Personality and Individual Differences 203 (2023) 112037

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Work ethic and grit: Explaining responses to dissatisfaction at work

John P. Meriac a, *, Kara E. Rasmussen b, Jo Pang b
a
University of Missouri-St. Louis, Global Leadership and Management, St. Louis, MO, USA
b
University of Missouri-St. Louis, Doctor of Business Administration Program, St. Louis, MO, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The purpose of this research was to further examine the distinction between work ethic and grit, including their
Work ethic relative importance in explaining work engagement and retention. With the onset of the “great resignation”,
Grit many organizations have increased their focus on fostering worker engagement and retention, underscoring the
Exit
importance of understanding variables that facilitate positive work outcomes. In this research, 250 participants
Voice
Loyalty
from the United States were recruited to examine the relationship between individual differences in work ethic
Neglect and grit on job satisfaction, work stress, and behavioral responses to dissatisfaction at work. Work ethic and grit
Stress were found to be related, but distinct constructs, consistent with prior research. Compared with grit, work ethic
was found to explain more unique variance in job satisfaction, turnover intentions, exit, voice, and loyalty. In
contrast, grit was found to explain more unique variance in work stress and neglect. Study implications,
including employee retention and engagement, as well as limitations and future directions are discussed.

1. Introduction
With the onset of the “great resignation” (Klotz, 2021), employee
dissatisfaction and retention have remained important issues for prac­
titioners and scholars. The COVID-19 pandemic created much work
frustration, prompting employees to reflect upon their work, and many
leaving or withdrawing efforts. Accordingly, many organizations have
found difficulty in retaining and recruiting employees in several in­
dustries and positions. Withdrawal or disengagement, recently called
“quiet quitting” (e.g., Krueger, 2022; Telford, 2022) has become a
widely discussed phenomenon, particularly among younger workers.
Scholars and practitioners have offered considerations about how to
manage such workforce transitions, but at this point in the discussion,
little attention has been directed toward individual differences that are
associated with retention, as well as the propensity to remain focused on
work activities in the face of frustration.
Conceptually, both work ethic and grit are regarded as important
constructs related to individual motivation and persistence. Given the
potential overlap between these constructs, scholars have examined
their empirical distinctiveness (Meriac, Slifka, & LaBat, 2015). Here we
examine the relationships between work ethic and grit more closely,
focusing on positive and negative outcomes as responses to dissatisfac­
tion at work. Additionally, we extend previous research to provide a
more robust test of their earlier hypotheses during a time when em­
ployees are voicing increased dissatisfaction with work and leaving
positions at a much greater rate (Klotz, 2021). Notably, previous
research primarily focused on broad work attitudes, specifically job
satisfaction, intention to turnover, and stress. Here, we advance these
findings by focusing on a framework specifically centered on behavioral
responses to dissatisfaction at work (i.e., the exit, voice, loyalty and
neglect model; EVLN). Additionally, we re-examine relationships be­
tween work ethic and grit, and their relationships with job satisfaction,
turnover intentions, and work stress during the “great resignation”.
1.1. Work ethic and grit defined
Over the last 30 years, scholars and practitioners have discussed the
importance of work ethic in a variety of situations where an
effort–performance relationship exists (Furnham, 1990; Meriac & Gor­
man, 2017), including work, education, sports, and other contexts. At
the same time, grit is discussed in similar applications (Duckworth,
Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007), often attributed to successful out­
comes. Both work ethic and grit represent individual differences, with
conceptual overlap and similarities. Scholars have recognized the ten­
dency for similar constructs to be introduced, and the importance of
distinguishing among them (Le, Schmidt, Harter, & Lauver, 2010).

* Corresponding author at: 215 Anheuser-Busch Hall, Global Leadership and Management, College of Business Administration, University of Missouri-St. Louis, St.
Louis, MO 63121, USA.
E-mail address: meriacj@umsl.edu (J.P. Meriac).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.112037
Received 8 September 2022; Received in revised form 2 December 2022; Accepted 2 December 2022
Available online 8 December 2022
0191-8869/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.P. Meriac et al. Personality and Individual Differences 203 (2023) 112037

Toward this end, research has addressed the nature of both constructs,
with some scholars examining direct relationships between work ethic
and grit (Meriac et al., 2015), and other widely-studied variables such as
conscientiousness (Credé, Tynan, & Harms, 2017).
Work ethic is defined as an individual difference construct, specif­
ically “a set of beliefs and attitudes reflecting the fundamental value of
work” (Meriac et al., 2010, p. 316; Miller, Woehr, & Hudspeth, 2002), in
line with the concept of work values (Meriac et al., 2015). Miller et al.
(2002) reviewed the work ethic literature and introduced the multidi­
mensional work ethic profile (MWEP), which also established work ethic
as a multidimensional variable. Over the last 20 years, scholars have
largely adopted this view, conceptualizing work ethic through seven
dimensions (reviewed in Table 1). Research has demonstrated work
ethic’s association with many important outcomes, including job per­
formance (Miller et al., 2002), citizenship and counterproductive
behavior (Meriac & Gorman, 2017), motivation (Grabowski et al.,
2019), innovation (Mussner et al., 2017), entrepreneurial intentions
(Tipu & Ryan, 2016), positive work attitudes (Miller et al., 2002), task
persistence (Parkhurst, Fleisher, Skinner, Woehr, & Hawthorn-Embree,
2011), and more.
Grit has been defined as an individual difference, describing
“perseverance and passion for long-term goals” (Duckworth et al., 2007,
p. 1087). Grit explains how people approach task accom­
plishment—higher levels of grit are expected to be associated with
success in work, education, and other endeavors (see Table 2 for grit
dimensions). Grit has received much attention from researchers and the
popular press. Duckworth et al. (2007) provided evidence that in­
dividuals with higher levels of grit are more likely to be successful in
academic pursuits, including educational attainment, students’ grade
point average, and more. Recent work on grit in employee samples has
provided some evidence that grit explains variance in work outcomes.
For instance, Dugan, Hochstein, Rouziou, and Britton (2019) found that
grit was positively related to job satisfaction among salespeople.
Regarding other work outcomes, Kim and Lee (2022) reported that grit
was positively associated with quality of work life.
However, other scholars called into question whether grit is distinct
from other constructs related to work outcomes. For instance, Vazsonyi
et al. (2019) found that grit was not distinguishable from self-control,
and Schmidt et al. (2018) concluded that grit should be fully inte­
grated as a facet of conscientiousness given the large proportion of
shared variance between the constructs. Additionally, Ion, Mindu, and
Gorbănescu (2017) determined that grit provided little value in
explaining work outcomes beyond the Big Five personality traits. Credé
Table 2
Grit dimensions and sample items.
Dimension Definition Sample item
Consistency of A propensity to maintain focus I have difficulty maintaining my
interest on a task or goal until it is focus on projects that take more
completed. than a few months to complete.
Perseverance of A tendency to sustain effort I finish whatever I begin.
effort toward goal pursuit despite
encountering challenges or
obstacles.
Note. A full list of items is available in Duckworth and Quinn (2009).
et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis on grit and concluded that many
of the findings have been potentially overstated, especially considering
the specialized and narrowly-focused samples in several widely-cited
grit studies. Specifically, they reviewed that many of the samples used
were in challenging but well-defined tasks, where grit may be advan­
tageous. However, in complex and ill-defined situations, grit may be less
beneficial, as many roles require creativity, or abandoning ineffective
approaches when one or more are unsuccessful. As reviewed by Credé
et al., some of the most widely-discussed grit findings have focused on
samples including spelling bee competitors and West Point cadets during
summer training (Duckworth et al., 2007). Such tasks are well-defined
compared with many work roles including multiple tasks and duties
that can fluctuate tremendously during times of uncertainty.
Meriac et al. (2015) directly compared work ethic and grit, finding
that they were moderately and positively correlated, but work ethic
explained incremental variance in work outcomes beyond grit, and grit
explained incremental variance in general stress beyond work ethic.
Other research has reached similar conclusions. Credé et al. (2017)
found that the corrected correlation between grit and employee reten­
tion was modest in magnitude, comparatively much lower than with
academic outcomes. Since the time of Credé et al.’s review, scholars
have continued to examine grit’s relationship with work outcomes, with
some support for the notion that grit is related to important performance
and attitudinal variables. As noted above, societal trends including the
great resignation, and related disengagement (i.e., “quiet quitting”)
have received a great deal of attention from practitioners (Klotz, 2021;
Krueger, 2022). Given the challenges that many organizations are facing
in light of employee dissatisfaction, we first aimed to re-examine the
relative importance of work ethic and grit in predicting such outcomes,
during a time period when many employees conveyed dissatisfaction
from their work and are empowered with the ability to outwardly act on
this dissatisfaction.

