Compassion During Difficult Times: Team Compassion Behavior, Suffering, Supervisory Dependence, and Employee Voice During COVID-19

Abstract

We draw from conservation of resources theory to examine how employees’ assessments of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) event strength may threaten their existing resources and their subsequent dependence on their supervisors, as well as voice behaviors that are critical to the organization’s survival in a disruptive environment. We propose that assessments of COVID-19 as a strong event are positively related to employees’ suffering, in turn increasing their sense of dependence on their supervisors and ultimately reducing their tendencies to display promotive and prohibitive voice. Furthermore, we propose that team compassion behavior can mitigate these negative indirect effects of COVID-19 event strength on employee voice by attenuating the positive effect of COVID-19 event strength on individual suffering. We designed a six-wave, multisource, time-lagged field study in a hotel chain based in a Southeast Asian country to capture employees’ and supervisors’ perceptions and behaviors before the onset of the pandemic (T1) and then following the country’s COVID-19 mandatory stay-at-home order (T2–T6). Our results highlight the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on employee–supervisor relationships, and the critical role of team compassion behavior as a contextual moderator to reduce the indirect negative effect of COVID-19 event strength on employee voice.

Full text

Compassion During Difficult Times: Team Compassion Behavior, Suffering,
Supervisory Dependence, and Employee Voice During COVID-19
Elijah X. M. Wee and Ryan Fehr
Department of Management and Organization, Foster School of Business, University of Washington
We draw from conservation of resources theory to examine how employees’assessmentsof coronavirusdisease
(COVID-19) event strength may threaten their existing resources and their subsequent dependence on their
supervisors, as well as voice behaviors that are critical to the organization’s survival in a disruptive environment.
We propose that assessments of COVID-19 as a strong event are positively related to employees’suffering, in
turn increasing their sense of dependence on their supervisors and ultimately reducing their tendencies to
display promotive and prohibitive voice. Furthermore, we propose that team compassion behavior can mitigate
these negative indirect effects of COVID-19 event strength on employee voice by attenuating the positive effect
of COVID-19 event strength on individual suffering. We designed a six-wave, multisource, time-lagged field
study in a hotel chain based in a Southeast Asian country to capture employees’and supervisors’perceptions
and behaviors before the onset of the pandemic (T1) and then following the country’s COVID-19 mandatory
stay-at-home order (T2–T6). Our results highlight the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on employee–
supervisor relationships, and the critical role of team compassion behavior as a contextual moderator to reduce
the indirect negative effect of COVID-19 event strength on employee voice.
Keywords: COVID-19, dependency, team compassion behavior, employee voice, suffering
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has impacted the workplace in
many ways, such as by increasing employees’feelings of job
insecurity (Blustein et al., 2020), disrupting work routines
(Anicich et al., 2020), and threatening organizational survival
(Bartik et al., 2020). Under these unprecedented circumstances,
one promising way forward is to encourage employee voice, and
thus help organizations make more effective decisions amidst
disruption (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001). Previous research has
shown that voice is a uniquely powerful tool for organizations in
need of making difficult, complex decisions in rapidly changing
environments (Wilkinson et al., 2019). At the same time, voice as a
challenge-oriented behavior requires employees to engage in diffi-
cult conversations, risk interpersonal conflict, and expend cognitive
and emotional resources (Luria et al., 2009;Ng & Feldman, 2012).
Simply put, voice is risky. As employees cope with resource
demands from COVID-19, they are likely to adopt a defensive
orientation that could mitigate their willingness to speak up at work
(Hobfoll & Freedy, 1993). Therefore, a paradox exists: Employee
voice can play a vital role in helping organizations survive
pandemic-driven disruption, yet these same circumstances can
motivate employees to speak up less in an effort to preserve their
relationships.
In our research, we apply conservation of resources (COR)
theory (Hobfoll, 1989,2001) as our overarching framework to
examine how COVID-19 might threaten employees’existing
resources and reduce their subsequent voice behaviors. First,
we theorize that employees’assessments of the strength of
COVID-19 as a novel, disruptive, and critical event can predict
the extent of individual suffering that they experience. Then, we
argue that employees are likely to cope with the resource loss
associated with their suffering by increasing their supervisory
dependence—a phenomenon defined as an employee’s reliance on
one’s supervisor for needed resources such as skill development
(de Jong et al., 2007;Wee et al., 2017). In turn, we argue that this
increased supervisory dependence will dampen employees’ten-
dencies to display promotive and prohibitive voice, as such voice
could place their relationships with their supervisors at risk
(Detert & Edmondson, 2011).
Motivated by the call to address employees’individual suffering
and to identify ways to help employees and organizations survive
(Moorthy & Sankar, 2020), we introduce team compassion behav-
ior, defined as the extent to which team members as a whole engage
in empathetic reactions to members’suffering, as a key moderator
that will buffer the negative indirect effect of COVID-19 event
strength on employee voice. Compassion is central to the theorizing
of workplace suffering (Madden et al., 2012) and team compassion
behaviors represent the group’s collective efforts to alleviate suf-
fering through compassionate action. Through the lens of COR
theory, team compassion behavior reflects members’willingness to
offer instrumental and socioemotional resources during times of
suffering (Kanov et al., 2017), which can be conceptualized as a
source of alternative resources outside of the employee–supervisor
relationship. We propose that when team compassion behavior is
higher, the negative relationship between assessed COVID-19 event
strength on employees’suffering will be attenuated.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Elijah X. M. Wee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7036-5350
We are grateful for the employees’and supervisors’participation in our
research. We also acknowledge the unwavering support from the senior
management of the international hotel group throughout the data collection.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elijah X.
M. Wee, Department of Management and Organization, Foster School of
Business, University of Washington, 579 Paccar Hall, 4273 E Stevens
Way NE, Seattle, WA 98195, United States. Email: eliwee@uw.edu
Journal of Applied Psychology
© 2021 American Psychological Association 2021, Vol. 106, No. 12, 1805–1820
ISSN: 0021-9010 https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001001
1805

We make three contributions through our research. First, we
contribute to the COVID-19 literature by emphasizing the down-
stream effects of COVID-19-based psychological distress on
employee voice. We also encourage scholars to shift their focus
beyond individuals’coping mechanisms in the pandemic, and explore
the role of the group via team compassion behavior as a source of
resources and support. Second, we speak to the compassion literature
by conceptualizing and demonstrating the utility of compassion as a
multilevel phenomenon. Given the importance of group-level phe-
nomena on individual and team outcomes (e.g., gratitude—Fehr et al.,
2017;courage—Koerner, 2014), this conceptualization of compas-
sion opens the door to a deeper and more nuanced understanding of
compassion as a collective action (Madden et al., 2012). Finally, we
contribute to the voice literature by introducing individual suffering as
a new lens to explain why employees might be less likely to speak up
in an organizational crisis. Suffering shifts employees’perceptions of
their relationships with their supervisors, which in turn impacts their
decisions to speak up. We also highlight team compassion behavior as
a potential solution for organizations to sustain employee voice during
organizational crises.
We employed a multisource, time-lagged field study in a hotel
chain in Southeast Asia to test our proposed model. Data were
collected across six waves to mitigate concerns with same-source
biases and strengthen confidence in our results (Figure 1).
Theory and Hypotheses
Conservation of Resources in Times of
COVID-19 Suffering
The COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989,2001) proposes that individuals
are highly motivated to acquire and maintain resources that are
important to them—a motivation that is rooted in humans’evolu-
tionary need for survival. Central to COR theory is the notion that
individuals are more sensitive to resource loss than they are to
resource gain, and that they respond to the threat of resource loss by
adopting a defensive posture (Hobfoll & Freedy, 1993). Resources
are defined as “anything perceived by the individual to help attain
his or her goals”(Halbesleben et al., 2014, p. 1338). These
resources often cross over between group members or between
supervisors and employees, and both actual and potential resource
losses are conceptualized as key sources of stress in individuals’
lives (Hobfoll et al., 2018). To apply COR theory to the context of
the COVID-19 pandemic, we draw from event system theory.
Why do events command lasting attention and spur action among
some people more than others (Nigam & Ocasio, 2010)? According
to event system theory, the extent to which an event triggers
controlled information processing and subsequent action depends
on assessment of its strength (Morgeson et al., 2015). The notion of
event strength can in turn be broken down into three interrelated
components: novelty (the extent to which the event differs from
what has happened in the past), disruption (the extent to which
the event impacts the external environment), and criticality (the
extent to which the event is seen as important or a priority).
These interrelated characteristics combine additively to deter-
mine the overall strength of an event, which means that “the
confluence of event characteristics determines the overall
‘strength’of an event, much in the same way that ‘situational
strength’reflects the extent to which situations can constrain
behavior”(Morgeson et al., 2015, p. 522). When faced with the
COVID-19 pandemic, which is a singular macro event, the ways in
which it manifests in individuals’lives are highly varied. Some
individuals may experience COVID-19 as a “strong event”(due,
e.g., to a need to pivot their work to completely new products and
services), whereas others may assess it as comparatively less strong
(due, e.g., to a prepandemic work-from-home arrangement).
In considering the proximal consequences of these varying
assessments of COVID-19’s event strength, we focus on employees’
suffering, defined as “a state of distress, which may include physical
and emotional pain, trauma, existential anguish, concerns about the
future, and feelings of disconnection”(Dutton et al., 2014, p. 279).
Adefining feature of the COVID-19 pandemic is the suffering it has
wrought on people throughout the world, including the workplace,
where employees have suffered due to changes in how their work
must be done (Liu et al., 2021), the amount of work they are asked to
do (Caldas et al., 2021), and increased stresses associated with their
daily coworker interactions (Yuan et al., 2021). COVID-19 event
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Figure 1
Proposed Theoretical Model
COVID-19
Event Strength
(T2)
(Employee-rated)
Supervisory
Dependence
(T5)
(Employee-rated)
Promotive Voice
(T6)
(Supervisor-rated)
Team Compassion
Behavior
(T3)
(Peer-rated)
Prohibitive Voice
(T6)
(Supervisor-rated)
Group-level
Individual-level
Individual
Suffering
(T4)
(Employee-rated)
1806 WEE AND FEHR

