Kelloway, 2011). This finding is also similar with studies showing benevolent leadership affects positive work behaviors and attitudes (Ho & Le, 2023; Grego-Planer, 2022; Rui & Xinqi, 2020; Shen et al., 2023). The second finding of the study which reveals the positive relationship between perceptions toward leader’s kindness behaviors and feeling of elevation is similar with the findings in the related literature which shows kindness activates elevating (Fryburg, 2022; Fryburg et al., 2021) or kindness related stimuli is main generator of elevation (Krämer et al., 2017; Oliver et al., 2015). Thirdly, the finding that perceptions toward the leader’s kindness affect the wellbeing of employees, is similar with findings that showing kindness stimuli can make employees happier (Fryburg et al., 2021), observing solidarity increase positive behaviors in the workplace (Chancellor et al., 2018) and virtuous leadership affects employee happiness or work related wellbeing (Hendriks et al., 2020; Q. I. Wang, 2011).

On the other hand, although previous finding showing that the feeling of elevation effects the positive behaviors (Algoe & Haidt, 2009; Cox, 2010; Layous et al., 2017; Thomson & Siegel, 2013), the feeling of elevation was not depicted as an effective factor for service sabotage unexpectedly. Moreover, although previous studies in literature show that positive effects of kindness or ethical leadership occur by the mediating role of the feeling of elevation (Pohling & Diessner, 2016; Vianello et al., 2010; Xing et al., 2022), there was not depicted a mediating effect in the study. These findings may be methodological difference or descriptive nature of this study unlike previous ones, which were generally experimental. In addition to this explanation, possible relations among these variable may have disappeared as other more effective variables added to model.

In addition to these, another finding of the study is that; employee wellbeing at workplace affects service sabotage and this has a mediating role on the effect of kindness perception on service sabotage. This is similar with study shows the important effect of job satisfaction on job performance and mediating effect of this variable on the effect of motivation on performance (Reizer et al., 2019). It must be stated that variables, contexts and methods of previous researches are quite different with this research. But those have been useful in inspiring, developing and evaluating this research.

Conclusion

Present study, which was conducted to examine the specific effects of perceptions toward leader’s kindness behaviors in the organizational context, shows that employees can experience more feeling of elevation, have more wellbeing perceptions and exhibit less service sabotage behaviors depending on perceptions about their leader’s kindness behaviors. In addition, it is understood that perceptions about leader’s kindness behaviors affect service sabotage through employee wellbeing. The study supported the idea that leader’s kindness behaviors toward others that outside the organization can have positive effects on employees. In the study where it is asserted that emotions based on positive psychology and witnessed kindnesses will have significant effects on employees; it shows that the perception of employees that their leaders do favors for those who are in difficulty, troubled, unhappy or distressed situations can be valuable for organizations. This is because, based on these perceptions, it is possible for employees to experience a feeling of elevation, which is expressed as a positive emotion. In addition, employee wellbeing, which means that employees enjoy their work more or see their work as a meaningful experience, is also likely to be experienced more based on these perceptions and feeling of elevation. Finally, it can be expected that service sabotage, which means treating service recipients badly, rashly or arbitrarily, will be experienced less in organizations, especially based on employees’ perceptions toward leader’s kindness behaviors and employee well-being.

Since the research was conducted in only one local government organization, it is not possible to generalize its findings to all organizations. However, the findings show that perception toward leader’s kindness behaviors is a variable that can be taken into consideration in similar studies in the field of management, leadership or organization. This is because the leader is perceived by the employees not only with his/her behaviors in the organization but also with his/her behaviors toward those outside the organization. It may not be possible to fully understand the impact of the leader on employees without these perceptions.

As with every study, this research also has limitations. In addition to the generalizability of the research findings for different organizations, there are also limitations arising from the basic assumptions that the participants have the resources and ability to read the survey questions, read and give honest answers to them, especially due to the survey method followed. Therefore, it should be noted that the findings of the study are not absolute truths. In addition, the research reflects the perceptions at the specific time when the survey was applied and it is possible that these may vary according to time or conditions, so care should be taken when interpreting the research findings according to time, conditions, context etc.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to the relevant local government leader who helped implement the survey, the participants in the survey and the ethics committee officials who made the ethical evaluation of the research survey.