Table 1
1.2. Relationships between work ethic and grit
MWEP dimensions and sample items.
Dimension Definition Sample item Our first objective in this research was to examine associations be­
Self-reliance The belief that independence from It is important to control tween work ethic and grit. Specifically, previous research found support
others in task accomplishment is one’s destiny by not being for a positive relationship between work ethic and grit overall, and some
important. dependent on others.
dimensions based on conceptual definitions and content similarity.
Morality/ A predisposition to encourage and It is important to treat others
ethics engage in just and moral behavior. as you would like to be Because work ethic and grit overlap in their nomological networks, we
treated. expected that work ethic and grit would be positively related. At the
Leisure A propensity to place high value on I would prefer a job that dimension-level, hard work (work ethic) was expected to be positively
relaxation, or non-work activities. allowed me to have more related to perseverance of effort (grit) based on similar item content, and
leisure time.
Hard work A belief that increased or sustained Anyone who is able and
both dimensions suggest that individuals with higher levels of each
effort is the primary driver of task willing to work hard has a construct would have a greater proclivity to persist on tasks when
accomplishment. good chance of succeeding. encountering difficulties or obstacles. Meriac et al. (2015) found support
Centrality of A belief that work is important in its I experience a sense of for this relationship, but we re-examined it here in a different sample
work own right. fulfillment from working.
and time period when employees are reporting greater frustration and
Wasted time An emphasis on the efficient and I try to plan out my workday
productive use of one’s time. so as not to waste time. withdrawal tendencies. Additionally, we expected that delay of gratifi­
Delay of A postponement of rewards until a I get more fulfillment from cation (work ethic) would be positively related to consistency of interest
gratification later point in time, following the items I had to wait for. (grit), because both construct definitions suggest that individuals
completion of tasks or goals. maintain their focus and put off distractions or short-term rewards.
Note. A full list of items is available in Meriac, Woehr, Gorman, and Thomas Previous work did not support this relationship, yet we re-examined it
(2013). here to provide a more robust test given the conceptual rationale for