strength is conceptually distinct from individual suffering. The
former relates to the process individuals engage in to assess the
impact of the pandemic, whereas the latter relates to the state of
distress that individuals experience.
We argue that the assessment of COVID-19 as a strong event is
positively related to the actual suffering that employees experience.
For example, employees for whom COVID-19 is experienced as a
“strong”event are likely to face new professional challenges due to
their disrupted work (Gössling et al., 2020), such as a need to create
new services to meet unparalleled demands (Purnell & Yoon, 2020,
March 19). Similarly, they are likely to face new interpersonal
challenges at work, such as interacting with teammates in a virtual
environment and coping with coworkers’own stresses and anxieties
(Kniffin et al., 2021). In line with COR theory, we argue that
individuals will experience suffering when dealing with these
challenges, as their coping efforts are likely to involve the sustained
taxing of their limited emotional and cognitive resources (de Jonge
& Dormann, 2006;Luria & Torjman, 2009).
Hypothesis 1: COVID-19 event strength is positively related to
individual suffering.
The Moderating Role of Team Compassion Behavior
Hypothesis 1 argues that COVID-19 event strength is positively
related to the amount of suffering employees ultimately experience.
With this effect in mind, a critical question is how suffering employees’
coworkers are likely to respond to these events (Madden et al., 2012).
To attenuate the impact of employees’assessments of COVID-19 event
strength on their suffering, we propose that team compassion behavior
is likely to play a key moderating role.
Compassion is defined as a process that involves noticing another
person’s suffering, feeling empathy for the person, and taking action
to alleviate their pain (Frost et al., 2000;Lilius et al., 2011;Miller,
2007). Many studies have attested to the power of compassion as a
salve during times of suffering in organizations, helping employees
overcome the pains they experience (Dutton et al., 2006;Lilius
et al., 2008).
Given that employees’discretionary behaviors are most impactful
at the aggregate level (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior—
Organ, 1988), our research focuses on team compassion behavior,
which is defined as the extent to which team members as a whole
engage in empathetic reactions to members’suffering. With this
definition we emphasize compassionate action, which relates to
group members’desire and tendency to help each other during
challenging times to alleviate suffering (Atkins & Parker, 2012). We
adopt a referent-shift consensus model that emphasizes employees’
perceptions of how the group shows compassionate action as a
whole (Chan, 1998). Following team-level behavioral research
(Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004;Sessions et al., 2020), we propose
that team compassion behavior is likely to emerge through a bottom-
up process in which two or more members demonstrate compas-
sionate actions that are directed at addressing suffering of another
member in the group. Indeed, individuals often look to their group
members for social cues and information on issues such as com-
passionate action (Rerup & Feldman, 2011). When group members
perceive that the group as a whole tends to act compassionately and,
through repeated conversations and interaction patterns, normalize
compassionate action (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999), they are more
likely to engage in the same behavior (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004).
We predict that team compassion behavior will attenuate the
positive relationship between COVID-19 event strength and indi-
vidual suffering. Higher team compassion behavior involves at its
core a willingness and tendency for group members to offer
instrumental (e.g., time, material goods) and socioemotional (e.g.
comfort; support) resources to other group members during times of
suffering, in part because suffering is both legitimized and accepted
by the group (Kanov et al., 2017). Following the logic of COR
theory, when team compassion behavior is higher, we propose that
these resources extended to the focal member by the group are likely
to compensate for the member’s resource demand because of their
higher assessed event strength of COVID-19. In other words, the
compassionate behaviors and resources from the group that arise
due to team compassion behavior will act as a stopgap between the
issues the employee experiences around COVID-19 and the suffer-
ing the employee would otherwise experience.
Consider the case of an employee who assesses COVID-19 as a
strong event and experiences depressive symptoms due in part to a
sense of isolation from their group members. In a group with higher
team compassion behavior, several interrelated responses can be
expected. First, group members will notice cues to the employee’s
problem, even if they do not say anything. Second, the group
members will respond to the noticed suffering with empathy. Third,
since the group members like to be there for each other in times of
difficulty, they will act by, for instance, reaching out to the employee
to let them know that they are not alone. While their assessment of
COVID-19 event strength might remain high, the individual suffer-
ing that the employee ultimately experiences will be mitigated when
team compassion behavior is higher.
Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between COVID-19
event strength and individual suffering is weaker when team
compassion behavior is higher than when it is lower.
Implications for Supervisory Dependence
Next, we consider the implications of the interactive effects of
COVID-19 event strength and team compassion behavior for em-
ployees’supervisory dependence. Supervisory dependence refers to
the extent to which an employee depends on a supervisor for
resources and goals (e.g., development, materials, information,
and work autonomy: de Jong et al., 2007;Wee et al., 2017). An
employee’s dependence on their supervisor represents the state of
power dynamics between the employee and their supervisor (Molm,
1991;Tepper et al., 2009). In organizations, those with supervisory
responsibilities over other employees are often regarded to possess a
“great deal of power”(Farmer & Aguinis, 2005). The supervisor is a
salient source of workplace resources (Schaerer et al., 2018;Wee
et al., 2017) by virtue of their position in the organization hierarchy,
which provides them with both direct control over resources and
access to higher-level leaders who control resources that the super-
visors themselves do not (Green et al., 2003). In times of uncer-
tainty, employees often turn to their supervisors for additional
resources (Cicero et al., 2010;Lau & Liden, 2008). Therefore,
the employee’s dependence on their supervisor is a significant
power dynamic to consider in the context of COVID-19.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
TEAM COMPASSION BEHAVIOR 1807

We propose that COVID-19 event strength and team compassion
behavior will have interactive effects on supervisory dependence via
individual suffering. When employees are suffering because of
sustained taxing of their resources (de Jonge & Dormann, 2006;
Luria & Torjman, 2009), a COR theory suggests that they will take
steps to mitigate further resource loss and attempt to gain back lost
resources (Hobfoll & Shirom, 1993;Ito & Brotheridge, 2003;
Schaufeli & Buunk, 2003). From a suffering employee’s perspec-
tive, they may not have many options to marshal more resources in
the immediate term because of their structural position in the
organization (Schaerer et al., 2021). For example, an employee
may be too distressed to consider an alternative route to resources
through individuals other than their supervisor (e.g., network exten-
sion—Gargiulo & Ertug, 2014). Likewise, an employee might not
have the capacity to acquire new skills or obtain critical information
that is important to their supervisor, so that they will be granted
access to resources because of their value to the supervisor (e.g.,
value enhancement—Gargiulo & Ertug, 2014). Furthermore,
resource loss is disproportionately more salient than resource
gain from the individual’s perspective (Hobfoll et al., 2018). There-
fore, we propose that employees are likely to be more deferential to
their supervisors as a reaction to resource demand that is triggered by
increased individual suffering from COVID-19. This change in how
employees interpret their relationship with their supervisors is
because of the prominent role of the supervisor in allocating
resources within the group (Cicero et al., 2010), and also employ-
ees’desire to obtain resources to mitigate resource demand from
COVID-19 (Murray et al., 2009). Since power is socially con-
structed (Aguinis et al., 1994), our point about the changing per-
ception of supervisory dependence is consistent with Farmer and
Aguinis (2005) theorizing on subordinates’perceptions of super-
visors’power.
Following prior research that examines conditional indirect ef-
fects (Edwards & Lambert, 2007), and integrating Hypotheses 1 and
2, we theorize that individual suffering functions as the mechanism
that transmits the moderating effect of COVID-19 event strength
and team compassion behavior on supervisory dependence. When
team compassion behavior is higher, employees are likely to
experience lower individual suffering because of the compassionate
behaviors and resources from the group that buffer the impact of
resource demand from assessed COVID-19 event strength, which in
turn predict lower supervisory dependence.
Hypothesis 3: The positive indirect effect of COVID-19 event
strength on supervisory dependence via individual suffering is
weaker when team compassion behavior is higher than when it
is lower.
Implications for Employee Promotive and
Prohibitive Voice
Decades of research have attested to the importance of voice in
the workplace, and demonstrated that voice is a key competitive
advantage to organizations that are embedded in a dynamic business
environment (Detert et al., 2013). This includes both promotive
voice, wherein employees offer advice for improving group func-
tioning, and prohibitive voice, wherein employees express concerns
about practices that may be harmful to the organization (Liang et al.,
2012). Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, employee voice is likely to
be even more critical. By speaking up to supervisors who occupy
influential positions in the organization, employees can highlight
COVID-19-induced issues and bring opportunities for improve-
ments to those who can authorize action. During times of organiza-
tional change and disruption, organizations are more successful at
implementing change when employees voice their perspectives
(Brown & Cregan, 2008;Ford et al., 2008). Therefore, employee
voice is a key resource that is beneficial for organizations during
times of disruption.
Whereas a significant body of research has shown that voice is
essential to organizational success, an equally significant literature
has also shown that employees are often less likely to voice their
perspectives, even when they believe they have something useful
and constructive to share (e.g., Milliken et al., 2003). Most cen-
trally, employees are less likely to voice constructive concerns due
to the risk that such voice entails. Voice is risky because it entails a
challenge to the status quo (Liu et al., 2010), and even a disruption
to existing power dynamics (Detert & Edmondson, 2011;Fast
et al., 2014).
Given these dynamics, the COR theory suggests that supervi-
sory dependency can be expected to reduce employee voice. In
deciding if speaking up is worthwhile, employees engage in
expectancy-like mental calculations comparing the likely benefits
of speaking up (e.g., the accrual of status—McClean et al., 2013)
against the potential risks (e.g., supervisor backlash—Fast et al.,
2014; see also, Detert & Burris, 2007;Milliken et al., 2003).
Employees who are highly dependent on their supervisors tend to
conform as opposed to challenge the status quo (Galinsky et al.,
2008). For such employees, voice is considered to be a stressful
and anxiety-provoking proposition, requiring cognitive and emo-
tional resources to execute (e.g., Luria et al., 2009;Ng &
Feldman, 2012).
When employees have relatively few alternatives to turn to for
resources beyond their supervisor (Gargiulo & Ertug, 2014), their
need to stay on the supervisor’s“good side”tends to shift their
mental calculus in favor of speaking up less (Rusbult & Van Lange,
2003). Recognizing that voice behavior may threaten supervisors’
egos (Detert & Edmondson, 2011;Fast et al., 2014), these employ-
ees are furthermore less likely to voice when they perceive that their
access to resources from their peers via team compassionate behav-
ior is also lower. Taken together, these arguments lead to the
following final hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: The negative indirect effect of COVID-19 event
strength on employee voice (promotive and prohibitive) via
individual suffering and supervisory dependence is weaker
when team compassion behavior is higher than when it is lower.
Method
Study Design and Setting
We designed a multisource, time-lagged field study with six data
collection intervals in an international hotel group headquartered in
Singapore. Because of the unprecedented impact of the COVID-19
crisis on tourism (Bartik et al., 2020;Gössling et al., 2020), the
hotel industry is an important context to examine COVID-19 and its
outcomes. Similar to other COVID-19 research (e.g. Vaziri et al.,
2020), our first data collection (Time 1) was conducted in the 1st
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
1808 WEE AND FEHR

