Tkachenko 2018

Journal of Management & Organization, page 1 of 17
© 2018 Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management
doi:10.1017/jmo.2018.12
Courage in the workplace: The effects of organizational level and gender on the
relationship between behavioral courage and job performance
OLEKSANDR TKACHENKO,* LOUIS N. QUAST,** WEI SONG§ AND SOEBIN JANG**
Abstract
This study examines the relationship between behavioral courage and job performance, and
explores the possible effects of organizational level and gender on this relationship. With a sample
of managers from mid- to large-sized for-profit organizations in the United States, we found that
behavioral courage was positively associated with job performance. Our results also revealed
significant differences in supervisors’ ratings of behavioral courage between employees at low and
high organizational levels. The effects of behavioral courage on job performance did not vary by
organizational level. In turn, the moderating effect of gender on the association between behavioral
courage and job performance was supported. The study results provide important theoretical and
practical implications in the fields of organizational behavior, leadership studies, and human
resource development. Recommendations for future research are discussed.
Keywords: workplace courage, behavioral courage, job performance, gender, organizational level
Received 27 November 2016. Accepted 18 February 2018
C ourage is known as one of the most universally admired virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
The notion of courage can be traced to early historical, philosophical, and religious writings
(e.g., Augustin, 1887; Plato, 1961). Plato perceived courage as one of the four core virtues (Dahlsgaard,
Peterson, & Seligman, 2005). For Aristotle, courage was ‘inseparable from the human capacity for the
deliberation and choice required for moral responsibility’ (Ward, 2001: 71). More recently, courage
has been recognized as pivotal to workplace-related outcomes, such as creativity (May, 1975), and has
been claimed to be ‘at the heart of leadership’ (Staub, 1996: 191). Courageous action was also seen as
an ‘indispensable, recuperative mechanism for regenerating organizations’ (Hornstein, 1986: 15).
However, despite the wide recognition that courage has received in the literature, the scientific
discourse on courage in organizations has only begun to emerge (Pury & Lopez, 2010; Harbour &
Kisfalvi, 2014; Detert & Bruno, 2017).
Schilpzand, Hekman, and Mitchell (2014) observed that there are two main streams in the
contemporary discourse on courage: (a) literature in which courage is seen as a character strength, virtue,
or disposition (e.g., Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Chun, 2005; Peterson & Park, 2006); and (b) literature
that discusses courage as a behavioral response (action) to events occurring in various social settings
(e.g., Rate & Sternberg, 2007). While the first view appears to be the dominant paradigm present in the
* Organization, Information & Learning Sciences, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA
** Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
§ Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Corresponding author: tkachenko@unm.edu
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 1