2
J.P. Meriac et al.
their previous hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1. Work ethic and grit are positively related.
Hypothesis 2. Hard work is positively related to perseverance of
effort.
Hypothesis 3. Delay of gratification is positively related to consis­
tency of interest.
1.3. Incremental variance explained by work ethic beyond grit
We additionally re-examined the incremental variance explained by
work ethic in job satisfaction and turnover intentions beyond grit. In­
dividuals with a higher level of work ethic find work intrinsically
rewarding, and may satisfy needs through work itself. In comparison,
grit is defined more on remaining task-focused and persistence toward a
well-defined goal. Meriac et al. (2015) demonstrated that work ethic
explained incremental variance in work attitudes beyond grit. This is
expected to be evident in job satisfaction, where individuals with higher
levels of work ethic will be more fulfilled from their work. Recent
research by Ion et al. (2017) also demonstrated that grit was unrelated to
job satisfaction. Grit is partially defined through task persistence, where
individuals believe that exerting effort toward task accomplishment
results in success. However, based on the broader value of work
engagement inherent in individuals with a high level of work ethic and
complex nature of most work roles, we expected that work ethic explains
incremental variance in outcomes beyond grit.
Hypothesis 4. Work ethic dimensions explain incremental variance in
job satisfaction beyond grit dimensions.
Hypothesis 5. Work ethic dimensions explain incremental variance in
turnover intentions beyond grit dimensions.
Previous research also demonstrated that grit explained variance in
stress above and beyond work ethic (i.e., Meriac et al., 2015). However,
prior work examined general stress, which may not have been perceived
as directly attributable to respondents’ work. More recent research
converges with these findings, where grit was negatively related to work
stress (Kim & Lee, 2022). To extend this line of inquiry, we re-examined
two dimensions of work stress, specifically time stress and job anxiety
(Parker & DeCotis, 1983). One dimension of work ethic (leisure) may
facilitate effective coping mechanisms to reduce work stress. However,
prior work has suggested that grit is relatively more predictive of lower
work stress, potentially through remaining focused on tasks to reduce
distractions (consistency of interest). Accordingly, we also explore the
relative importance of work ethic and grit in their association with work
stress.
Research Question 1. What are the relative importance of work ethic
and grit dimensions in explaining variance in (a) time stress and (b) job
anxiety?
1.4. Responses to dissatisfaction: exit, voice, loyalty and neglect
A second objective of this research was to extend previous research
by examining the relative importance of work ethic and grit in responses
to work dissatisfaction. The EVLN framework represents positive and
negative behaviors that can be active or passive in nature (Hirschman,
1970; Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, & Mainous, 1988). Specifically, exit
represents active withdrawal from the organization, leaving as a
response to dissatisfaction. Another active behavior representing posi­
tive engagement is voice, or efforts to speak up and improve a situation.
Regarding passive behaviors, loyalty represents positive engagement,
but passively remaining in the organization and waiting for a situation
to improve. Finally, neglect represents passive disengagement, where
individuals do not leave the organization, but instead withdraw efforts
and reduce their motivation. The EVLN framework has become accepted
3
Personality and Individual Differences 203 (2023) 112037
by scholars as a framework that encompasses more complex and
nuanced behaviors as responses to dissatisfaction with one’s organiza­
tion (Naus, van Iterson, & Roe, 2007).
Predictors of EVLN take many forms, including organizational pro­
cedures, influence processes, and individual differences. For instance, Si
and Li (2012) found that effective human resource management prac­
tices were associated with decreased exit and neglect. Social influence
processes have also been shown as associated with these outcomes. For
instance, Vigoda (2001) reported that organizational politics were
positively related to exit and neglect, but negatively associated with
voice and loyalty. More recently, Lee and Varon (2020) found that
leader-member exchange was associated with lower levels of exit and
neglect, and higher levels of loyalty, but not significantly related to
voice. Individual differences and EVLN have however been less exten­
sively studied, although research on the topic suggests that personality
and individual differences are associated with these outcomes. Withey
and Cooper (1989) found that locus of control was positively related to
voice, and negatively related to loyalty and neglect, but not significantly
related to exit. Naus et al. (2007) found that assertiveness was nega­
tively related to exit and positively related to voice.
The great resignation has elevated the importance of retention and
sustained work engagement. For people with higher levels of work ethic,
work itself is fulfilling and an important aspect of one’s identity. As
reviewed by Furnham (1984), individuals with higher levels of work
ethic tend to place a greater value on remaining employed rather than
exiting the workforce. Additionally, grit involves persistence, but may
be more applicable for well-defined tasks (Credé et al., 2017). In other
words, grit is more relevant in explaining one’s ability to focus on and
overcome obstacles pertaining to a specific project or task rather than
their overall work experience. Modern work has become more ambig­
uous, potentially limiting the importance of grit for explaining retention
in jobs with many changing tasks and uncertainty in how work is
completed. Taken together, we expected that work ethic would be more
important for broader work roles in reducing exit, compared with grit
that is conceptualized as focusing on well-defined tasks. As noted above,
‘quiet quitting’ (i.e., disengagement) has become widely discussed as a
situation where individuals do not ‘exit’, but withdraw their efforts as a
response to dissatisfaction (Krueger, 2022). Based on the understanding
that many aspects of work have become increasingly ambiguous and
complex in recent years, we expect that work ethic will be associated
with increased job engagement and negatively related to neglect given
that remaining engaged in work is more fulfilling for individuals with a
high level of work ethic. In comparison, we expect that grit will be less
strongly associated with neglect in the overall work context where
employees are engaged in multiple, potentially ambiguous tasks.
Hypothesis 6. Work ethic dimensions explain incremental variance in
exit beyond grit dimensions.
Hypothesis 7. Work ethic dimensions explain incremental variance in
neglect beyond grit dimensions.
Employees may also respond with more constructive approaches
when dissatisfied. Work ethic has been demonstrated as predictive of
positive work outcomes, including extra-role behaviors (Meriac & Gor­
man, 2017; Ryan, 2002). Within this domain, organizational citizenship
behaviors (i.e., OCB) encompass behaviors which involve loyalty (Van
Dyne & LePine, 1998), or supporting the organization in the face of
difficulties or hardships. Likewise, other OCB frameworks involve voice,
which includes constructive suggestions, with the intention of
improving conditions (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Given the relatedness
of these constructs and prior empirical support for work ethic and OCB,
we expect that work ethic will be associated with positive responses
including voice and loyalty. Although some research has shown that grit
is related to OCB (Ion et al., 2017), we expected that in comparison work
ethic would be more strongly related to voice and loyalty, based on the
conceptual definitions of the constructs. Grit involves maintaining a
J.P. Meriac et al.
focus on task interest, and persistence toward task pursuit. Lucas,
Gratch, Cheng, and Marsella (2015) noted that although grit has pre­
dicted goal persistence, it does not appear to isolate the role of effort and
performance. In complex situations, grit could potentially result in
frustration through task commitment, where alternative actions may be
more effective. If expanding one’s role would require shifting one’s
focus away from core tasks, high levels of grit may deter individuals
from exhibiting voice and loyalty. Because individuals with higher levels
of work ethic perceive work as more central to their lives, they may view
their overall work roles more broadly, and accordingly be more inclined
to engage in actions that support the organization, even if not part of
their required work tasks (Meriac & Gorman, 2017). Here, we expect
that work ethic will be more predictive of voice and loyalty compared
with grit.
Hypothesis 8. Work ethic dimensions explain incremental variance in
voice beyond grit dimensions.
Hypothesis 9. Work ethic dimensions explain incremental variance in
loyalty beyond grit dimensions.
2. Method
2.1. Sample and procedures
Data were collected from 250 employed adults in the United States,
between late October and early November of 2021. Ethical approval
from our university’s Institutional Review Board was obtained, and all
participants signed consent forms indicating their agreement to partic­
ipate prior to the data collection. All participants were currently
employed at the time of data collection and had at least 5 years of
experience in their current positions. Participants represented a variety
of different industries, the most frequently reported included: education
(15.2 %), healthcare (6.8 %), government (6.8 %), manufacturing (6.4
%), construction (4.8 %), and retail (4.8 %). The sample was on average
older than what is typically observed in similar studies, with a mean age
of 58.99 years (SD = 10.33). Participants worked an average of 41.66 h
per week (SD = 8.11), and had worked at their current organizations for
an average of 17.47 years (SD = 11.63). The sample was 58.8 % male,
and the racial and ethnic composition of the sample was 1.6 % Asian
American, 1.2 % Black or African American, 0.8 % Hispanic or Latin
American, 93.6 % White or Caucasian, and 2.0 % Multiracial or other.
Participants were recruited through Qualtrics Panels at two time
points. To reduce potential common method bias, several steps were
taken (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & MacKenzie, 2012). First, predictors and
outcomes were measured approximately two weeks apart. Specifically,
work ethic and grit were measured at time one, and all work outcomes
were measured at time two. Additionally, no identifiers were requested
as part of the data collection to reduce socially desirable responses.
Finally, to ensure data quality, four attention check questions were
included, with two checks at time one and two checks at time two. If
participants did not respond affirmatively to all attention checks they
were removed. The initial sample contained 396 participants at time
one, and 250 participants responded at time two, a matched rate of 63
%.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Work ethic
Work ethic was measured using Meriac et al.’s (2013) short form of
the multidimensional work ethic profile (MWEP-SF). The MWEP-SF
contains 28 items, with four items corresponding to each of the seven
work ethic dimensions. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale
from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Coefficient alphas for the
work ethic dimensions ranged from 0.87 to 0.72.
4
Personality and Individual Differences 203 (2023) 112037
2.2.2. Grit
Grit was measured using Duckworth and Quinn’s (2009) short form
of the grit scale (GRIT-S). The GRIT-S contains eight items, with four
items used to measure each of the two grit dimensions. Items were rated
on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly
Agree). Coefficient alphas were 0.76 for consistency of interest and 0.60
for perseverance of effort.
2.2.3. Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction was measured using six items from Brayfield and
Rothe’s (1951) scale, from Agho, Price, and Mueller (1992). Items were
rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5
(Strongly Agree). Coefficient alpha for the scale was 0.92.
2.2.4. Turnover intentions
Turnover intentions were measured using O’Driscoll and Beehr’s
(1994) three items. Items were rated on a 6-point scale. Anchors differed
for each item based on frequency of thoughts (i.e., Never to All of the
time), agreement (i.e., Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree), and likelihood
for actively looking for a new job (i.e., Very Unlikely to Very Likely).
Coefficient alpha for the scale was 0.92.
2.2.5. Work stress
Work stress was measured using Parker and DeCotis’s (1983) 13-
item work stress scale, measuring two facets of work stress: Time
stress (8 items) and job anxiety (5 items). Items were rated on a 5-point
Likert-type scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Coef­
ficient alphas were 0.93 for time stress and 0.80 for job anxiety.
2.2.6. EVLN
Exit, Voice, Loyalty and Neglect were measured using Naus et al.’s
(2007) scale. Exit and neglect were measured with five items, and voice
and loyalty were measured with four items. Instructions asked partici­
pants to indicate how likely they would be to respond to less favorable
aspects of their work by rating each behavioral statement in the scale.
Statements were rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale from 1 (Definitely
Not) to 5 (Definitely). Coefficient alphas ranged from 0.93 to 0.63.
3. Results
Data were screened for univariate outliers using Z-scores, and cases
greater than |3.0| were examined, revealing 20 outliers across all vari­
ables. All outliers appeared to be legitimate responses but were pri­
marily one or two low scores each on dimensions of work ethic and grit,
or high scores on neglect, time stress, and anxiety. We also checked for
inattentive responses, first based on fast response times. Respondents
that completed the measures in one third of the expected response time
were eliminated. Additionally, the careless package (Yentes & Wilhelm,
2018) in R (R Core Team, 2021) was used to check for inattentive re­
sponses based on long string responses and intra-individual response
variability. In total, 12 cases were removed from the analyses. Finally,
because multiple regression was used to test the majority of hypotheses,
Cook’s distances were examined, and values exceeding 1.0 were closely
examined (Stevens, 2009), but no cases exceeded this threshold. No
multicollinearity problems were evident, where tolerance values were
above 0.40. The assumptions of homoscedasticity, linearity, and
normality of residuals were evaluated in all regression models. Some
violations of homoscedasticity were identified, therefore
heteroscedasticity-consistent standard error (HCSE) estimates were used
to evaluate the significance of predictors using Hayes’s RLM macro
(Hayes & Cai, 2007).
Hypothesis 1 stated that work ethic and grit would be positively
related. Canonical correlation was used to examine the multivariate
relationships between work ethic dimensions and grit dimensions. Re­
sults indicated that the relationship was significant (Wilks’s Λ = 0.63, F
(14,458) = 8.35, p < .001). The Cramer & Nicewander (1979) index
J.P. Meriac et al. Personality and Individual Differences 203 (2023) 112037