week of January 2020, when the first case was reported in Singapore
but local transmission was not yet extensive.
1
At Time 1, employees
completed measures of supervisory dependence and team compas-
sion behavior, and supervisors completed our measure of voice. Our
Time 2 data collection was conducted in the 1st week of July 2020, 1
month after the country’s mandatory stay-at-home order was lifted
(Goh, 2020, July 5). The Time 2 data collection coincided with the
employees’return to their hotels, at which point they completed the
COVID-19 event strength measure. Employees then completed our
measure of team compassion behavior at Time 3 (3rd week of
August 2020), our measure of individual suffering at Time 4 (3rd
week of March 2021), and our measure of supervisory dependence
at Time 5 (4th week of March 2021). Supervisors completed our
measure of employee dependence at Time 5 and our measure of
voice at Time 6 (1st week of April 2021). Between Time 2 and
Time 6, restrictions to public activities remained (see Table 1, for a
detailed timeline and discussion of restrictions).
Participants
We recruited employees and their respective supervisors from
four different hotels in Singapore.
2
In each hotel, employees are
divided across four key functional areas: marketing, guest relations,
operations, and human resources.
3
All employees and supervisors
from the hotels were invited to participate in the study. In this field
setting, the nature of employees’hotel work and the hierarchical
nature of the organization suggest that employees have few alterna-
tive avenues for voice other than their immediate supervisors. Senior
management encouraged employees and supervisors to participate
in the research study and assured employees that their responses
would remain confidential. Surveys were sent via email, and
respondents were given time to complete each survey during
working hours. Surveys were presented in English and Mandarin.
Although English is the official working language, the HR director
of the hotel group advised us to include a Mandarin translation
together with the English instructions for employees with less
English fluency. Translation from English to Mandarin was pro-
vided by a professional translator and followed the recognized back-
translation procedure (Brislin, 1980).
We received completed and matched responses across all six
survey waves from 271 employees and 82 supervisors—a 50.5%
response rate for employees and a 77.4% response rate for super-
visors. For the employees, 55.7% were female, average age was
36.82 (SD =13.32), and average organizational tenure was 6.69
years (SD =6.15). Sixty percent of the employees were of Chinese
descent, 13.3% were of Indian descent, 12.9% were of Malay
descent, 8.1% were Filipinos, and 5.7% were of other ethnicities.
In terms of nationality, 44% of the employees were from China,
12.3% from Malaysia, 11.6% from Indonesia, 10.8% from
Singapore, 7.2% from Philippines, and 14.1% were from other
countries. The average team size was 4.10 (SD =1.30). For the
supervisors, 48% were female, average age was 43.9 (SD =6.32),
and average organizational tenure was 6.1 years (SD =2.1).
4
72.8%
of the supervisors were of Chinese descent, 5.4% were of Indian
descent, 4.4% were of Malay descent, 3.3% were Filipinos, and
14.1% were of other ethnicities. In terms of nationality, 74.4% of the
supervisors were from Singapore, 11% were from Malaysia, 6.1%
were from China, and 8.5% were from other countries.
Measures
All items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 =Not at all;
7=Very much; see Appendix A, for a full list of items).
COVID-19 Event Strength
Based on event system theory (Morgeson et al., 2015), we created
five items to capture COVID-19 event strength. A sample item is “The
COVID-19 pandemic disrupts what you previously know about how
to do your work”(T2 α=.84; see Appendix B, for details on the scale
development process and a scale verification study).
Individual Suffering
We used a three-item individual suffering measure from Tang and
Gray (2018). We included three additional items based on the defini-
tion of individual suffering from Dutton et al. (2014) and all items
reflected the COVID-19 pandemic. A sample item is “While at work,
I experienced suffering from COVID-19”(T4 α=.97).
Supervisory Dependence
We used an established two-item scale to measure supervisory
dependence (de Jong et al., 2007;Wee et al., 2017). A sample item
is “how dependent are you on your direct supervisor for resources
that you care about?”(T1 α=.71; T5 α=.89).
5
Team Compassion Behavior
Based on our emphasis on compassionate action (Atkins &
Parker, 2012), we measured team compassion behavior with six
items adapted from an existing 16-item measure of individual-level
compassion (Pommier et al., 2020; see Appendix C, for details on a
scale validation study comparing the 6-item to 16-item measure).
A sample item is “My team likes to be there for members in times of
difficulty”(T1 α=.94; T3 α=.95). Consistent with a referent-shift
composition model approach, each item referenced “my team”
rather than “I.”Aggregation statistics provided support for concep-
tualizing team compassion behavior at the team level of analysis,
ICC(1) =.36, p<.001, ICC(2) =.96, median r
wg(j)
=.89 for team
compassion behavior T3; LeBreton & Senter, 2007.
Employee Promotive Voice
We used an established five-item measure of promotive voice
(Liang et al., 2012). A sample item is “(this employee) proactively
develops and makes suggestions for issues that may influence the
team”(T1 α=.96; T6 α=.97).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
1
The first confirmed case in Singapore was reported on January 23rd,
2020 (Goh & Toh, 2020, March 4).
2
We received approval for this study, “Inclusive hiring field experiment”
from the University of Washington Institutional Review Board—
STUDY00006601.
3
We initially included dummy variable controls for these functions and
we did not notice any significant difference in our results. For parsimony, we
did not include these variables in the reported analysis.
4
We did not observe any significant differences in demographics between
respondents and nonrespondents at any time period.
5
To determine the reliability of the two-item measure, we computed
Cronbach’s coefficient α.
TEAM COMPASSION BEHAVIOR 1809

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Table 1
COVID-19 Timeline and Restrictions
a
Timeline Measures Key COVID-19 milestones COVID-19 restrictions
Time 1 (1st week of January 2020) Employee: supervisory dependence, team
compassion behavior
Supervisor: promotive and prohibitive voice
•First local case was reported (January
23rd, 2020)
•Surgical masks were distributed to each
household
•Schools asked parents to declare their travel
plans and monitor their children’s health
•Temperature screening at the airport
•Visitors with recent travel history to mainland
China within the last 14 days were denied
entry temporarily (from 1 February).
Time 2 (1st week of July 2020) Employee: COVID-19 event strength •Smartphone app launched to boost contact
tracing efforts
•New regulations created to enforce breaches
in COVID-19 legislation
•Mandatory stay-at-home order for everyone
(April 3 to May 19, 2020)
•Temporary ban on all short-term visitors
arriving or transiting through Singapore
(from March 232,020)
•Safe distancing measures (e.g., digital check-
in system in all locations)
•Mandatory 14-day stay-at-home notices at
dedicated facilitates for returning citizens and
permanent residents
•Default model of working for all companies is
working from home.
•Mandatory mask wearing for everyone
•Closure of all schools
Time 3 (3rd week of August 2020) Employee: team compassion behavior •Students returned to in-person classes (June
29, 2020)
•Mandatory mask wearing for everyone
•Safe distancing measures (e.g., digital check-
in system in all locations)
Time 4 (3rd week of March 2021) Employee: individual suffering •Start of new segregated travel lane for busi-
ness travelers and start of COVID-19 vacci-
nations (January 2021)
•Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccine
approved for use (from February 2021)
•Start of national vaccination program
•Same restrictions as Time 3
•Gathering of up to eight people allowed in all
public places (from December 14, 2020)
Time 5 (4th week of March 2020) Employee: supervisory dependence •Possible air travel bubble with other countries •Same restrictions as Time 4
Time 6 (1st week of April 2021) Supervisor: promotive and prohibitive voice •Number of employees allowed to return to the
workplace increased to 75% (from April
1, 2021)
•Same restrictions as Time 4
Note. COVID-19 =Coronavirus disease.
a
Timeline of COVID-19 Pandemic in Singapore (2021, July 16). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_Singapore.
1810 WEE AND FEHR