Author Contributions

Assoc. Prof. Dr. İbrahim BOZACI and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Alper GÜRER confirm contribution to the article as follows: All authors contributed to study conception and design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of results, draft manuscript preparation, reviewed results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Ethics

This study was approved by the Social and Human Sciences Research Ethics Committee of Kirikkale University (Approval Session no: 08) on 18/08/2023 at 12:30.

ORCID iD

İbrahim Bozaci

Data Availability Statement

The dataset used in the study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

Aboobaker

(2022). Workplace spirituality and employee wellbeing in the hospitality sector: Examining the influence of fear of COVID-19. Psychological Studies, 67(3), 362–371.

Adewale

(2020). A model of virtuous leadership in Africa: Case study of a Nigerian firm. Journal of Business Ethics: JBE, 161(4), 749–762.

Algoe

S. B.

Haidt

(2009). Witnessing excellence in action: The ‘other-praising’ emotions of elevation, gratitude, and admiration. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(2), 105–127.

Alshehri

F. A. H.

Elsaied

(2022). The mediating effect of moral courage in the relationship between virtuous leadership and moral voice. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 43(2), 315–330.

American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2023, November 8). New poll: Small acts of kindness make most Americans feel better. https://www.psychiatry.org/news-room/news-releases/new-poll-small-acts-of-kindness-benefits.

Bass

B. M.

(1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31.

Bass

B. M.

Steidlmeier

(1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181–217.

Baumeister

R. F.

Bratslavsky

Finkenauer

Vohs

K. D.

(2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370.

Behnke

Pietruch

Chwiłkowska

Wessel

Kaczmarek

L. D.

Assink

Gross

J. J.

(2023). The undoing effect of positive emotions: A meta-analytic review. Emotion Review, 15(1), 45–62.

10.

Binfet

J. T.

Passmore

H. A.

(2019). The who, what, and where of school kindness: Exploring students’ perspectives. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 34(1), 22–37.

11.

Bono

J. E.

Foldes

H. J.

Vinson

Muros

J. P.

(2007). Workplace emotions: The role of supervision and leadership. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1357–1367.

12.

Buchanan

Aknin

L. B.

Lotun

Sandstrom

G. M.

(2021). Brief exposure to social media during the COVID-19 pandemic: Doom-scrolling has negative emotional consequences, but kindness-scrolling does not. Plos One, 16(10), Article e0257728.

13.

Buchanan

Sandstrom

G. M.

(2023). Buffering the effects of bad news: Exposure to others’ kindness alleviates the aversive effects of viewing others’ acts of immorality. Plos One, 18(5), Article e0284438.

14.

Canter

Youngs

Yaneva

(2017). Towards a measure of kindness: An exploration of a neglected interpersonal trait. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 15–20.

15.

Chancellor

Margolis

Lyubomirsky

(2018). The propagation of everyday prosociality in the workplace. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(3), 271–283.

16.

Cotney

J. L.

Banerjee

(2019). Adolescents’ conceptualizations of kindness and its links with well-being: A focus group study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(2), 599–617.

17.

Couris

J. D.

(2021). Driving health care results with authenticity, kindness, and vulnerability: A new model of authentic leadership [Doctoral dissertation, Muma College of Business, Business Management, University of South Florida].

18.

Cox

K. S.

(2010). Elevation predicts domain-specific volunteerism 3 months later. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(5), 333–341.

19.

Curry

O. S.

Rowland

L. A.

Van Lissa

C. J.

Zlotowitz

McAlaney

Whitehouse

(2018). Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 320–329.

20.

Dale

K. R.

Raney

A. A.

Janicke

S. H.

Sanders

M. S.

Oliver

M. B.

(2017). YouTube for good: A content analysis and examination of elicitors of self-transcendent media. The Journal of Communication, 67(6), 897–919.

21.

Dale

K. R.

Raney

A. A.

Janicke-Bowles

S. H.

Baldwin

Rowlett

J. T.

Wang

Oliver

M. B.

(2020). Self-transcendent emotions and social media: Exploring the content and consumers of inspirational Facebook posts. New Media & Society, 22(3), 507–527.

22.

Diener

Thapa

Tay

(2020). Positive emotions at work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7(1), 451–477.

23.

Donaldson

S. I.

Lee

J. Y.

Donaldson

S. I.

(2019). Evaluating positive psychology interventions at work: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 4(3), 113–134.

24.

Dreer

(2024). Teachers’ well-being and job satisfaction: The important role of positive emotions in the workplace. Educational Studies, 50(1), 61–77.

25.