indicated that work ethic dimensions shared 19.1 % of the variance with

Note. N = 237 for relationships involving age or gender. N = 238 for correlations involving other variables. Reliability estimates are on the diagonal. Correlations in italics are significant at p < .05. Gender was coded 1 =
0.86
grit dimensions. Additionally, the composite scores for work ethic and

21
grit were positively and significantly correlated (r = 0.42, p < .001).

0.63
− 0.05
Accordingly, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Correlations were examined

20
to test hypotheses 2 and 3 (see Table 3). Specifically, perseverance of
effort was positively and significantly correlated with hard work (r =

0.80
0.42
− 0.27
0.36), supporting Hypothesis 2. However, delay of gratification was not

19
significantly correlated with consistency of interest (r = − 0.03), failing

0.93
to support Hypothesis 3. These results converged with previous

− 0.32
− 0.17
0.60
18
research, providing evidence that work ethic and grit are related, yet
distinct constructs.

0.80

− 0.11
0.45
− 0.28

0.47
Hierarchical regression was used to test all incremental variance

17
hypotheses. Results for the final model in each case are included in

0.93
0.85
0.50
− 0.36
− 0.23
0.48
Tables 4–5. The full results for each step are available in an online

16
supplement, or from the first author upon request. Each of the hypoth­
eses were tested based on an a priori ordering. Based on the suggestions

0.92
0.54
0.46
0.79
− 0.37
− 0.31
0.52
of an anonymous reviewer, we controlled for age and gender, which

15
have been shown by previous research as potentially related to work

0.92
0.63
0.54
0.39
0.60
0.58
0.43
− 0.43
ethic and grit. The first block included control variables (i.e., age and

14
gender). The second block contained the control variables and either grit

−
−
−
−
dimensions or work ethic dimensions. The full model in each case

0.77

0.10
0.25
0.23
0.33
0.29
0.24
0.25

0.42
included all predictors, specifically age, gender, grit dimensions, and

13
work ethic dimensions. In each analysis we examined the ΔF and ΔR2 to

−
−
−
−

−
0.60

0.11
0.78
0.29
0.21
0.28
0.20
0.18
0.27

0.31
examine the incremental variance explained by work ethic or grit di­

12
mensions over one another, reversing the order. We additionally

−
−
−
−

−
incorporated relative weights (Johnson & LeBreton, 2004; Tonidandel &

0.76
− 0.49

− 0.07
− 0.92
− 0.18
0.20
0.29
0.28
0.22
− 0.19

0.40
LeBreton, 2011) to aid in the interpretation of correlated predictors, also
included in the regression tables. 11

0.87
− 0.30
0.49
0.42
0.40
− 0.21
− 0.21
− 0.15
− 0.19
0.40
0.30
− 0.34
Results indicated that work ethic explained a significant proportion
of variance in job satisfaction beyond grit (ΔR2 = 0.21). Upon closer
10

inspection of the coefficients this effect was driven by centrality of work

0.83

− 0.03

0.09

− 0.04
0.02
0.05
0.06

− 0.04
0.62

0.15

0.16

0.17
0.18
(β = 0.48), which explained 49.4 % of the total variance explained.
9

Conversely, grit did not explain a significant proportion of variance in

job satisfaction beyond work ethic (ΔR2 = 0.00). These results support
0.81

0.08
0.01
0.39
0.75
0.27
0.49
0.41
0.29
0.14

0.13
0.35
0.21
0.26
Hypothesis 4. Additionally, work ethic explained a significant propor­
8