Employee Prohibitive Voice
We used an established five-item measure of prohibitive voice
(Liang et al., 2012). A sample item is “(this employee) advises other
members against undesirable behaviors that would hamper job
performance”(T1 α=.96; T6 α=.97).
Control Variables
We controlled for employee age, tenure, education, and psycho-
logical safety (5-item measure from Liang et al., 2012,T5α=.94)
as more mature, experienced, educated employees in psychologi-
cally safe environments may speak up most frequently at work
(Hussain et al., 2019). We controlled for group size because em-
ployees may speak up more frequently in certain work contexts as
well (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). We included the size of the hotel
because a higher staff number may inhibit employee’s willingness to
express their thoughts (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). We also
controlled for state anxiety (2-item measure from Kouchaki &
Desai, 2015,T5α=.76) to rule out the alternative explanation
that anxiety is driving the observed effects (Trougakos et al., 2020),
as opposed to individual suffering. We also controlled for the
supervisor’s dependence on the employee to demonstrate the pre-
dictive power of supervisory dependence over and above that of the
supervisor’s dependence on the employee (see Wee et al., 2017,
e.g., T5 α=.83). Finally, we controlled for baseline levels of
employee voice and supervisory dependence from Time 1 to provide
stronger evidence for our model (Finkel, 1995).
6
Results
Measurement Model
We utilized multilevel confirmatory factor analysis to confirm the
distinctiveness of the variables used in the study. The results
revealed that our hypothesized six-factor model provided a better
fit to the data, χ
2
=7 98.30, df =362, RMSEA =.06, CFI =.96,
TLI =.95, SRMR =.02, than more parsimonious models, such as a
model with the correlation between the latent variables of individual
suffering and supervisory dependence set to 1, Δχ
2
=138.90, Δdf =1,
p<.001, RMSEA =.08, CFI =.92, TLI =.92, SRMR =.03.
Hypotheses Testing
Table 2 summarizes the descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and
correlations among our key variables. Given the nested structure of
our data, we tested our hypotheses using multilevel modeling
(MLM—Preacher et al., 2010) in Mplus 8.0 (see Table 3).
7
COVID-19 event strength (T2) positively predicted individual
suffering (T4), γ=0.24, SE =0.07, p=.001 (Model 1), supporting
for Hypothesis 1. Team compassion behavior (T3) was negatively
related to the random slope between COVID-19 event strength (T2)
and individual suffering (T4), γ=−0.09, SE =0.03, p=.002
(Model 2; see Figure 2). A simple slopes test revealed that the
relationship between COVID-19 event strength (T2) and individual
suffering (T4) was not significant when team compassion behavior (T3)
washigher(M+1SD), γ=0.07, SE =0.08, 95% CI [−0.07, 0.20],
whereas the relationship was positive when team compassion
behavior (T3) was lower (M−1SD), γ=0.43, SE =0.10, 95%
CI [0.26,0.43]. Hypothesis 2 was supported.
8
Next, individual suffering (T4) positively predicted supervisory
dependence (T5), while controlling for employee dependence (T4)
and supervisory dependence (T1), γ=−0.64, SE =0.05, p<.001
(Model 4). We constructed bias-corrected confidence intervals using
a Monte Carlo simulation-based approach (Bauer et al., 2006) and
found that the positive indirect effect of COVID-19 event strength
(T2) on supervisory dependence (T5) via individual suffering (T4)
was significant only when team compassion behavior (T3) is lower
(−1SD), γ=0.37, SE =0.17, 95% CI [0.10,0.65], and not when
team compassion behavior (T3) was higher (+1SD), γ=0.07,
SE =0.08, 95% CI [−0.70,0.20]. This difference was significant,
γ=−0.31, SE =0.15, 95% CI [−0.55, −0.07]. Hypothesis 3 was
thus supported (see Table 4, for indirect effects).
Finally, supervisory dependence (T5) negatively predicted both
promotive voice (T6), γ=−0.57, SE =0.09, p<.001 (Model 6),
and prohibitive voice (T6), γ=−0.48, SE =0.08, p<.001
(Model 8). The negative indirect effect of COVID-19 event
strength (T2) on employee voice (T6) via individual suffering
(T4) and supervisory dependence (T5) was significant only when
team compassion behavior (T3) was lower (−1SD) (promotive
voice: γ=−0.15, SE =0.06, 95% CI [−0.25, −0.05]; prohibitive
voice: γ=−0.16, SE =0.07, 95% CI [−0.27, −0.05]), and not
when team compassion behavior (T3) was higher (+1SD)
(promotive voice: γ=−0.02, SE =.03, 95% CI [−0.07,0.03];
prohibitive voice: γ=−0.03, SE =0.03, 95% CI [−0.08,0.03]).
This difference was significant (promotive voice: γ=0.13, SE =
0.06, 95% CI [0.03,0.23]; prohibitive voice: γ=0.14, SE =0.07,
95% CI [0.03,0.24]). H4 was therefore supported.
Discussion
Amidst the COVID-19 crisis, a deeper understanding of how the
crisis has shaped employees’relationships with and behavior toward
their supervisors is critical. This is especially true of understanding
how the crisis has shaped employee voice, as past research has
demonstrated the critical value of voice during times of disruption
and change (Wilkinson et al., 2019). In a multisource, time-lagged
study across six survey waves, we demonstrate that individuals’
assessments of COVID-19 event strength indirectly influence their
voice behaviors via individual suffering and supervisory depen-
dence sequentially. Importantly, we also identify team compassion
behavior as a key moderator that can weaken the negative indirect
effect of COVID-19 event strength on both promotive and prohibi-
tive voice by providing employees with much-needed resources to
manage the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
6
To allay concerns about suppression effects caused by control variables
(Becker, 2005), we first conducted our main analyses without any control
variables. Our results were essentially identical with the inclusion of these
control variables.
7
Individual suffering had significant between-team variance, F(80, 190) =
5.21, p<.001, with 56% percent of the variance residing between team,
ICC(1) =.56; ICC(2) =.81. This justified the use of cross-level predictors in
modeling individual suffering.
8
As a robustness check, we tested for a second-stage moderating effect of
team compassion behavior on the relationship between individual suffering
and supervisory dependence. We did not find support for this alternative
model.
TEAM COMPASSION BEHAVIOR 1811

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Correlations Among Study Variables
Variable MSD 1234567891011121314151617
Employee level N=271
1. Education
a
2.18 0.81 —
2. Age 36.82 13.32 −0.17** —
3. Organizational tenure 6.69 6.15 −0.24** 0.39** —
4. COVID-19 event strength
T2
5.05 1.10 −0.09 −0.09 −0.01 (.84)
5. Sup dependence T5 4.09 1.42 −0.01 0.05 −0.10 0.11 (.89)
6. Sup dependence T1 3.97 1.61 −0.14*0.11 0.04 0.003 0.14*(.71)
7. Individual suffering T4 4.24 1.45 −0.06 −0.01 −0.04 0.19** 0.45** 0.09 (.97)
8. Anxiety T4 3.97 0.96 −0.19** −0.16** −0.04 0.02 0.08 0.18** 0.17** (.76)
9. Emp dependence T5 2.63 0.91 −0.01 −0.12*−0.02 0.05 0.21** 0.07 0.10 0.04 (.83)
10. Promotive voice T6 4.51 1.57 0.04 −0.06 0.05 −0.06 −0.40** −0.23** −0.31** −0.19** −0.24** (.97)
11. Prohibitive voice T6 4.23 1.66 0.02 −0.06 0.05 −0.07 −0.43** −0.23** −0.35** −0.17** −0.15*0.41** (.97)
12. Promotive voice T1 4.65 1.45 0.07 −0.01 −0.01 0.10 −0.19** −0.25** −0.16** −0.09 −0.20 0.34** 0.38** (.96)
13. Prohibitive voice T1 4.99 1.38 0.03 0.05 0.08 −0.04 −0.13*−0.17** −0.24** −0.03 0.004 0.24** 0.26** 0.44** (.96)
Group level N=82
14. Group size 4.10 1.30 —
15. Team compassion
behavior T3
4.10 2.02 0.02 (.95)
16. Team compassion
behavior T1
4.49 1.51 0.04 0.58** (.94)
17. Psych safety T5 3.51 0.81 −0.20 0.07 −0.05 (.94)
Hotel level N=4
18. Hotel size 81.65 22.52
Note.T1=Time 1; T2 =Time2;T3=Time3;T4=Time 4; T5 =Time 5; T6 =Time 6.
a
We coded employee education level as follows: 1 =primary/secondary, 2 =associate degree, 3 =bachelor, 4 =master, 5 =doctoral.
*p<.05, ** p<.01.
1812 WEE AND FEHR