Fabrigar

L. R.

Wegener

D. T.

MacCallum

R. C.

Strahan

E. J.

(1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.

26.

Fredrickson

B. L.

Cohn

M. A.

Coffey

K. A.

Pek

Finkel

S. M.

(2008). Open hearts build lives: positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential personal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1045–1062.

27.

Freeman

Aquino

McFerran

(2009). Overcoming beneficiary race as an impediment to charitable donations: Social dominance orientation, the experience of moral elevation, and donation behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(1), 72–84.

28.

Froman

(2010). Positive psychology in the workplace. Journal of Adult Development, 17(2), 59–69.

29.

Fryburg

D. A.

(2022). Kindness as a stress reduction-health promotion intervention: A review of the psychobiology of caring. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 16(1), 89–100.

30.

Fryburg

D. A.

(2023). Kindness isn’t just about being nice: The value proposition of kindness as viewed through the lens of incivility in the healthcare workplace. Behavioral Sciences, 13(6), 457–517.

31.

Fryburg

D. A.

Ureles

S. D.

Myrick

J. G.

Carpentier

F. D.

Oliver

M. B.

(2021). Kindness media rapidly inspires viewers and increases happiness, calm, gratitude, and generosity in a healthcare setting. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–9.

32.

Galante

Bekkers

M. J.

Gallacher

(2014). Effect of kindness-based meditation on health and well-being: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(6), 1101–1114.

33.

Gasteiger

Vedhara

Massey

Jia

Ayling

Chalder

Coupland

Broadbent

(2021). Depression, anxiety and stress during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from a New Zealand cohort study on mental well-being. BMJ Open, 11(5), e045325.

34.

Gherghel

Nastas

Hashimoto

Takai

(2021). The relationship between frequency of performing acts of kindness and subjective well-being: A mediation model in three cultures. Current Psychology, 40(9), 4446–4459.

35.

Goretzko

Pham

T. T. H.

Bühner

(2021). Exploratory factor analysis: Current use, methodological developments and recommendations for good practice. Current Psychology, 40(7), 3510–3521.

36.

Goswami

Nair

Beehr

Grossenbacher

(2016). The relationship of leaders’ humor and employees’ work engagement mediated by positive emotions: Moderating effect of leaders’ transformational leadership style. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(8), 1083–1099.

37.

Grego-Planer

(2022). The relationship between benevolent leadership and affective commitment from an employee perspective. Plos One, 17(3), Article e0264142.

38.

Hackett

R. D.

Wang

(2012). Virtues and leadership: An integrating conceptual framework founded in Aristotelian and Confucian perspectives on virtues. Management Decision, 50(5), 868–899.

39.

Hadi

H. H.

Sahib

E. A.

(2023). Virtuous leadership and its relationship to ethical behaviour. A case study in Mesopotamia general company for seeds. World Economics and Finance Bulletin, 23(5), 56–65.

40.

Haidt

(2000). The positive emotion of elevation. Prevention & Treatment, 3(1), 1–5.

41.

Haidt

(2003). Elevation and the positive psychology of morality. In Keyes

C. L. M.

Haidt

(Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 275–289). American Psychological Association.

42.

Hake

A. B.

Post

S. G.

(2023). Kindness: Definitions and a pilot study for the development of a kindness scale in healthcare. Plos One, 18(7), Article e0288766.

43.

Harris

L. C.

Ogbonna

(2002). Exploring service sabotage: The antecedents, types and consequences of frontline, deviant, antiservice behaviors. Journal of Service Research, 4(3), 163–183.

44.

Harris

L. C.

Ogbonna

(2006). Service sabotage: A study of antecedents and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 543–558.

45.

Harris

L. C.

Ogbonna

(2012). Motives for service sabotage: An empirical study of front-line workers. Service Industries Journal, 32(13), 2027–2046.

46.

Haskins

Thomas

Johri

(Eds.) (2018). Kindness in leadership. Routledge.

47.

Hayes

A. W.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis. A regression-based approach (2. Basım). The Guilford Press.

48.

Hendriks

Burger

Rijsenbilt

Pleeging

Commandeur

(2020). Virtuous leadership: A source of employee well-being and trust. Management Research Review, 43(8), 951–970.

49.

H. X.

A. N. H.

(2023). Investigating the relationship between benevolent leadership and the organizational citizenship behaviour of academic staff: The mediating role of leader-member exchange. Management in Education, 37(2), 74–84.

50.