−
−

−
tion of variance in in turnover intentions beyond grit (ΔR2 = 0.11), but
0.87

0.06
0.47
0.41
0.78
0.18
0.36
0.29
0.27
0.14
0.21
0.15

0.23
0.28
0.20
grit did not explain significant variance in turnover intentions when the
7

order of entry was reversed (ΔR2 = 0.02), supporting Hypothesis 5. In

−

−
−
−

−
−
0.84
0.51
0.61
0.38
0.77
0.23
0.47
0.37
0.50
0.29
0.26
0.19
0.28
0.41
0.24
0.37
the full model, centrality of work again explained the largest proportion
of variance (β = − 0.30; RRW = 26.5 %). Additionally, age explained a
6

−
−
−
−

−
substantial proportion of variance (β = − 0.19; RRW = 19.5 %) in
0.75
− 0.12
0.01
0.05
0.05

− 0.04
− 0.08
− 0.20
0.14
− 0.14
− 0.16
− 0.23
0.26
0.18
0.22
0.30

0.25
turnover intentions, indicating that older workers were less likely to
5

leave their positions.

0.79

0.06

0.12
0.11

0.09
0.14
0.49
0.40
0.49
0.14
0.59
0.30
0.34
0.36
0.14

0.13

0.35

0.31
Research Question 1 examined the unique variance explained by
work ethic and grit in work stress. Work ethic explained a significant
4

−
−
−
−

−
proportion of variance in job anxiety beyond grit (ΔR2 = 0.07). How­
0.72

0.06
0.05
0.06
0.02
0.02

0.05
0.35
0.18
0.24
0.48
0.34
0.23
0.56
0.15
0.16
0.18

0.21
0.18

ever, grit also explained a significant proportion of variance in anxiety

3

beyond work ethic (ΔR2 = 0.05). In the full model, consistency of in­
−

−
−

−
− 0.02

− 0.01

− 0.06
− 0.05

− 0.04

− 0.01
− 0.08

terest (β = 0.21; RRW = 24.8 %) explained the largest proportion of

0.04
0.07

0.01
0.02
0.11

0.05

0.02

0.02
0.07
0.00
0.01
0.02

variance. Work ethic also explained a significant proportion of variance

2

in time stress beyond grit (ΔR2 = 0.08), but when the order was
− 0.07

− 0.11

− 0.03

− 0.06
− 0.10
− 0.23

− 0.14

− 0.23
− 0.21
− 0.18
− 0.27

− 0.18
0.03

0.05
0.00
0.00

0.01

0.11
0.10
0.20

reversed, grit dimensions also explained a significant proportion of

1

variance in time stress (ΔR2 = 0.05). Consistency of interest again

0.49
0.59
0.49
0.70
0.61
0.72
0.59
0.72
0.38
0.82
0.51
0.82
0.58
0.91
1.40
0.93
0.93
1.30
1.09
0.85
10.40

explained the largest proportion of variance here (β = 0.24; RRW = 29.4

SD

%).
Turning to the EVLN framework, work ethic explained incremental
Correlations among study variables.

1.42
4.02
4.54
3.48
4.17
3.98
4.04
3.44
3.82
2.51
4.25
3.49
3.87
3.65
2.20
2.18
2.11
2.66
4.18
3.81
59.11

variance in exit beyond grit (ΔR2 = 0.13), but in contrast grit did not
M

explain variance in exit beyond work ethic (ΔR2 = 0.02), supporting

Hypothesis 6. Examining the focal predictors, leisure (β = 0.21; RRW =
11. Consistency of interest
12. Perseverance of effort
9. Delay of gratification

15. Turnover intentions

25.7 %) and centrality of work (β = − 0.32; RRW = 23.6 %) explained

10. Work ethic overall
6. Centrality of work

the most variance. Interestingly, age explained a large proportion of

14. Job satisfaction
4. Morality/ethics

male, 2 = female.

variance as well (β = − 0.23; 23.8 %), indicating that older workers were
16. Job anxiety
13. Grit overall

17. Time stress

8. Wasted time
3. Self-reliance

7. Hard Work

less likely to leave their jobs in response to dissatisfaction. When we

21. Neglect
20. Loyalty
2. Gender

5. Leisure

19. Voice

examined the variance explained in neglect, work ethic explained a

18. Exit
Table 3

1. Age

significant proportion of variance in neglect beyond grit (ΔR2 = 0.10),

but grit also explained a significant proportion of variance when the

5
J.P. Meriac et al. Personality and Individual Differences 203 (2023) 112037

Table 4
Regression results for job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and work stress.
Job satisfaction Turnover intentions Job anxiety Time stress

β RRW β RRW β RRW β RRW

Age 0.05 1.8 % − 0.19** 19.5 % − 0.15* 14.2 % − 0.14 11.7 %

Gender − 0.03 0.5 % − 0.01 0.3 % 0.03 1.7 % − 0.04 0.4 %
Consistency of interest − 0.06 3.1 % 0.14* 10.8 % 0.21** 24.8 % 0.24** 29.4 %
Perseverance of effort 0.00 7.4 % 0.04 4.9 % − 0.07 12.4 % − 0.02 6.8 %
Self-reliance − 0.03 0.8 % 0.08 3.4 % − 0.00 1.1 % 0.01 0.9 %
Morality/ethics − 0.12 3.3 % 0.10 2.3 % 0.05 2.3 % − 0.03 3.6 %
Leisure − 0.14* 12.5 % 0.16* 22.4 % 0.07 8.0 % 0.12* 15.4 %
Centrality of work 0.48*** 49.4 % − 0.30*** 26.5 % − 0.24* 17.5 % − 0.20* 12.4 %
Hard work 0.07 8.3 % − 0.07 4.9 % − 0.16 11.6 % − 0.13 7.7 %
Wasted time 0.04 10.0 % 0.00 3.9 % 0.17 3.6 % 0.25** 8.6 %
Delay of gratification − 0.03 2.9 % 0.04 1.1 % 0.10 2.9 % 0.07 3.0 %
Model F (11,236) 11.15*** 6.99*** 5.69*** 4.39***
Model R2 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.19
Model R2Adjusted 0.26 0.16 0.17 0.15
Work ethic ΔF (7,224) 11.40*** 5.62*** 2.19* 2.76**
Work ethic ΔR2 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.08
Grit ΔF (2,224) 0.46 2.14 6.57** 7.38***
Grit ΔR2 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.05

Note. N = 236. β = standardized regression coefficients. RRW = rescaled relative weights as a percentage of R2. Gender was coded 1 = male, 2 = female.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

Table 5
Regression results for exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect.
Exit Voice Loyalty Neglect