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Exeter, on 11 May 2018 at 00:46:36, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.12
Oleksandr Tkachenko, Louis N. Quast, Wei Song and Soebin Jang
literature across various fields (see Harbour & Kisfalvi, 2014), the second perspective is gaining increased
attention in organizational research (e.g., Schilpzand, Hekman, & Mitchell, 2014; Palanski, Cullen,
Gentry, & Nichols, 2015). Broadly defined, the latter perspective implies that ‘courage is more
appropriately expressed in terms of the “act” rather than the “actor” (i.e., defining courage in terms of
behavior rather than in terms of personality or character traits)’ (Rate & Sternberg, 2007: 6).
This study aims to contribute to the second stream of research. Specifically, the purpose of the study
is to advance our understanding of the relationship between behavioral courage and job performance,
and also to explore the possible effects of organizational level and gender on such a relationship. While
recent empirical research has underscored the importance of courageous actions as an important
constituent of leadership effectiveness (O’Connell, 2009), as well as executive performance and
executive image (Palanski et al., 2015), theoretical conceptualizations of the relationship between
courage in the workplace and job performance across various levels of organizations have not received
adequate empirical attention. Further, the effects of organizational level and gender on the potential
relationship between behavioral courage in the workplace and job performance still remain
underexplored (e.g., Kaiser & Craig, 2011; Zenger & Folkman, 2012; Palanski et al., 2015). Thus, the
questions guiding this study are as follows:
1. What is the nature of the relationship between behavioral courage and managerial job performance?
2. What are the effects of organizational level on the relationship between behavioral courage and
managerial job performance?
3. What are the effects of gender on the relationship between behavioral courage and managerial job
performance?
Behavioral courage examined in the present study was operationalized using a multisource feedback
instrument that measures behavioral competencies considered important to managerial effectiveness.
Prior research has employed managerial competencies and behaviors to assess virtues and character
strengths (e.g., Grahek, Thompson, & Toliver, 2010; Sosik, Gentry, & Chun, 2012), and to conceive
behavioral courage (Palanski et al., 2015). As self-reporting of courage may not be adequate in assessing
the construct (Worline, 2004; Harbour & Kisfalvi, 2014), to measure behavioral courage we employed
direct supervisors’ ratings of the behaviors of managers being profiled. In addition, as studies on
courage in organizations underscore the importance of social (organizational) and historical contexts in
defining courage (e.g., Worline, 2012), we purposefully limited the data to mid- to large-sized
for-profit organizations in the United States, gathered during the period from 2010 to 2015.
In the following section, we provide theoretical grounding and develop our hypotheses. We then
describe the method and present our results. What follows is our discussion in which we outline
theoretical and practical implications. Finally, we present the limitations of the study and also highlight
areas for future research.
THEORETICAL GROUNDING AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

Woodard and Pury noted that ‘various definitions, as well as controversy regarding the various types of
courage’ have often been attributed to the fact that ‘research on courage is remarkably limited’ (2007:
135). The authors empirically conceived the following four-factor structure of courage: (a) work/
employment courage; (b) patriotic, religion, or belief-based physical courage; (c) social-moral courage;
and (d) independent courage, or alternatively, family-based courage. Woodard and Pury’s (2007)
findings were central to this inquiry as they support the argument that, as a social construct, courage
needs to be understood through the lens of a particular human activity. Thus, what can be seen as
courage at work may differ from what is seen as courage on a battlefield. Likewise, courage in the
workplace decades ago may not be seen as such in the contemporary workplace.
2 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

Courage in the workplace
TABLE 1. SELECTED DEFINITIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF ACTS OF COURAGE IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT
Source Definitions and descriptions
Van Eynde (1998) Managerial courage is the willingness to do what is right in the face of risk. In practice,
managerial courage includes such actions as (a) confronting the status quo,
(b) embracing change in the face of resistance, and (c) opposing a popular but
unhealthy idea.
Klein and Napier (2003) Courage involves five factors: candor (speak and hear the truth), purpose (pursue lofty
and audacious goals), rigor (invent disciplines and make them stick), risk (empower,
trust, and invest in relationships), and will (inspire optimism, spirit, and promise).
Rate and Sternberg (2007) We describe courage as (a) an intentional act executed after willful deliberation,
(b) involving the acknowledgment and endurance of substantial risk to the actor,
(c) attempting to bring about a noble good or worthy purpose, (d) persisting,
perhaps, despite the presence of personal fear (p. 8).
Kilmann, O’Hara, and Strauss We define a courageous act in an organization as including five essential properties:
(2010) (1) free choice in deciding whether to act (vs. being coerced); (2) significant risk
of being harmed; (3) assessment that the risk is reasonable and the contemplated
act is considered justifiable (not foolhardy); (4) pursuit of worthy aims; and
(5) proceeding with mindful action despite fear (p. 16).
Schilpzand, Hekman, and Courageous action is a ‘voluntarily pursuing a socially worthy goal despite the risk
Mitchell (2014) that accompanies and the fear produced by a challenging event’ (p. 54). Four types
of courage: (a) standing up to authority, (b) uncovering mistakes, (c) structuring
uncertainty, and (d) protecting those in need.
Koerner (2014) Three components of courage: (a) morally worthy goals; (b) risks, threats, or
obstacles; and (c) intentional actions that interact and result in several forms of
courageous behavior at work (p. 86). Four different forms of courage-based identity
work: (a) endurance, (b) reaction, (c) opposition, and (d) creation.
Detert and Bruno (2017) Workplace courage is a work domain-relevant act done for a worthy cause despite
significant risks perceivable in the moment to the actor (p. 594).
As the study’s focus is on behavioral courage in the workplace, what follows is a review of the
literature that has explored courage in the organizational context. Table 1 provides selected definitions
of courage and descriptions of acts of courage in the organizational context.
While the investigation of courage in the workplace is still emergent, several recent studies have
provided useful insight on the construct and its manifestation. For instance, previous research often
conceptualized courage as overcoming adversity or challenges in the face of fear (Rachman, 1990).
In turn, Rate, Clarke, Lindsay, and Sternberg (2007: 95) empirically found that ‘fear may not be a
necessary component’ of courage. At the same time, three other components the authors
considered in their analysis (intentionality/deliberation, noble/good act, and known personal risk)
found empirical support. More recently, Schilpzand, Hekman, and Mitchell (2014) challenged the
conventional wisdom of courage as being attributed only to a person’s disposition. The authors found
that both the determination of one’s degree of personal responsibility in responding to a challenging
situation and the potential social costs involved in acting are important constituents of workplace
courage. Grounding their work in 94 interviews, the authors conceived courageous actions around the
following four themes: (a) standing up to authority, (b) uncovering mistakes, (c) structuring
uncertainty, and (d) protecting those in need. Similarly, Koerner (2014) observed that previous
conceptualizations of workplace courage often focused on oppositional forms of courage, in which
actors confront powerful others to remedy a problematic situation. The author noted that a broader
range of courage forms might exist in the workplace. Specifically, about 30% of the courageous acts
examined in the study did not include such oppositional forms.