Howell

J. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation? Academy of Management Executive, 6(2), 43–54.

51.

J. Mills

R. Fleck

Kozikowski

. (2013). Positive psychology at work: A conceptual review, state-of-practice assessment, and a look ahead. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(2), 153–164.

52.

Johnstone

M. J.

(2010). On the matter of human kindness. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal, 17(7), 32.

53.

Johnston

W. M.

Davey

G. C.

(1997). The psychological impact of negative TV news bulletins: The catastrophizing of personal worries. British Journal of Psychology 1904-1920, 88 ( Pt 1)(1), 85–91.

54.

Kearney

D. J.

McManus

Malte

C. A.

Martinez

M. E.

Felleman

Simpson

T. L.

(2014). Loving-kindness meditation and the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions among veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder. Medical Care, 52(12 Suppl 5), S32–S38.

55.

Kline

R. B.

(Ed.). (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). The Guilford Press.

56.

Margolis

Revord

Lyubomirsky

(2021). Comparing the effects of performing and recalling acts of kindness. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16(1), 73–81.

57.

Krämer

Eimler

S. C.

Neubaum

Winter

Rösner

Oliver

M. B.

(2017). Broadcasting one world: How watching online videos can elicit elevation and reduce stereotypes. New Media & Society, 19(9), 1349–1368.

58.

Layous

Nelson

S. K.

Kurtz

J. L.

Lyubomirsky

(2017). What triggers prosocial effort? A positive feedback loop between positive activities, kindness, and well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(4), 385–398.

59.

Lenhart

Madden

Smith

Purcell

Zickuhr

Rainie

(2011). Teens, kindness and cruelty on social network sites: How American Teens Navigate the New World of “Digital Citizenship.”Pew Internet & American Life Project.

60.

Liang

S. G.

Steve Chi

S. C.

(2013). Transformational leadership and follower task performance: The role of susceptibility to positive emotions and follower positive emotions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(1), 17–29.

61.

Matokwe

(2021). The effect of virtuous leadership on organisational culture and the ethical behaviour of employees [Master Thesis, Business Administration, University of South Africa].

62.

McNaughton-Cassill

M. E.

Novian

D. A.

Holmes

T. L.

Smith

T. L.

(2009). Emotional stress and coping in response to television news coverage of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Journal of Media Psychology, 14(1), 16–26.

63.

Meyers

M. C.

van Woerkom

Bakker

A. B.

(2013). The added value of the positive: A literature review of positive psychology interventions in organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(5), 618–632.

64.

Oliver

M. B.

Kim

Hoewe

Chung

Ash

Woolley

J. K.

Shade

D. D.

(2015). Media-induced elevation as a means of enhancing feelings of intergroup connectedness. The Journal of Social Issues, 71(1), 106–122.

65.

Otake

Shimai

Tanaka-Matsumi

Otsui

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2006). Happy people become happier through kindness: A counting kindnesses intervention. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(3), 361–375.

66.

Ouweneel

Le Blanc

P. M.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2014). On being grateful and kind: Results of two randomized controlled trials on study-related emotions and academic engagement. The Journal of Psychology, 148(1), 37–60.

67.

Ozcelik

Langton

Aldrich

(2008). Doing well and doing good: The relationship between leadership practices that facilitate a positive emotional climate and organizational performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(2), 186–203.

68.

Ozkan

S. A.

Ardic

(2022). Business innovation management: A general overview to virtuous leadership. Marketing i Menedžment Innovacij, 2(1), 184–197.

69.

Perkins

Sehmbi

Smith

(2022). Effects of kindness- and compassion-based meditation on wellbeing, prosociality, and cognitive functioning in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Mindfulness, 13(9), 2103–2127.

70.

Pohling

Diessner

(2016). Moral elevation and moral beauty: A review of the empirical literature. Review of General Psychology, 20(4), 412–425.

71.

Pradhan

R. K.

Hati

(2022). The measurement of employee well-being: Development and validation of a scale. Global Business Review, 23(2), 385–407.

72.

Reizer

Brender-Ilan

Sheaffer

(2019). Employee motivation, emotions, and performance: A longitudinal diary study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(6), 415–428.

73.

Reynolds

G. S.

Bennett

J. B.

(2023). The role of wellness climate in Small Business Health Promotion and employee wellbeing. Occupational health science, 2023(7),1–36.

74.