β RRW β RRW β RRW β RRW

Age − 0.23*** 23.8 % − 0.10 2.6 % − 0.12 9.6 % − 0.15* 7.4 %

Gender 0.02 0.4 % 0.03 0.2 % − 0.05 0.8 % − 0.08 2.0 %
Consistency of interest 0.16* 11.4 % − 0.03 3.9 % − 0.01 0.7 % 0.27*** 28.24 %
Perseverance of effort 0.08 2.8 % 0.05 8.6 % − 0.03 2.6 % 0.02 7.0 %
Self-reliance − 0.00 0.6 % 0.09 6.8 % 0.08 11.4 % 0.06 0.9 %
Morality/ethics 0.02 2.5 % 0.17* 22.7 % − 0.09 2.5 % − 0.14 13.4 %
Leisure 0.21** 25.7 % − 0.06 1.4 % − 0.09 6.2 % 0.17** 13.7 %
Centrality of work − 0.32*** 23.6 % 0.25* 30.5 % 0.13 18.3 % − 0.24** 18.3 %
Hard work 0.06 1.5 % − 0.08 4.0 % 0.18 28.9 % − 0.02 3.2 %
Wasted time − 0.02 3.5 % 0.09 15.9 % 0.07 11.0 % − 0.00 5.1 %
Delay of gratification 0.12 4.1 % 0.01 3.3 % 0.02 8.0 % 0.04 0.9 %
Model F (11,236) 8.72*** 6.11*** 2.69** 8.96***
Model R2 0.24 0.22 0.12 0.30
Model R2Adjusted 0.20 0.18 0.08 0.27
Work ethic ΔF (7,224) 6.18*** 6.06*** 3.47** 6.38***
Work ethic ΔR2 0.13 0.14 0.09 0.10
Grit ΔF (2,224) 2.21 0.37 0.09 8.80***
Grit ΔR2 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.06

Note. N = 236. β = standardized regression coefficients. RRW = rescaled relative weights as a percentage of R2. Gender was coded 1 = male, 2 = female.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

order of entry was reversed (ΔR2 = 0.06). The relative importance
indices indicated that consistency of interest explained the largest pro­
portion of variance in neglect (β = 0.27; RRW = 28.24 %), followed by
centrality of work (β = − 0.24; 18.3 %). Accordingly, these findings do
not support Hypothesis 7, but instead reveal that both work ethic and
grit explain unique variance in neglect. Age again was a significant
predictor in the full model, indicating that older workers were less likely
to exhibit neglect (β = − 0.15; RRW = 7.4 %), but explained a smaller
proportion of variance in this case.
Shifting our focus to functional responses to dissatisfaction at work,
work ethic explained incremental variance in voice beyond grit (ΔR2 =
0.14), but, grit did not explain incremental variance in voice beyond
work ethic (ΔR2 = 0.03), supporting Hypothesis 8. Again, centrality of
work explained the largest proportion of variance (β = 0.25; RRW =
30.5 %), followed by morality/ethics (β = 0.17; RRW = 22.7 %). Work
ethic explained a significant proportion of variance in loyalty beyond
grit (ΔR2 = 0.09), but grit did not explain variance in loyalty beyond
work ethic when the order was reversed (ΔR2 = 0.00). In this model, no
predictors were significant.
4. Discussion
Through the “great resignation”, workers are leaving their organi­
zations at increased rates, or passively disengaging compared with
preceding years (Maurer, 2021). Accordingly, practitioners have
expressed concerns about employee retention and sustained engage­
ment. Our results indicate that work ethic and grit facilitate these pos­
itive outcomes. This study had three core objectives, including: (a)
examining the role of work ethic and grit in predicting negative re­
sponses to dissatisfaction at work, (b) examining work ethic and grit as