Courage in the workplace and job performance

Research on courage in the workplace provides empirical evidence of the positive effects of courage on
various organizational outcomes. In a survey of 2,548 respondents from seven British firms, Chun
(2005) observed that courage, as a virtue factor, was positively associated with overall satisfaction. In
their study of the relative importance of character traits for leader performance in upper echelons,
Sosik, Gentry, and Chun (2012) found that behavioral manifestations of courage (which the authors
operationalized as bravery) was an important virtuous predictor for top executive performance. More
recently, Palanski et al. (2015) highlighted the role of behavioral courage as an important mediator in
the relationships between integrity and executive performance, as well as between integrity and
executive image. Therefore, we expect that managers with higher ratings on behavioral courage will
more likely receive higher job performance ratings from their supervisors than those with lower scores.
Our expectation is consistent with prior empirical research that has linked courage with various positive
organizational outcomes. Thus, we predicted that:
Hypothesis 1: Behavioral courage displayed by managers in the workplace will be positively related
to job performance.
Behavioral courage and organizational hierarchy

The nature and complexity of work varies substantially across the organizational hierarchy (Jacobs &
Lewis, 1992). A wide range of theories as well as empirical evidence suggest that some behaviors and
skills gain more importance than others as individuals move up the organizational ladder (e.g.,
Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson, 2007; Dai, Yii Tang, & De Meuse, 2011). The moderating effect
of organizational level on the relationship between various important behavioral variables has been
reported in a number of management studies (e.g., Kim, Murrmann, & Lee, 2009). Specifically, Kaiser
and Craig (2011) explored the moderating role of organizational level on the relationship between
seven dimensions of managerial behavior and overall leadership effectiveness, and found that behaviors
associated with effectiveness differed across levels.
While courage is often discussed as an important attribute of both leaders and followers (e.g.,
Chaleff, 1995; Baker, 2007), recent empirical studies have explored the relationship between courage
and executive performance. In particular, our literature review suggests that recent empirical studies
have largely focused on exploring the importance of courage for top executive performance (Sosik,
Gentry, & Chun, 2012; Palanski et al., 2015). Given the expectation of courage among the upper
echelons of management, we expected there would be significant differences in the relationship
between behavioral courage and job performance, based on the employee’s position in the organiza-
tional hierarchy. In particular, we proposed that:
Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between behavioral courage and job performance will be
moderated by organizational level. Specifically, the relationship between behavioral courage and job
performance will be stronger when the manager is at a higher level in the organization.
Behavioral courage and gender