Riehm

K. E.

Holingue

Kalb

L. G.

Bennett

Kapteyn

Jiang

Veldhuis

C. B.

Johnson

R. M.

Fallin

M. D.

Kreuter

Stuart

E. A.

Thrul

(2020). Associations between media exposure and mental distress among US adults at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 59(5), 630–638.

75.

Riggio

R. E.

Zhu

Reina

Maroosis

J. A.

(2010). Virtue-based measurement of ethical leadership: The Leadership Virtues Questionnaire. Consulting Psychology Journal Practice and Research, 62(4), 235–250.

76.

Rowland

Curry

O. S.

(2019). A range of kindness activities boost happiness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 159(3), 340–343.

77.

Rozin

Royzman

E. B.

(2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 5(4), 296–320.

78.

Rui

Xinqi

(2020). Trickle-down effect of benevolent leadership on unethical employee behavior: A cross-level moderated mediation model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(6), 721–740.

79.

Schnall

Roper

Fessler

D. M.

(2010). Elevation leads to altruistic behavior. Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society/APS, 21(3), 315–320.

80.

Shen

Chou

W. J.

Schaubroeck

J. M.

Liu

(2023). Benevolent leadership, harmonious passion, and employee work behaviors: A multi-level moderated mediation model. Journal of Business Research - Turk, 157, 113571.

81.

Staw

B. M.

Sutton

R. I.

Pelled

L. H.

(1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5(1), 51–71.

82.

Subramony

Golubovskaya

Keating

Solnet

Field

Witheriff

(2022). The influence of pandemic-related workplace safety practices on frontline service employee wellbeing outcomes. Journal of Business Research—Turk, 149, 363–374.

83.

Thomson

A. L.

Siegel

J. T.

(2013). A moral act, elevation, and prosocial behavior: Moderators of morality. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(1), 50–64.

84.

Thun

Kevin Kelloway

(2011). Virtuous leaders: Assessing character strengths in the workplace. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 28(3), 270–283.

85.

Titova

Sheldon

K. M.

(2022). Happiness comes from trying to make others feel good, rather than oneself. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 17(3), 341–355.

86.

Tripathi

(2024). Virtuous leadership and individual performance among Indian bank employees: A parallel mediation model. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 73(2), 583–600.

87.

Turner

Barling

Zacharatos

(2002). Positive psychology at work. In Snyder, C.R. & Lopez, S.J. (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 715–728).

88.

Vianello

Galliani

E. M.

Haidt

(2010). Elevation at work: The effects of leaders’ moral excellence. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(5), 390–411.

89.

Wang

Hackett

R. D.

(2016). Conceptualization and measurement of virtuous leadership: Doing well by doing good. Journal of Business Ethics: JBE, 137(2), 321–345.

90.

Wang

Q. I.

(2011). A conceptual and empirical investigation of leader virtues and virtuous leadership [PhD thesis, Business Administration, McMaster University].

91.

Xing

Zhang

Jiang

(2022). The impact of ethical leadership prototype on the effectiveness of ethical leadership: The mediating role of elevation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(9), 1093.

92.

Yang

A. O.

(2021). The development and validation of a virtuous leadership scale [Master thesis, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, University of Cape Town].

93.

Yin

S.-Q.

(2023). Enhancing organizational communication via intelligent voice assistant for knowledge workers: The role of perceived supervisor support, psychological capital, and employee wellbeing. Frontiers in Communication, 7, 1–11.

94.

Yong

A. G.

Pearce

(2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79–94.

95.

Youngs

D. E.

Yaneva

M. A.

Canter

D. V.

(2023). Development of a measure of kindness. Current Psychology, 42(7), 5428–5440.

96.

Yüksel

Yılık

(2022). Çalışan refahıölçeği: Türk kültürüne uyarlama çalışması. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 9(3), 1959–1975.

97.

Zaki

(2020). Catastrophe compassion: Understanding and extending prosociality under crisis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(8), 587–589.

98.

Zhang

Chan

Nathan

K. S.

(2020). Helping others help others: Examining the effect of viewing everyday kindness on prosocial intentions. Sentience the University of Minnesota Undergraduate Journal of Psychology, 20, 1–7.

99.

Zheng

Zhu

Zhao

Zhang

(2015). Employee well-being in organizations: Theoretical model, scale development, and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5), 621–644.

100.

Zhou

Cheng

Xia

(2014). Mediating role of employee emotions in the relationship between authentic leadership and employee innovation. Social Behavior and Personality an International Journal, 42(8), 1267–1278.