6
J.P. Meriac et al.
predictors of positive responses to dissatisfaction, and (c) re-examining
the empirical distinction between work ethic and grit. Each of these
contributions is discussed below.
4.1. How do work ethic and grit relate to work outcomes?
Given the continued focus on employee turnover and consequences
of the “great resignation” (Klotz, 2021), and recent discussions on “quiet
quitting” (Krueger, 2022), organizations are interested in recruiting and
retaining workers that exhibit productive and functional behaviors.
However, scholars and practitioners have been keenly interested in
retaining high-performing employees (Hom, Lee, Shaw, & Hausknecht,
2017) and fostering employee engagement (Macey & Schneider, 2008)
for many years. For instance, turnover rates across all industries were
estimated as approximately 25 % (Allen, Bryant, & Vardaman, 2010),
over a decade before discussions on the great resignation. As summa­
rized by Allen et al., turnover costs per employee are expected to range
between 90 % to 200 % of the employee’s salary. In addition to em­
ployees that leave, disengaged employees who stay can also be costly for
the organization. A recent Gallup poll, summarized by Pendell (2022),
indicated that the combined effects of employee disengagement are
estimated to cost organizations $7.8 trillion in lost productivity. In short,
the implications of turnover and lack of engagement can be extremely
costly for organizations. Looking beyond current workplace trends, the
modern world of work is likely to remain turbulent and uncertain to
varying degrees, and antecedents of retention and engagement will
remain important.
Taken together, these results indicate that compared with grit, work
ethic appears to explain more unique variance in employees’ positive
work outcomes, specifically job satisfaction, voice, and loyalty. Associ­
ations between work ethic and positive outcomes such as voice
(compared with exit or neglect) are likely to influence employees’ be­
haviors in such situations and would be a beneficial quality for em­
ployers to consider. These effects were primarily attributable to
centrality of work, underscoring that this is an important individual
difference, distinguishing individuals who will be more satisfied, and are
likely to respond with functional behaviors when they are dissatisfied. In
other words, individuals who are more likely to experience a sense of
fulfillment and accomplishment from their work are more likely to be
satisfied overall (and respond constructively when dissatisfied). The
story for grit was different, where grit was not significantly related to job
satisfaction, voice, or loyalty beyond work ethic. In the aggregate, these
findings suggest that work ethic is more valuable in explaining positive
work behaviors compared with grit.
Turning to dysfunctional work outcomes, work ethic appeared to
explain more variance in some outcomes where grit stood out as more
predictive in others. In comparison, work ethic explained more variance
in turnover intentions and exit, where grit explained more variance in
time stress, anxiety, and neglect. Again, centrality of work explained
more variance in turnover intentions and exit, followed by morality/
ethics and leisure, respectively. These results indicate that individuals
with higher levels of work ethic are more likely to remain in their or­
ganizations. In contrast, grit appeared to be more valuable in reducing
work stress, and also minimized neglect. Interestingly, the consistency of
interest dimension was more important than perseverance of effort.
Here, it is possible that individuals who are more capable of maintaining
their focus on core work tasks may experience fewer adverse reactions
such as work stress, and may be more inclined to remain focused on their
core duties. Previous research demonstrated that perseverance of effort
was more prominent in its relationship with attitudinal and performance
outcomes (Credé et al., 2017). However, as the scholars noted in their
review, the majority of prior studies were conducted in educational
settings—potentially in those contexts, perseverance of effort is indeed
more strongly related to outcomes. It is possible that with this employed
sample from different industries, these results shed more light on the
value of grit in reducing negative work outcomes.
7
Personality and Individual Differences 203 (2023) 112037
4.2. How distinct are work ethic and grit?
Previous research examining work ethic and grit was conducted
prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we collected new data during the
pandemic to examine the effects of these constructs in predicting work
attitudes and behaviors. Our results converge with and extend previous
work exploring these direct relationships. Compared with the previous
work conducted by Meriac et al. (2015), this research underscores that
work ethic and grit are positively related, yet distinct constructs. Prior
research recruited employed students to investigate relationships among
work ethic and grit, and participants certainly experienced work
stressors and varied in their work attitudes. However, results of this
research focused on a sample of people that were employed (non-stu­
dents) during the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e., 2021) and recruited from
diverse backgrounds and occupations. With the additional work stress
and uncertainties facing many employees during this time, the different
sample and context provide a more robust test of the hypotheses to help
advance our understanding of how work ethic and grit relate to work
outcomes. Considering these findings, along with prior research, work
ethic and grit appear to be important individual differences in fostering
sustained work engagement.
One notable difference is that our sample was older than compared
with participants in previous research. The mean age of 59 years old is
atypical, and may in part be due to the sampling procedure—specifi­
cally, we ensured that participants were currently employed, and had at
least 5 years of experience in their current position. This may have
resulted in many participants being excluded due to their job tenure, and
an overall older sample if younger workers had transitioned into
different positions more frequently. Interestingly, age was negatively
related to turnover intentions, job anxiety, exit, and neglect, suggesting
that it has an important role in understanding employee withdrawal.
Older workers may have a broader frame of reference regarding work
changes, and possibly have more invested in organizations that may
dissuade them from leaving (e.g., retirement benefits). From one
perspective, our older sample may be viewed as a limitation, but we also
believe that this supplements previous research by including different
perspectives that may have been overlooked. Importantly, our results
converge with prior work examining the same variables (Meriac et al.,
2015). Accordingly, even though the sample was older, we believe that
these findings are generalizable when comparing these relationships
with prior findings.
4.3. Limitations and future directions
We implemented several mechanisms to reduce any effects of com­
mon method bias on the results (Podsakoff et al., 2012). However, future
research should continue to examine the effects of work ethic and grit on
additional outcomes that are either objectively measured or utilize other
sources to evaluate performance. Future studies could examine actual
turnover rates and the extent that work ethic and grit are related to
employees exiting organizations. Similarly, peer observations of
behavior may provide insights on behavioral outcomes in response to
dissatisfaction at work.
Other outcomes should also continue to be investigated as they relate
to work ethic and grit. Meriac and Gorman (2017) examined work ethic
as a predictor of supervisor ratings of OCB and CWB, and other research
has examined work ethic as a predictor of task performance (Miller
et al., 2002). This provides another avenue for future research, as in­
dividual differences have been linked with contextual performance and
still remain important outcomes for organizations, especially as work
itself continues to change. For example, researchers have recently
studied different forms of and conditions surrounding OCB and CWB
with telework (e.g., Gajendran, Harrison, & Delaney-Klinger, 2015;
Holland, Simpson, Dalal, & Vega, 2016). Future research should
examine the interplay between individual differences like work ethic
and grit in remote work settings. As noted by Holland et al. (2016),
J.P. Meriac et al.
telework likely involves increased social isolation and less frequent
performance monitoring compared with traditional work. It is possible
that dimensions of work ethic and grit may be especially important in
remote work compared with traditional roles, and facilitate more
effective performance outcomes, including OCB and CWB.
We also recognize that not all potentially relevant variables were
included in this study and the analyses. For example, many researchers
have recognized that both work ethic (Miller et al., 2002) and grit
(Duckworth et al., 2007) are correlated with conscientiousness. We did
not include conscientiousness in this research, but we encourage future
researchers to continue to explore the associations between work ethic,
grit, and other personality variables, in particular how they relate to
important outcomes such as employee retention and engagement. Given
the interesting findings that emerged with age, we also encourage future
researchers to explore demographic and subgroup differences that may
contribute to our broader understanding of personality and individual
differences in how they relate to work engagement and retention.
As noted above, the age of the sample and the sample size potentially
limit the generalizability of the findings. Specifically, our sample size
would not be characterized as large based on current journal standards.
However, power analysis suggested that the sample size was sufficiently
large to detect significant effects, at a power level of 0.80. We encourage
researchers to replicate and extend these findings, and to do so with
larger samples in the future. As noted above, the mean age of the sample
was atypical, and although we believe that our sample may supplement
the literature where many samples are composed of younger workers,
future research should examine these findings with samples including
younger workers at earlier career stages.
4.4. Summary and conclusions
Many scholars have discussed problems among similar constructs,