The importance of gender as a variable of interest in management and leadership research has grown as
women have gained more access to managerial and leadership positions. There is vast literature that has
explored the differences between female and male genders in various professional and national contexts
(e.g., Karatepe, Yavas, Babakus, & Avci, 2006; Kim, Murrmann, & Lee, 2009). Various empirical
studies, including meta-analyses, have reported the moderating effect of gender on a number of

organizational outcomes (e.g., Avolio, Mhatre, Norman, & Lester, 2009; Kim, Murrmann, & Lee,
2009; Wang, Chiang, Tsai, Lin, & Cheng, 2013). In particular, Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, and Van
Engen (2003) found that women were more likely to be identified as transformational leaders than
men. In turn, Avolio et al. (2009) explored the moderating effect of gender on the impact of leadership
interventions. The authors reported a significant difference in the effect sizes for leadership
interventions implemented for all-female and majority-female participants versus all-male and
majority-male participant studies.
While the extant literature on differences between males and females has broadened our under-
standing on the role of gender in the workplace, the findings from empirical research on the role of
gender were not conclusive, and in some cases warranted further investigation (Avolio et al., 2009). For
instance, while past research suggested that women tended to be rated more critically than men (e.g.,
Eagly & Carli, 2003), a recent study by Zenger and Folkman (2012) found that women were rated as
better leaders than their male counterparts, with their results being consistent at every level as rated by
their peers, bosses, and direct reports.
As women tend to be considered as more communal and selfless than men (Bono et al., 2017; Eagly
& Carli, 2003) – characteristics that seem to be closely associated with the ‘common good’ aspect of
behavioral courage – it is quite possible that behavior patterns of female managers may be perceived as
more courageous in business environments. In addition, as our data were collected in the United
States, and in the ‘contemporary culture of the United States, women … are lauded as having the right
combination of skills for leadership, yielding superior leadership styles and outstanding effectiveness’
(Eagly, 2007: 1), we proposed that:
Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between behavioral courage and job performance will be
moderated by gender. Specifically, the effect of behavioral courage will be stronger when the
manager is female.
METHODS
Participants
The data for the present study were obtained from an archival database of multisource feedback on
managers in a variety of organizations. Specifically, ratings on nonexpatriate managers were collected
from mid- to large-sized for-profit organizations in the United States from 2010 to 2015. The sample
in this study consisted of a total of 6,009 managers (Mage = 42.8, SD = 8.1), with 52.9% male. Among
the participants, about 80.7% were White, 7.5% Asian, 5.7% Black, 4.2% Hispanic, and 1.8% Other.
About 16.9% of participants had a high school degree, 49.9% held a baccalaureate degree, and 33.2%
attended graduate school. As to the organizational levels, 48.6% were at the low level, 33.8% were at
the middle level, and 16.3% were at the top level.
Measurement
Behavioral courage
The scale for behavioral courage was created employing items drawn from a multisource feedback
instrument, The PROFILOR® for Managers (PDI Ninth House, 2004). As the original 135-item
instrument was developed without specific consideration of this construct, we followed the principles
of Q-methodology (Stephenson, 1953) to create our scale. First, building on our extensive review of
the literature on courage (e.g., courageous leadership, workplace courage, etc.), the authors selected
30 items drawing from The PROFILOR® for Managers (PDI Ninth House, 2004). Next, two subject
matter experts, with advanced degrees and field experience in management and human resource