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Table 3
Unstandardized Coefficients of Multilevel Regression Analyses
Predictor
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8
Individual
suffering (T4)
Individual
suffering (T4)
Supervisory
dependence (T5)
Supervisory
dependence (T5)
Promotive voice
(T6)
Promotive voice
(T6)
Prohibitive voice
(T6)
Prohibitive voice
(T6)
Intercept 0.11 (0.23) 0.08 (0.22) −1.09 (0.57) −0.62 (0.41) −1.19 (0.77) −0.96 (.68) −0.51 (0.65) −0.15 (0.62)
Level 1 controls
Employee education −0.03 (0.09) −0.01 (0.09) −0.01 (0.11) 0.03 (0.08) −0.06 (0.12) −0.10 (0.10) −0.07 (0.11) −0.11 (0.10)
Employee age 0.01 (0.08) 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) −0.01 (0.02) −0.02*(0.01) −0.01 (0.01) −0.02*(0.01)
Employee tenure at work −0.01 (0.02) −0.01 (0.02) −0.03 (0.02) −0.02*(0.01) 0.03 (0.02) 0.03*(0.01) 0.01 (0.02) 0.02 (0.02)
Anxiety 0.10 (0.08) 0.10 (0.08)
Supervisory dependence (T1) 0.29** (0.11) 0.15 (0.08) −0.01 (0.07) −0.02 (0.06) −0.09 (0.05) −0.10*(0.05)
Employee dependence (T5) 0.08 (0.06) 0.07 (0.05) −0.12 (0.10) −0.11 (0.09) −0.05 (0.10) −0.04 (0.08)
Promotive voice (T3) 0.32** (0.07) 0.28** (0.06)
Prohibitive voice (T3) 0.40** (0.06) 0.33** (0.06)
Level 2 controls
Group size 0.02 (0.05) 0.04 (0.03) 0.08 (0.07) 0.03 (0.05) 0.13 (0.07) 0.15*(0.07) 0.14*(0.07) 0.16*(0.06)
Psychological safety 0.23 (0.12) 0.10 (0.12) 0.02 (0.11) 0.12 (0.11)
Team compassion behavior (T1) −0.07 (0.05) −0.80 (0.50)
Level 3 controls
Hotel size 0.01 (0.003) 0.004 (0.003) 0.01 (0.04) 0.002 (0.03) −0.01*(0.01) −0.01*(0.004) −0.02 (0.04) −0.01 (0.04)
Level 1 IVs
COVID-19 event strength (T2) 0.24** (0.07) 0.25** (0.07) 0.18*(0.08) 0.01 (0.6) −0.04 (0.08) −0.06 (0.08) −0.01 (0.08) −0.10 (0.08)
Individual suffering (T4) 0.64** (0.05) −0.27** (0.08) −0.10 (0.08) −0.27** (0.07) −0.01 (0.08)
Supervisory dependence (T5) −0.57** (0.09) −0.48** (0.08)
Level 2 IVs
Team compassion behavior (T3) −0.58** (0.05) −0.25** (0.05) −0.32** (0.03) −0.07*(0.03) 0.16** (0.05) 0.01 (0.05) 0.19** (0.05) 0.04 (0.05)
COVID-19 event strength ×individual
suffering
−0.09** (0.03)
Residual variance 0.15 (0.47) 0.15 (0.37) 1.79** (0.13) 1.02** (0.11) 2.12** (0.17) 1.79** (0.15) 1.74** (0.14) 1.52** (0.13)
Note.T1=Time 1; T2 =Time2;T3=Time3;T4=Time 4; T5 =Time 5; T6 =Time 6; COVID-19 =Coronavirus disease.
*p<.05. ** p<.01.
TEAM COMPASSION BEHAVIOR 1813

Theoretical Contributions and Practical Implications
First, we contribute to the COVID-19 literature by connecting
between-individual variation in the strength of COVID-19’s impact
directly to their suffering. To date, scholars have conceptualized the
COVID-19 pandemic as a significant workplace stressor (Caldas
et al., 2021;Fu et al., 2021), as a catalyst for change in the way work
is done (Zhu et al., 2021), and as an event that changed how work
itself is interpreted (Yuan et al., 2021). Yet, scholars have largely
discussed employees’suffering in theory without measuring it
directly (Liu et al., 2021). Our research emphasizes the downstream
effects of COVID-19-based psychological distress and why it
potentially shapes employees’perceptions of their existing relation-
ships with their supervisors. Our research also shifts scholarly focus
beyond individuals’coping mechanisms in the pandemic, and
explores the significant role of the group via team compassion
behavior as a source of resources and support.
Second, we contribute to the compassion literature by demonstrat-
ing the theoretical utility and empirical impact of conceptualizing
compassion as a group-level phenomenon. To date, the compassion
literature has focused on both individual and collective compassion-
ate action (Dutton et al., 2014;Lilius et al., 2011;Madden et al.,
2012). Our examination of team-level compassion is important
because the benefits of compassion are amplified when compassion
is manifested as collective action (Madden et al., 2012). Team
compassion behavior represents the norm for sufferers to receive
assistance from their group members—not just from a small subset of
individuals who are inclined toward compassion. Furthermore,
higher levels of team compassion behavior are likely to facilitate
support-giving even amidst times of widely shared disruption,
making the construct uniquely suited to the COVID-19 context.
Our research demonstrates the efficacy of team-level compassion
behavior in our model, which points to a range of generative future
research avenues.
Finally, we contribute to the voice literature by introducing individ-
ual suffering as a new lens to explain why employees might be less
likely to speak up in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. An
important focus of voice research is to examine the reasons behind
employees’decision to voice (or not), especially since voice behavior is
important to organizational survival and growth (Wilkinson et al.,
2019). Our research points to the individual’s state of mind as an
important topic of further examination in voice research, especially in
times of organizational crisis. We also highlight team compassion
behavior as a potential solution for organizations to sustain employee
voice during organizational crises. In doing so, we extend what we
currently know about when employees speak up at work during
organizational crises (Morrison, 2011).
From a practical perspective, our research illustrates the impor-
tance of supporting team compassion behavior before a crisis
occurs. Collective organizational behaviors, such as team compas-
sion behavior, enable employees to better manage the many chal-
lenges that arise from crises such as COVID-19 (Britt et al., 2016).
Thus, it is incumbent upon organizations to monitor the level of
team compassion behavior so as to promote a collective compas-
sionate action within groups to help employees thrive in trying
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Table 4
Summary of Indirect Effects
Indirect effects Estimate/SE 95% CI
COVID-19 event strength →individual suffering →supervisory
dependence
Higher team compassion behavior 0.07 (0.08) [−0.70,0.20]
Lower team compassion behavior 0.37 (0.17) [0.10,0.65]
COVID-19 event strength →individual suffering →supervisory
dependence →promotive voice
Higher team compassion behavior −0.02 (0.03) [−0.07,0.03]
Lower team compassion behavior −0.15 (0.06) [−0.25, −0.05]
COVID-19 event strength →individual suffering →supervisory
dependence →prohibitive voice
Higher team compassion behavior −0.03 (0.03) [−0.08,0.03]
Lower team compassion behavior −0.16 (0.07) [−0.27, −0.05]
Note. COVID-19 =Coronavirus disease.
Figure 2
Interaction Plot of COVID-19 Event Strength and Team Compassion Behavior on
Individual Suffering
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Lower COVID-19 Event Strength
T2
Higher COVID-19 Event Strength
T2
Individual Suffering T4
Lower Team
Compassion
Behavior T3
Higher Team
Compassion
Behavior T3
1814 WEE AND FEHR