with the potential for redundancy as new variables are introduced into
the scholarly literature (Le et al., 2010). Previous research has examined
the distinction between work ethic and grit, and found that the variables
were indeed related, yet distinct. Here we provide additional support for
the distinction between work ethic and grit, and examine the relative
importance of each construct in predicting work outcomes. Taken
together, these results show that both variables are valuable in pre­
dicting meaningful outcomes. Work ethic was generally more strongly
associated with positive outcomes, including job satisfaction, voice, and
loyalty. Additionally, work ethic was more strongly associated with
employees’ propensity to leave their organizations. In contrast, grit was
more valuable in reducing work stress and decreased levels of neglect.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
The first author was involved in conceptualization of the project,
data collection and analysis, project administration, supervision, writing
the initial draft, and editing the revisions. The second and third authors
were involved in conceptualization of the project, data collection,
writing the initial draft, and editing the revisions.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
Agho, A. O., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1992). Discriminant validity of measures of job
satisfaction, positive affectivity, and negative affectivity. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 65, 185–196.
Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing
misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management Perspectives,
24, 48–64.
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 35, 307–311.
8
Personality and Individual Differences 203 (2023) 112037
Credé, M., Tynan, M. C., & Harms, P. D. (2017). Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic
synthesis of the grit literature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113,
492–511.
Cramer, E. M., & Nicewander, W. A. (1979). Some symmetric, invariant measures of
multivariate association. Psychometrika, 44, 43–54.
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance
and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92,
1087–1101.
Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the short grit
scale (Grit-S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 166–174.
Dugan, R., Hochstein, B., Rouziou, M., & Britton, B. (2019). Gritting their teeth to close
the sale: The positive effect of salesperson grit on job satisfaction and performance.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 39, 81–101.
Furnham, A. (1984). The Protestant work ethic: A review of the psychological literature.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 87–104.
Furnham, A. (1990). The protestant work ethic. London, UK: Routledge.
Gajendran, R. S., Harrison, D. A., & Delaney-Klinger, K. (2015). Are telecommuters
remotely good citizens? Unpacking telecommuting’s effects on performance via i-
deals and job resources. Personnel Psychology, 68, 353–393.
Grabowski, D., Chudzicka-Czupała, A., Chrupała-Pniak, M., Mello, A. L., & Paruzel-
Czachura, M. (2019). Work ethic and organizational commitment as conditions of
unethical pro-organizational behavior: Do engaged workers break the ethical rules?
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 27, 193–202.
Hayes, A. F., & Cai, L. (2007). Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error
estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation.
Behavior Research Methods, 39, 709–722.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms,
organizations, and states (Vol. 25). Harvard University Press.
Holland, S. J., Simpson, K. M., Dalal, R. S., & Vega, R. P. (2016). I can’t steal from a
coworker if I work from home: Conceptual and measurement-related issues
associated with studying counterproductive work behavior in a telework setting.
Human Performance, 29, 172–190.
Hom, P. W., Lee, T. W., Shaw, J. D., & Hausknecht, J. P. (2017). One hundred years of
employee turnover theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 530–545.
Ion, A., Mindu, A., & Gorbănescu, A. (2017). Grit in the workplace: Hype or ripe?
Personality and Individual Differences, 111, 163–168.
Johnson, J. W., & LeBreton, J. M. (2004). History and use of relative importance indices
in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 238–257.
Kim, M. Y., & Lee, H. J. (2022). Does grit matter to employees’ quality of work life and
quality of life? The case of the Korean public sector. Public Personnel Management, 51,
97–124.
Klotz, A. C. (2021). You’ve quit your job. How do you manage the time before you
actually leave? The Wall Street Journal, R8. https://www.wsj.com/articles/quit-job-
notice-period11632244422.
Krueger, A. (2022). Who is quiet quitting for?. Retrieved August 26, 2022, from. The New
York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/23/style/quiet-quitting-tiktok.
html.
Le, H., Schmidt, F. L., Harter, J. K., & Lauver, K. J. (2010). The problem of empirical
redundancy of constructs in organizational research: An empirical investigation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112, 112–115.
Lee, J., & Varon, A. L. (2020). Employee exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect in response to
dissatisfying organizational situations: It depends on supervisor relationship quality.
International Journal of Business Communication, 57, 30–51.
Lucas, G. M., Gratch, J., Cheng, L., & Marsella, S. (2015). When the going gets tough: Grit
predicts costly perseverance. Journal of Research in Personality, 59, 15–22.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30.
Maurer, R. (2021). Turnover ‘tsunami’ expected once pandemic ends. Society forHuman
Resource Management. Retrieved April 14, 2022, from https://www.shrm.org/reso
urcesandtools/hr-topics/talent-acquisition/pages/turnover-tsunami-expected-on
ce-pandemic-ends.aspx.
Meriac, J. P., & Gorman, C. A. (2017). Work ethic and work outcomes in an expanded
criterion domain. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32, 273–282.
Meriac, J. P., Slifka, J. S., & LaBat, L. R. (2015). Work ethic and grit: An examination of
empirical redundancy. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 401–405.
Meriac, J. P., Woehr, D. J., & Banister, C. (2010). Generational differences in work ethic:
An examination of measurement equivalence across three cohorts. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 25, 315–324.
Meriac, J. P., Woehr, D. J., Gorman, C. A., & Thomas, A. L. E. (2013). Development and
validation of a short form for the multidimensional work ethic profile (MWEP).
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82, 155–164.
Miller, M. J., Woehr, D. J., & Hudspeth, N. (2002). The meaning and measurement of
work ethic: Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional inventory.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 451–489.
Mussner, T., Strobl, A., Veider, V., & Matzler, K. (2017). The effect of work ethic on
employees’ individual innovation behavior. Creativity and Innovation Management,
26, 391–406.
Naus, F., van Iterson, A., & Roe, R. (2007). Organizational cynicism: Extending the exit,
voice, loyalty, and neglect model of employees’ responses to adverse conditions in
the workplace. Human Relations, 60, 683–718.
O’Driscoll, M. P., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Supervisor behaviors, role stressors, and
uncertainty as predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 15, 141–155.
Parker, D. F., & DeCotis, T. D. (1983). Organizational determinants of job stress.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 160–177.
J.P. Meriac et al.
Parkhurst, J. T., Fleisher, M. S., Skinner, C. H., Woehr, D. J., & Hawthorn-Embree, M. L.
(2011). Assignment choice, effort, and assignment completion: Does work ethic
predict those who choose higher-effort assignments? Learning and Individual
Differences, 21, 575–579.
Pendell, R. (2022). The world’s $7.8 trillion workplace problem. Retrieved December 2,
2022, from. Gallup https://www.gallup.com/workplace/393497/world-trillion-wor
kplace-problem.aspx.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & MacKenzie, 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.
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna,
Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A. G., III (1988). Impact of exchange
variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses to
declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 599–627.
Ryan, J. J. (2002). Work values and organizational citizenship behaviors: Values that
work for employees and organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17,
123–132.
Schmidt, F. T., Nagy, G., Fleckenstein, J., Möller, J., & Retelsdorf, J. A. N. (2018). Same
same, but different? Relations between facets of conscientiousness and grit. European
Journal of Personality, 32, 705–720.
Si, S., & Li, Y. (2012). Human resource management practices on exit, voice, loyalty, and
neglect: Organizational commitment as a mediator. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 23, 1705–1716.
Personality and Individual Differences 203 (2023) 112037
Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). New
York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Telford, T. (2022). ‘Quiet quitting’ isn’t really about quitting. Here are the signs.
TheWashington Post. Retrieved August 30, 2022, from https://www.washingtonpost
.com/business/2022/08/21/quiet-quitting-what-to-know/.
Tipu, S., & Ryan, J. (2016). Predicting entrepreneurial intentions from work values:
Implications for stimulating entrepreneurship in UAE national youth. Management
Decision, 54, 610–629.
Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Relative importance analysis: A useful
supplement to regression analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 1–9.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of
construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108–119.
Vazsonyi, A. T., Ksinan, A. J., Jiskrova, G. K., Mikuška, J., Javakhishvili, M., & Cui, G.
(2019). To grit or not to grit, that is the question! Journal of Research in Personality,
78, 215–226.
Vigoda, E. (2001). Reactions to organizational politics: A cross-cultural examination in
Israel and Britain. Human Relations, 54, 1483–1518.
Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 521–539.
Yentes, R. D., & Wilhelm, F. (2018). careless: Procedures for computing indices of careless
responding. R package version 1.2.1.