development were asked to individually assess the 30 items and select those that represented behavioral
manifestations of courage in the workplace. The subjective judgment of the subject matter experts was
necessary to ensure face validity of the construct. Building on the results obtained from the subject
matter experts, the panel of authors unanimously agreed upon six items as representative of behavioral
courage in the workplace, to be employed in the study:
1. Takes a stand and resolves important issues.
2. Makes decisions in the face of uncertainty.
3. Challenges others to make tough choices.
4. Drives hard on the right issues.
5. Influences and shapes the decisions of upper management.
6. Champions new initiatives within and beyond the scope of own job.
As recent studies underscore that it is through ‘the eye of the beholder’ that actions can be interpreted
as courageous or not (Harbour & Kisfalvi, 2014), we employed direct supervisor ratings of the six
behaviors in our analysis. The ratings were recorded using a 5-point scale (1 = ‘Not at all,’ to 5 = ‘To a
very great extent’). The six items yielded an internal consistency of 0.87. The use of supervisors’ ratings
was intentional; it implied that the six behaviors that the managers were assessed upon were directed
towards some organizational goals, as opposed to the manager acting in self-interest. Consistent with
studies that employed a similar approach (e.g., Sosik, Gentry, & Chun, 2012), confirmatory factor
analysis was conducted to test whether the items are well related to this latent construct. The fit indices
of confirmatory factor analysis indicated that this one-factor model fit the data (χ2 = 141.89, p < .001,
normed fit index = 0.99, comparative fit index = 0.99, goodness-of-fit index = 0.99, and root mean
square error of approximation = 0.04). Factor loadings ranged from 0.48 to 0.56.
Job performance
This outcome variable was measured using an existing 5-item scale from The PROFILOR® for
Managers (PDI Ninth House, 2004). The scale had been developed and validated by the original
developers of The PROFILOR® for Managers (PDI Ninth House, 2004, 2006). All items were
measured on a 1–5 scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree.’ The scale had an internal
consistency of 0.88 (PDI Ninth House, 2006). Items included:
1. Accomplishes a great deal.
2. Gets the job done.
3. Gets work done on time.
4. Produces high-quality work.
5. Is an effective manager overall.
Moderating variables: organizational level and gender

The five employee levels (1 = Supervisor of hourly and clerical, 2 = First-line management, 3 = Middle
management, 4 = Executive management, 5 = Top management) were dummy coded into three
variables: low level (1 and 2 combined, as the reference group), middle level (3), and top level (4 and 5
combined). Gender was coded as follows: 0 = female, 1 = male.
Covariates
We controlled for race (white as the reference group), as whites may receive higher ratings than non-
whites (e.g., McKay & McDaniel, 2006). We also controlled for the human capital measures of
education (1 = Some secondary/high school, 2 = Secondary/high school, 3 = Undergraduate degree,
4 = Postgraduate degree, 5 = Doctorate/professional), as the variable may affect performance outcomes