times. Relatedly, our research shows that disruptive, novel, and
critical events such as the COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally alter
employees’relationships in ways that are consequential. In addition,
our research highlights the changing perception of supervisory
dependence in the COVID-19 pandemic. While employees do
not necessarily find themselves in less powerful situations with
their supervisors, our research emphasizes why and how disruptive,
novel, and critical events may indirectly influence employees’
interpretation of their power relationship with their supervisors as
a result of increased individual suffering. We encourage supervisors
to be mindful of their employees’perceptions of dependence during
trying times, and to offer resources to help them cope with disruptive
changes in the workplace.
Future Directions and Limitations
We acknowledge the limitations in our research. First, our time-
lagged field study makes causality difficult to ascertain
(Falkenström et al., 2020). In addition, the timing of our six survey
waves in our study was informed by both the evolving state of
COVID-19 and the practical constraints of data collection in a
pandemic. Regarding the issue of causal claims, we encourage
future research to employ techniques such as field experiments to
offer stronger causal evidence for the effects of event strength and
team compassion behavior on employee outcomes.
Second, our reliance on survey data and data from a hotel chain
based in Southeast Asia may limit the generalizability of our
findings. This issue is particularly relevant to our supervisory
dependence construct, as different industries and cultural contexts
are likely to be associated with different norms and implicit beliefs
about being reliant on one’s supervisor (Wee et al., 2017). In
addition, the hotel industry in Singapore relies heavily on tourism
as the domestic market is not sufficient to sustain the hotels’
operation in a COVID-19 environment (Pillai et al., 2021), which
may exacerbate employees’perceptions of supervisory dependence.
We encourage future research to build on our model in other
industries and countries.
Third, we note that our measure of supervisory dependence
consists of two items, which may impact construct validity
(Emons et al., 2007). As a robustness check, we ran a verification
study and found that our two-item supervisory dependence measure
was highly correlated with an established power measure that
captures supervisor’s control over valued reward (Hinkin &
Schriesheim, 1989).
9
Nonetheless, we encourage future empirical
research to build on our empirics and deepen our understanding of
supervisory dependence and its corresponding nomological net.
Finally, our measure of team compassion behavior included two
subdimensions (i.e., kindness and mindfulness) from the original
individual compassion scale with four subdimensions (Pommier
et al., 2020). Our decision was informed by our definition of team
compassion behavior and our emphasis on compassionate action
(Atkins & Parker, 2012). Following methodological practice from
research with shortened scales (e.g., Hu et al., 2018;Johnson et al.,
2014;Scott et al., 2013), we validated our use of the shortened scale
of team compassion behavior through a separate, independent
sample (see Appendix C, for details). We encourage future research-
ers to explore the impact of other subdimensions on the relationship
between employees’assessments of COVID-19 event strength and
individual suffering.
Our research also introduces several promising future research
agendas. We encourage future research to explore both individ-
ual- and group-level predictors that may influence employees’
assessments of COVID-19 event strength. We believe that future
research that examines the predictors of COVID-19 event
strength and other potential mechanisms of the suffering-voice
relationship will elevate our understanding of how employees
may experience organizational crises differently, and how their
experiences may eventually influence employee voice. Second,
we encourage future research to explore the antecedents of team
compassion behavior in organizations. For example, a particular
set of human resource management practices that emphasizes
compassion, including practices that reward and recognize peo-
ple for their helping (McClelland, 2012), could help reduce
ambiguity and facilitate a shared interpretation of compassion
at the group level (Dutton et al., 2014). Similarly, it is also
possible for group climate to yield a compelling effect on group
members’compassion attitudes and behaviors (see Kuenzi &
Schminke, 2009, for a review). Indeed, a climate lens has been
shown to be generative for a range of phenomena in the positive
organizational scholarship domain (e.g., gratitude—Fehr et al.,
2017; courage—Koerner, 2014). These new research directions
will provide much-needed insight into how organizations can
support the formation of compassion behaviors at the group level
that are vital during times of suffering.
9
Using a separate Prolific sample of 203 working adults, we found that our
supervisory dependence measure (α=.81) was positively correlated with the
reward power subscale (α=.89), r=.78, p<.001. The Open Science
Framework link for the scale verification studies are available here—https://
osf.io/hk7nz/?view_only=b867686c5a5149d89f1fb6a8ea840053
References
Aguinis, H., Nesler, M. S., Quigley, B. M., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1994).
Perceptions of power: A cognitive perspective. Social Behavior and
Personality,22(4), 377–384. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1994.22.4.377
Anicich, E. M., Foulk, T. A., Osborne, M. R., Gale, J., & Schaerer, M.
(2020). Getting back to the “new normal”: Autonomy restoration during a
global pandemic. Journal of Applied Psychology,105(9), 931–943.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000655
Atkins, P. W., & Parker, S. K. (2012). Understanding individual compassion
in organizations: The role of appraisals and psychological flexibility.
Academy of Management Review,37(4), 524–546. https://doi.org/10
.5465/amr.2010.0490
Bartik, A. W., Bertrand, M., Cullen, Z. B., Glaeser, E. L., Luca, M., &
Stanton, C. T. (2020). How are small businesses adjusting to COVID-19?
Early evidence from a survey (No. w26989). National Bureau of Economic
Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w26989
Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and
testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel
models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods,
11(2), 142–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.142
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables
in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations.
Organizational Research Methods,8(3), 274–289. https://doi.org/10
.1177/1094428105278021
Blustein, D. L., Duffy, R., Ferreira, J. A., Cohen-Scali, V., Cinamon, R. G.,
& Allan, B. A. (2020). Unemployment in the time of COVID-19: A
research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior,119, Article 103436.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103436
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
TEAM COMPASSION BEHAVIOR 1815

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written
material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-
cultural psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 389–444). Allyn & Bacon.
Britt, T. W., Shen, W., Sinclair, R. R., Grossman, M. R., & Klieger, D. M.
(2016). How much do we really know about employee resilience?
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science
and Practice,9(20), 378–404. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.107
Brown, M., & Cregan, C. (2008). Organizational change cynicism: The role
of employee involvement. Human Resource Management,47(4), 667–
686. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20239
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2016). Amazon’s Mechanical
Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? In A. E. Kazdin
(Ed.), Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (pp. 133–139).
American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14805-009
Caldas, M. P., Ostermeier, K., & Cooper, D. (2021). When helping hurts:
COVID-19 critical incident involvement and resource depletion in health
care workers. Journal of Applied Psychology,106(1), 29–47. https://
doi.org/10.1037/apl0000850
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content
domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models.
Journal of Applied Psychology,83(2), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.83.2.234
Cicero, L., Pierro, A., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2010). Leadership and
uncertainty: How role ambiguity affects the relationship between leader
group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness. British Journal of
Management,21(2), 411–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009
.00648.x
de Jong, S. B., Van der Vegt, G. S., & Molleman, E. (2007). The relation-
ships among asymmetry in task dependence, perceived helping behavior,
and trust. Journal of Applied Psychology,92(6), 1625–1637. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1625
de Jonge, J., & Dormann, C. (2006). Stressors, resources, and strain at work: A
longitudinal test of the triple-match principle. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy,91(6), 1359–1374. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1359
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behaviors and employee
voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal,50(4),
869–884. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279183
Detert, J. R., Burris, E. R., Harrison, D. A., & Martin, S. R. (2013). Voice
flows to and around leaders: Understanding when units are helped or hurt
by employee voice. Administrative Science Quarterly,58(4), 624–668.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213510151
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-
granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Jour-
nal,54(3), 461–488. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.61967925
Dutton,J.E.,Workman,K.M.,&Hardin,A.E.(2014).Compassionatwork.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,
1,277–304. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091221
Dutton, J. E., Worline, M. C., Frost, P. J., & Lilius, J. (2006). Explaining
compassion organizing. Administrative Science Quarterly,51(1), 59–96.
https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.51.1.59
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation
and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path
analysis. Psychological Methods,12(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/
1082-989X.12.1.1
Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. (2004). Organizational citizenship
behavior in work groups: A group norms approach. Journal of Applied
Psychology,89(6), 960–974. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.960
Emons, W. H. M., Sijtsma, K., & Meijer, R. R. (2007). On the consistency of
individual classification using short scales. Psychological Methods,12(1),
105–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.105
Falkenström, F., Solomonov, N., & Rubel, J. (2020). Using time-lagged
panel data analysis to study mechanisms of change in psychotherapy
research: Methodological recommendations. Counselling & Psychother-
apy Research,20(3), 435–441. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12293
Farmer, S. M., & Aguinis, H. (2005). Accounting for subordinate perceptions
of supervisor power: An identity-dependence model. Journal of Applied
Psychology,90(6), 1069–1083. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1069
Fast, N. J., Burris, E. R., & Bartel, C. A. (2014). Managing to stay in the dark:
Managerial self-efficacy, ego defensiveness, and the aversion to employee
voice. Academy of Management Journal,57(4), 1013–1034. https://
doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0393
Fehr, R., Fulmer, A., Awtrey, E., & Miller, J. A. (2017). The grateful workplace:
A multilevel model of gratitude in organizations. Academy of Management
Review,42(2), 361–381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0374
Finkel, S. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Sage Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983594
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The
rest of the story. Academy of Management Review,33(2), 362–377. https://
doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193235
Frost, P., Dutton, J. E., Worline, M. C., & Wilson, A. (2000). Narratives of
compassion in organizations. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in organizations
(pp. 25–45). London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446219850.n2
Fu, S. Q., Greco, L. M., Lennard, A. C., & Dimotakis, N. (2021). Anxiety
responses to the unfolding COVID-19 crisis: Patterns of change in the
experience of prolonged exposure to stressors. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology,106(1), 48–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000855
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist,
K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for
creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,95(6), 1450–1466. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012633
Gargiulo, M., & Ertug, G. (2014). The power of the weak. Research in the
Sociology of Organizations,40, 179–198. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-
558X(2014)0000040009
Goh, T. (2020, July 5). Over 6,600 fines issued for flouting COVID-19 rules.
The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/over-
6600-fines-issued-for-flouting-covid-19-rules
Goh, T., & Toh, T. W. (2020, March 4). Singapore confirms first case of
Wuhan virus;second case likely. TheStraits Times. https://www.straitstimes
.com/singapore/health/singapore-confirms-first-case-of-wuhan-virus
Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global
change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tour-
ism,29(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708
Green, S. G., Welsh, M. A., & Dehler, G. E. (2003). Advocacy, performance,
and threshold influences on decisions to terminate new product develop-
ment. Academy of Management Journal,46(4), 419–434. https://doi.org/
10.5465/30040636
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M.
(2014). Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in
Conservation of Resources theory. Journal of Management,40(5), 1334–
1364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527130
Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and application of
new scales to measure the French and Raven (1959) bases of social power.
Journal of Applied Psychology,74(4), 561–567. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.74.4.561
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources. A new attempt at concep-
tualizing stress. American Psychologist,44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the
nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources
theory. Applied Psychology,50(3), 337–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1464-0597.00062
Hobfoll, S. E., & Freedy, J. (1993). Conservation of resources: A general
stress theory applied to burnout. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T.
Marek (Eds.), Series in applied psychology: Social issues and questions.
Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research (pp.
115–133). Taylor & Francis.
Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., & Westman, M. (2018).
Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
1816 WEE AND FEHR

resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior,5, 103–128. https://doi.org/
10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640
Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (1993). Stress and burnout in the workplace:
Conservation of resources. In T. Golombiewski (Ed.), Handbook of
organizational behavior (pp. 41–61). Marcel Dekker.
Hu, J., Erdogan, B., Jiang, K., Bauer, T. N., & Liu, S. (2018). Leader
humility and team creativity: The role of team information sharing,
psychological safety, and power distance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
103(3), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000277
Hussain, I., Shu, R., Tangirala, S., & Ekkirala, S. (2019). The voice bystander
effect: How information redundancy inhibits employee voice. Academy of
Management Journal,62(3), 828–849. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0245
Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2003). Resources, coping strategies, and
emotional exhaustion: A conservation of resources perspective. Journal of
Vocational Behavior,63(3), 490–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-
8791(02)00033-7
Johnson, R. E., Lanaj, K., & Barnes, C. M. (2014). The good and bad of
being fair: Effects of procedural and interpersonal justice behaviors on
regulatory resources. Journal of Applied Psychology,99(4), 635–650.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035647
Kanov, J., Powley, E. H., & Walshe, N. D. (2017). Is it ok to care? How
compassion falters and is courageously accomplished in the midst of
uncertainty. Human Relations,70(6), 751–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0018726716673144
Kniffin,K.M.,Narayanan,J.,Anseel,F.,Antonakis,J.,Ashford,S.P.,Bakker,
A.B.,Bamberger,P.,Bapuji,H.,Bhave,D.P.,Choi,V.K.,Creary,S.J.,
Demerouti, E., Flynn, F. J., Gelfand, M. J., Greer, L. L., Johns, G., Kesebir,
S.,Klein,P.G.,Lee,S.Y., ::: Vugt, M. V. (2021). COVID-19 and the
workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action.
American Psychologist,76(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000716
Koerner, M. M. (2014). Courage as identity work: Accounts of workplace
courage. Academy of Management Journal,57(1), 63–93. https://doi.org/
10.5465/amj.2010.0641
Kouchaki, M., & Desai, S. D. (2015). Anxious, threatened, and also
unethical: How anxiety makes individuals feel threatened and commit
unethical acts. Journal of Applied Psychology,100(2), 360–375. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0037796
Kuenzi, M., & Schminke, M. (2009). Assembling fragments into a lens: A
review, critique, and proposed research agenda for organizational work
climate literature. Journal of Management,35(3), 634–717. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0149206308330559
Lau, D. C., & Liden, R. C. (2008). Antecedents of coworker trust: Leaders’
blessings. Journal of Applied Psychology,93(5), 1130–1138. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1130
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2007). Answers to 20 questions about
interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research
Methods,11(4), 815–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work
groups. Journal of Applied Psychology,83(6), 853–868. https://doi.org/10
.1037/0021-9010.83.6.853
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as
contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential
relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability.
Journal of Applied Psychology,86(2), 326–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.86.2.326
Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J. (2012). Psychological antecedents of
promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of
Management Journal,55(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0176
Lilius, J. M., Worline, M. C., Dutton, J. E., Kanov, J. M., & Maitlis, S.
(2011). Understanding compassion capability. Human Relations,64(7),
873–899. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710396250
Lilius, J. M., Worline, M. C., Maitlis, S., Kanov, J., Dutton, J. E., & Frost, P.
(2008). The contours and consequences of compassion at work. Journal of
Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial. Occu-
pational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior,29(2), 193–218.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.508
Liu, D., Chen, Y., & Li, N. (2021). Tackling the negative impact of
COVID-19 on work engagement and taking charge: A multi-study
investigation of frontline health workers. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy,106(2), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000866
Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice
behavior,employee identifications, and transformational leadership. The Lead-
ership Quarterly,21(1), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.014
Luria, G., Gal, I., & Yagil, D. (2009). Employees’willingness to report
service complaints. Journal of Service Research,12(2), 156–174. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1094670509344214
Luria, G., & Torjman, A. (2009). Resource and coping with stressful events.
Journal of Organizational Behavior,30(6), 685–707. https://doi.org/10
.1002/job.551
Madden, L. T., Duchon, D., Madden, T. M., & Plowman, D. A. (2012).
Emergent organizational capacity for compassion. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal,37, 689–708. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0424
McClean, E. J., Burris, E. R., & Detert, J. R. (2013). When does voice lead to
exit? It depends on leadership. Academy of Management Journal,56(2),
525–548. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0041
McClelland, L. E. (2012). From compassion to satisfaction: Examining the
relationship between routines that facilitate compassion and quality of
service [Doctoral Thesis]. Emory University.
Miller, K. I. (2007). Compassionate communication in the workplace:
Exploring processes of noticing, connecting, and responding. Journal
of Applied Communication Research,35(3), 223–245. https://doi.org/10
.1080/00909880701434208
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory
study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate
upward and why. Journal of Management Studies,40(6), 1453–1476.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00387
Molm, L. D. (1991). Affect and social exchange: Satisfaction in power-
dependence relations. American Sociological Review,56(4), 475–493.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2096269
Moorthy, A., & Sankar, T. K. (2020). Emerging public health challenge in
UK: Perception and belief on increased COVID19 death among BAME
healthcare workers. Journal of Public Health,42(3), 486–492. https://
doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdaa096
Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of
collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory
development. Academy of Management Review,24(2), 249–285.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.1893935
Morgeson, F. P., Mitchell, T. R., & Liu, D. (2015). Event system theory: An
event-oriented approach to the organizational sciences. Academy of Man-
agement Review,40(4), 515–537. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0099
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions
for future research. The Academy of Management Annals,5(1), 373–412.
https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.574506
Murray, S. L., Aloni, M., Holmes, J. G., Derrick, J. L., Stinson, D. A., &
Leder, S. (2009). Fostering partner dependence as trust insurance: The
implicit contingencies of the exchange script in close relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,96(2), 324–348. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0012856
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Employee voice behavior: A meta-
analytic test of the conservation of resources framework. Journal of Orga-
nizational Behavior,33(2), 216–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.754
Nigam, A., & Ocasio, W. (2010). Event attention, environmental sensemak-
ing, and change in institutional logics: An inductive analysis of the effects
of public attention to Clinton’s health care reform initiative. Organization
Science,21(4), 823–841. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0490
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier
syndrome. Lexington Books.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
TEAM COMPASSION BEHAVIOR 1817

Pillai, S. G., Haldorai, K., Seo, W. S., & Kim, W. G. (2021). COVID-19 and
hospitality 5.0: Redefining hospitality operations. International Journal of
Hospitality Management,94, Article 102869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.ijhm.2021.102869
Pommier, E., Neff, K. D., & To´th-Király, I. (2020). The development and
validation of the compassion scale. Assessment,27(1), 21–39. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1073191119874108
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM
framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology,15(3), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141
Purnell, N., & Yoon, F. (2020, March 19). Do not disturb: Hotels hammered
by Coronavirus offer 14-day quarantine packages.https://www.wsj
.com/articles/hit-by-coronavirus-slowdown-hotels-try-catering-to-the-
quarantined-11584624502
Rerup, C., & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Routines as a source of change in
organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of
Management Journal,54(3), 577–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011
.61968107
Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and
relationships. Annual Review of Psychology,54(1), 351–375. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059
Schaerer, M., du Plessis, C., Yap, A. J., & Thau, S. (2018). Low power
individuals in social power research: A quantitative review, theoretical
framework, and empirical test. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes,149,73–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018
.08.004
Schaerer, M., Foulk, T., du Plessis, C., Tu, M., & Krishnan, S. (2021). Just
because you’re powerless doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you: Low
power, paranoia, and aggression. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes,165,1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2021.03.005
Schaufeli, W. B., & Buunk, B. P. (2003). Burnout: An overview of 25 years
of research and theorizing. In M. J. Winnubst, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The
handbook of work and health psychology (pp. 383–425). Wiley.
Scott, K. L., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013). A social
exchange-based model of the antecedents of workplace exclusion. Journal
of Applied Psychology,98(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030135
Sessions, H., Nahrgang, J. D., Newton, D. W., & Chamberlin, M. (2020).
I’m tired of listening: The effects of supervisor appraisals of group
voice on supervisor emotional exhaustion and performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology,105(6), 619–636. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000455
Tang, S., & Gray, K. (2018). CEOs imbue organizations with feelings,
increasing punishment satisfaction and apology effectiveness. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology,79, 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.jesp.2018.06.002
Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W.
(2009). Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’workplace
deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes,109(2), 156–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.obhdp.2009.03.004
Trougakos, J. P., Chawla, N., & McCarthy, J. M. (2020). Working in a
pandemic: Exploring the impact of COVID-19 health anxiety on work,
family, and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology,105(11),
1234–1245. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000739
Vaziri,H.,Casper,W.J.,Wayne,J.H.,&Matthews,R.A.(2020).Changesto
the work-family interface during the COVID-19 pandemic: Examining pre-
dictors and implications using latent transition analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology,105(10), 1073–1087. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000819
Wee, E. X. M., Liao, H., Liu, D., & Liu, J. (2017). Moving from abuse to
reconciliation: A power-dependence perspective on when and how a
follower can break the spiral of abuse. Academy of Management Journal,
60(6), 2352–2380. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0866
Wilkinson, A., Barry, M., & Morrison, E. (2019). Toward an integration of
research on employee voice. Human Resource Management Review,
30(1), Article 100677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.12.001
Wong, C. S., Law, K. S., & Huang, G. (2008). On the importance
ofconducting construct-level analysis for multidimensional constructs
intheory development and testing. Journal of Management,34(4), 744–
764. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307312506
Yuan, Z., Ye, Z., & Zhong, M. (2021). Plug back into work, safely: Job
reattachment, leader safety commitment, and job engagement in the
COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Applied Psychology,106(1), 62–70.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000860
Zhu, Y., Chen, T., Wang, J., Wang, M., Johnson, R. E., & Jin, Y. (2021).
How critical activities within COVID-19 intensive care units increase
nurses’daily occupational calling. Journal of Applied Psychology,106(1),
4–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000853
Appendix A
Details of Items in Research Study
COVID-19 Event Strength (T2)
1. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupts what you previously
know about how to do your work
2. The COVID-19 pandemic pushes you to interpret what it
means to work in a completely new way
3. The COVID-19 pandemic requires you to change or create
new behaviors at work
4. The COVID-19 pandemic is a priority issue to address in
your work
5. The COVID-19 pandemic requires you to adjust and adapt
how you do your work
Team Compassion Behavior (T3)
1. My team pays careful attention when other members talk
about their troubles
2. If my team see other member going through a difficult
time, the team tries to be caring toward that member
3. My team likes to be there for members in times of
difficulty
4. My team notices when members are upset, even if they do
not say anything
5. My team tries to comfort members who feel sadness
6. My team’s heart goes out to members who are unhappy
Individual Suffering (T4)
1. While at work, I experienced suffering from COVID-19
2. While at work, I experienced pain from COVID-19
3. While at work, I experienced fear from COVID-19
4. While at work, I experienced distress from COVID-19
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(Appendices continue)
1818 WEE AND FEHR