(e.g., Ng & Feldman, 2010). Educational level was dummy recoded into three variables: High school
(1 and 2 combined), which was used as the reference group; Undergraduate degree (3); and Post-
graduate (4 and 5 combined). Finally, we controlled for age as previous studies indicated that older
employees may be rated lower on performance appraisals (Lawrence, 1988).
RESULTS
The preliminary analyses showed a high correlation between the two scales, behavioral courage (6-item
scale) and job performance (5-item scale) (r = 0.72, p < .001), which may have caused a multi-
collinearity problem for the regression analysis performed later. Thus, we ran a principle component
analysis with varimax rotation to examine the orthogonality of these two constructs. The results
showed that two main factors (eigenvalue > 1) explained 61.3% variance. After a further look at each
constituent item, we found that one item in each scale had large factor loadings on both factors. To
reduce the redundancy between the factors, we decided to remove the following items: ‘Drives hard on
the right issues’ in the behavioral courage scale and ‘Is an effective manager overall’ in the job
performance scale. The refined scale of behavioral courage had an internal consistency coefficient of
0.79 and 0.87 for the job performance scale. After these revisions, the correlation between behavioral
courage (5-item scale) and job performance (4-item scale) was reduced to 0.63 (p < .001). The new
mean for behavioral courage was 3.85 (SD = 0.56) and job performance was 4.31 (SD = 0.58).
Table 2 includes means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables used in this study.
We also examined whether there were differences either among different organizational levels or by
gender. The results from analysis of variance displayed significant differences in behavioral courage
among the low, middle, and top hierarchical levels (F = 13.80, p < .001). Follow-up posthoc analyses
showed that the managers at the top level (M = 3.91) had significantly higher behavioral courage scores
than those at the low level (M = 3.79; p < .001); Likewise, managers at the middle level (M = 3.88)
also showed higher behavioral courage than managers at the low level (p < .001). However, no
statistically significant difference was discovered when comparing managers at the middle level and
managers at the top level. At the same time, an independent-sample t-test showed that there was a
small yet significant difference (0.05) in behavioral courage between male and female managers
(t = 2.95, p = .003), with males scoring slightly higher than females.
To test our hypotheses, we performed a hierarchical regression analysis. The results can be found in
Table 3. The first model included control variables (age, race, and education) and dummy-coded
independent variables (gender and organizational level); the second model added behavioral courage;
the third model added (a) interactions between behavioral courage and organizational level,
(b) interactions between behavioral courage and gender, and (c) three-way interactions among
behavioral courage, organizational level, and gender.
After entering our control variables and two moderator variables (Step 1), we observed
that the entered variables did not have much effect on job performance. However, after adding
behavioral courage into the model, we found that behavioral courage had a positive relationship
with supervisor ratings of job performance and alone accounted for a substantial amount of variance in
this outcome (b = 0.63, p < .001; ΔR2 = 0.377, p < .001). Hence, Hypothesis 1, predicting that
managers who demonstrate behavioral courage are likely to be perceived as better performers, was
supported.
Interestingly, adding behavioral courage appeared to have a suppressor effect on this relationship.
Specifically, in the first model (Step 1) managers who were at the middle level were rated higher on job
performers than managers at low level management positions (b = − 0.05, p = .025). However, after
adding behavioral courage into the model, this effect disappeared, while top-level management became
significant (b = − 0.06, p = .009) (see Step 2 in Table 3). This suppressor effect may indicate that

8

TABLE 2. MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND CORRELATIONS AMONG VARIABLES AFTER REVISING SCALES
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Age 42.76 8.06

Race
2. Black 0.06 0.23 −0.033*
3. Asian 0.07 0.26 −0.065** −0.070**
4. Hispanic 0.04 0.20 −0.043** −0.052** −0.060**
Organizational level
5. Middle level 0.34 0.47 0.107** 0.004 −0.026 0.046**
6. Top level 0.18 0.38 0.059** −0.031 −0.005 0.006 −0.331**
7. Gendera −0.081** −0.078** −0.005
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION
0.53 0.50 0.033* 0.019 0.01

Educational level
8. Bachelor 0.50 0.50 −0.076** −0.024 −0.080** −0.012 0.008 −0.007 −0.002
9. Postgraduate 0.33 0.47 −0.050** 0.01 0.150** −0.001 0.006 0.019 −0.079** −0.703**
10. BC 3.85 0.56 −0.072** −0.033* −0.025 −0.026 0.049** 0.058** −0.040** 0.001 0.021
11. JP 4.31 0.58 −0.079** −0.089** 0.035** −0.019 0.01 −0.004 −0.154** 0.01 0.041** 0.633**
Note.
a
0 = Female, 1 = Male.
BC = behavioral courage; JP = job performance.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
TABLE 3. REGRESSION RESULTS FOR BEHAVIORAL COURAGE, AND THE INTERACTION BETWEEN BEHAVIORAL COURAGE AND
ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL AS PREDICTORS OF JOB PERFORMANCE
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Predictors B SE B SE B SE
Age −0.01*** 0.00 −0.00 0.00 −0.00 0.00

Gendera −0.17*** 0.02 −0.16*** 0.02 −0.16*** 0.02
Race
Black −0.24*** 0.04 −0.18*** 0.03 −0.18*** 0.03
Asian −0.02 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03
Hispanic −0.16** 0.06 −0.09* 0.04 −0.09* 0.04
Other races −0.15 0.08 −0.07 0.06 −0.06 0.06
Education
Undergraduate 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.02
Postgraduate 0.13*** 0.03 0.09*** 0.03 0.10*** 0.03
Organizational level
Middle level 0.05* 0.02 −0.02 0.02 −0.02 0.02
Top level 0.03 0.03 −0.06** 0.02 −0.6* 0.02
BC 0.63*** 0.02 0.56*** 0.03
BC × middle level 0.02 0.05
BC × top level −0.00 0.06
BC × gender 0.13*** 0.04
BC × middle level × gender −0.05 0.07
BC × top level × gender 0.05 0.08
ΔR2 0.377 0.004
ΔF 1,862.66*** 4.11***
R2 0.047 0.424 0.428
Adjusted R2 0.044 0.422 0.425
Overall F 14.19*** 190.66*** 133.08***
Note.
a
0 = Female, 1 = Male.
BC = behavioral courage; JP = job performance.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
top-level management was substantially correlated with behavioral courage, which enhanced the effect
of top-level management on job performance.
Hypotheses 2 and 3 predicted that organizational level and gender would moderate the relationship
between behavioral courage and job performance. These hypotheses were tested in the last two models
of the regression analysis (Step 3), in which we were looking for the interaction effects. To reduce
multicollinearity, we centered behavioral courage (i.e., minus the grand mean). After testing for
Hypothesis 2, we observed that although behavioral courage was found to be highly predictive of
higher ratings on job performance (Step 2), behavioral courage appeared to have the same predictive
value among the three organizational levels (see Step 3 in Table 3); hence Hypothesis 2 was not
supported.
In turn, model 3 also showed a significant interaction effect between behavioral courage and gender
(b = 0.13, p = .001). This indicates that even though female managers overall had better performance
than male managers, as observed in Step 1 (b = −0.17 p = .001), gender was found to be a moderating
variable in the relationship between behavioral courage and job performance (see Figure 1). Specifically,
when levels of behavioral courage were high, both genders were rated equally as high performers.
However, when levels of behavioral courage were low, women were rated as better performers than men.

FIGURE 1. INTERACTION EFFECT BETWEEN BEHAVIORAL COURAGE (BC) AND GENDER.
Hence, Hypothesis 3 was supported. The three-way interaction (behavioral courage × organizational
levels × gender) did not yield any statistically significant results.
DISCUSSION
Theoretical implications
We found that behavioral courage was positively associated with job performance. As the data collected
included managers from a variety of mid- to large-sized for-profit organizations in the United States,
the findings are likely to be generalizable to managers in other for-profit organizations. At the same
time, we acknowledge that our findings should not be considered in isolation; rather, various other
factors have been recognized as important predictors of job performance (e.g., Lim, Song, & Choi,
2012; Rana, Ardichvili, & Tkachenko, 2014). To wit, behavioral courage needs to be understood as
one of the important predictors associated with higher job performance. The study results also shed
light on the supposed moderating effects of organizational level and gender in the relationship between
behavioral courage and job performance, thus addressing the recognized need for studying potential
moderators of workplace courage (Detert & Bruno, 2017). With the identified moderating effect of
gender, the study results also contribute to the emerging discourse in courage scholarship that explores
the role of gender in the workplace (Rankin & Eagly, 2008). In particular, the study results
support and also extend some propositions of the social role theory of sex differences and similarities
(Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000).
Our results suggest that behavioral courage is likely to be beneficial to an organization irrespective of
the manager’s position in the organizational hierarchy. This important finding somewhat echoes
Kilmann, O’Hara, and Strauss (2010) inquiry in which the authors attempted to conceive courage at
different levels of the organization. In particular, the authors found that employees who experienced
less fear and observed more acts of courage perceived their organization as better than its competitors in
overall performance, customer satisfaction, and potential for long-term success. Our study supports
Kilmann, O’Hara, and Strauss (2010) in the sense that acts of courage in the workplace appear to be
positively associated with important organizational outcomes. It is possible that, if mean scores on
behavioral courage are compared across organizations, some organizations are likely to score higher on