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
5. While at work, I perceived threats to the self from
COVID-19
6. While at work, I dealt with disruptions to the self from
COVID-19
State Anxiety (T4)
In general, to what extent do you experience the following
at work:
1. Nervous
2. Anxious
Supervisory Dependence (T5)
1. How dependent are you on your direct supervisor for
career goals (e.g., promotion, development) that you
care about?
2. How dependent are you on your direct supervisor for
resources (e.g., materials, means, information, time,
etc.) that you care about?
Employee Dependence (supervisor-rated) (T5)
1. How dependent are you on [this employee] for career
goals (e.g., promotion, development) that you care about?
2. How dependent are you on [this employee] for resources
(e.g., materials, means, information, time, etc.) that you
care about?
Psychological Safety (T5)
1. In my group, I can express my true feelings regarding
my job
2. In my group, I can freely express my thoughts
3. In my group, expressing your true feelings is welcomed
4. Nobody in my group will pick on me even if I have
different options
5. I am worried that expressing true thoughts in my group
would do harm to myself (reverse-coded)
Employee Promotive Voice (T6)
1. [this employee] proactively develop and make sugges-
tions for issues that may influence the team
2. [this employee] proactively suggest new projects which
are beneficial to the team
3. [this employee] raise suggestions to improve the team’s
working procedure
4. [this employee] proactively voice out constructive sugges-
tions that help the team reach its goals
5. [this employee] make constructive suggestions to improve
the team’s operation
Employee Prohibitive Voice (T6)
1. [this employee] advise other members against undesirable
behaviors that would hamper job performance
2. [this employee] speak up honestly with problems that
might cause serious loss to the team, even when/though
dissenting opinions exist
3. [this employee] dare to voice out opinions on things that
might affect efficiency in the team, even if that would
embarrass others
4. [this employee] dare to point out problems when they
appear in the team, even if that would hamper relationships
with other members
5. [this employee] proactively report coordination problems
in the workplace to the management
Appendix B
Details of COVID-19 Event Strength Scale
COVID-19 Event Strength Scale
Since there is no existing measure of COVID-19 event strength in
the literature, we delved into event system theory to develop an
initial item pool (e.g., Morgeson et al., 2015). Accordingly, each
interrelated characteristic is combined together in an additive man-
ner to predict the overall “strength”of COVID-19 pandemic
(Morgeson et al., 2015). Therefore, the theorizing suggests that
the three characteristics combine in an additive fashion, where the
confluence of event characteristics determines the overall “strength”
of an event, much in the same way “situation strength”reflects the
extent to which situations can constrain behavior. We generated nine
items for event strength. Then, we invited six management faculty
and doctoral students to rate how representative each item was of the
event strength construct. Using a 7-point scale—with 1—“not at all
representative”to 7—“fully representative,”these experts rated each
item. We retained five items with interrater agreement above .70
(LeBreton & Senter, 2007). The overall mean representativeness of
these five items was 6.63 (SD =.18).
Factor Structure Verification
We first explored the factor structure of the COVID-19 event
strength scale via Prolific, which is a reliable online platform for
participant recruitment (Buhrmester et al., 2016).
B1
We recruited
(Appendices continue)
B1
We received approval for this study, “Perceptions of work environ-
ment”from the University of Washington Institutional Review Board—
STUDY00012216. The Open Science Framework link for the data for the
scale verification studies are available here—https://osf.io/hk7nz/?view_
only=b867686c5a5149d89f1fb6a8ea840053
TEAM COMPASSION BEHAVIOR 1819

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
286 working adults and dropped 3 respondents who failed the
attention check. In the final usable sample of 283 participants,
the average age was 26.2 years (SD =7.8), the average work
experience was 5.4 years (SD =4.7), and 32.9% were female.
Notably, we found an excellent fit for the proposed model, χ
2
=
26.4, df =5, RMSEA =.07, CFI =.97, TLI =.95, SRMR =.02
compared to other models (i.e., two-factor model with disruption
and criticality items loaded as one—Δχ
2
=8.5, Δdf =1, p<.01,
RMSEA =.11, CFI =.92, TLI =.94, SRMR =.04; two-factor
model with novelty and criticality items loaded as one—Δχ
2
=8.3,
Δdf =1, p<.01, RMSEA =.11, CFI =.93, TLI =.94, SRMR =.03).
Overall, this finding suggest that the items should be aggregated into
a composite score (Wong et al., 2008).
B2
Appendix C
Details of Team Compassion Behavior Scale
Shortened Scale for Team Compassion Behavior
In the original individual compassion scale (Pommier et al., 2020),
there are four subdimensions: kindness (i.e., “being caring toward and
concerned for others who are in pain, accompanied by the desire to
support those in need”), common humanity (“involve recognizing
that all people experience hardship and a sense of connection to those
who are suffering”), mindfulness (“a type of balanced awareness that
neither avoids nor gets lost in others pain, being willing to listen to and
pay attention to others when they are suffering”), and indifference
(“disengagement from the sufferings of others”—negatively coded).
Informed by our definition of team compassion behavior and our
emphasis on compassionate action (Atkins & Parker, 2012), we
included all four items from the kindness subscale (e.g., “My team
likes to be there for members in times of difficulty) and two items
from the mindfulness subscale (e.g., “My team pays careful atten-
tion when other members talk,”and “My team notices when
members are upset, even if they don’t say anything”) because these
items are particularly reflective of compassionate action (Atkins &
Parker, 2012). Our shortened six-item scale of team compassion
behavior also satisfied the senior management’s request to reduce
participants’survey fatigue in the midst of the pandemic. Consistent
with a referent-shift composition model approach, each item refer-
enced “my team”rather than “I.”
Verification Study
Following methodological practice from existing research studies
with shortened scales (e.g., Hu et al., 2018;Johnson et al., 2014;
Scott et al., 2013), we validated our use of the shortened scale of
team compassion behavior through a separate sample.
C1
We re-
cruited 283 participants through Prolific. We excluded six partici-
pants who failed the attention check. In the final usable sample of
277 participants, the average age was 28.4 years (SD =9.1), the
average work experience was 7.74 years (SD =8.6), and 36.5%
were female. Participants responded to the full 16 items (Pommier
et al., 2020) using the same 7-point scale as in the main study.
Similarly, because of the conceptualization of team compassion
behavior as a referent-shift composition model, each item from the
original compassion scale referenced “my team”rather than “I.”
Overall, we found that the six-item shortened scale of team com-
passion behavior (α=.91) was highly correlated with the 16-item full
scale (α=.91), r=.94, p<.001. In addition, we also found that all of
the six items loaded significantly onto a single factor, χ
2
=34.80, df =
9, RMSEA =.07, CFI =.97, TLI =.96, SRMR =.03. These findings
provide evidence that our six-item scale of team compassion behavior
is a suitable substitute for the full scale.
C1
We received approval for this study, “Perceptions of work environ-
ment”from the University of Washington Institutional Review Board—
STUDY00012216.
Received January 26, 2021
Revision received October 30, 2021
Accepted November 3, 2021 ▪
B2
During the research process, we discovered that there was a published
measure of COVID-19 event strength (Liu et al., 2021). The researchers
developed the 11-item measure with three interrelated dimensions of novelty,
disruption, and criticality. As a robustness check, we conducted a new
validation study to compare our five-item COVID-19 event strength measure
with Liu et al. (2021) 11-item measure using a new, separate sample from
Prolific. We found that our five-item measure of COVID-19 event strength
(α=.83) was highly correlated with the 11-item scale (α=.75), r=.88, p<
.001.
1820 WEE AND FEHR