courageous behavior than others. To reiterate, with a sample of managers from mid- to large-sized for-
profit organizations in the United States, we found that there was a positive, causal relationship
between behavioral courage and job performance, and the relationship was significant after controlling
for organizational level.
Our analysis did not support the hypothesis that organizational level would moderate the rela-
tionship between behavioral courage and job performance. At the same time, the significant differences
between the employees at low and high hierarchical levels (based on their supervisors’ assessment)
found in the analysis of variance test did suggest that managers at the top level were perceived as
demonstrating courageous behaviors to a greater extent than employees at the low level. One possible
explanation could be that employees at the top level are expected to exhibit more behavioral courage.
This is somewhat corroborated by the substantive literature that underscores the unique requirements
of managerial roles at different organizational levels (Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson, 2007; Kaiser
& Craig, 2011). In other words, the complexity and nature of work at the top level may indeed
demand more of such behaviors.
As seen in Figure 1, the study results revealed a significant interaction effect between behavioral courage
and gender (b = 0.13, p = .001). More specifically, when both genders exhibited high levels of behavioral
courage, both male and female managers were seen as high performers at a similar level. At the same time,
the results portrayed a different story when female and male managers demonstrated only some (or no)
patterns of behavioral courage. In the latter case, males appeared to be rated significantly lower than
females on job performance. A possible explanation is that our study may have tapped into the gendered
social construction of heroic leaders that influences the characterization of men and women as heroes.
Rankin and Eagly (2008) found that, when participants were asked to identify courageous business leaders,
they were more likely to name well-known business executives, the majority of whom were men. Echoing
Rankin and Eagly (2008), it appears that the social construction of heroic leaders (typically seen as men)
sets higher expectations for men than women in the business context, when it comes to this type of
behavior. In other words, demonstrations of behavioral courage by males and females are likely to be
perceived differently by supervisors. In fact, men appeared to be disadvantaged in this case; when male
managers demonstrated only some patterns of behavioral courage, they were rated lower on job perfor-
mance than female managers who demonstrated equivalent levels of behavioral courage. At the same time,
as our results suggest, the differences disappear when both male and female managers demonstrate high
levels of behavioral courage.
This significant interaction effect between behavioral courage and gender can also be explained by Eagly,
Wood, and Diekman’s (2000) social role theory, which asserts that, in their roles, women are typically seen
as more communal, whereas men are seen as more agentic. Extending Eagly, Wood, and Diekman’s
(2000) proposition, it appears that the incongruity of expectations about women (i.e., more communal
and less assertive) and about the leader position in an organization (the leader role) may make patterns
of behavioral courage from women more noticeable and thus rated higher. However, when patterns of
behavioral courage are demonstrated to a large extent, the effect of gender becomes insignificant.
Practical implications
As discussed in our literature review, and empirically supported in this inquiry, behavioral courage
appears to benefit organizations in various important ways (Kilmann, O’Hara, & Strauss, 2010; Pury
& Lopez, 2010; Koerner, 2014; Detert & Bruno, 2017). This paper, in particular, identified five such
behaviors that are representative of behavioral courage in the workplace and also found that there is a
positive relationship between supervisors’ ratings of behavioral courage and job performance in
for-profit organizations. Corroborated with the growing literature on courage in the workplace, the
study results provide important practical implications.

Given that courage, as well as cowardice, may be contagious (Pury, Lopez, & Key-Roberts, 2010), we
suggest that the type of behaviors examined in this study may provide important guidance to leaders,
managers, and human resource development practitioners in organizations. As leading by example has long
been recognized as an important leadership practice (Kouzes & Posner, 2008), organizational leaders
should act as role-models and behave in a courageous manner when a situation necessitates it. In this sense,
transformational leadership may be a suitable approach for enlisting behavioral courage from employees,
because leaders seek ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ and ‘are concerned about doing what is
right’ (Bass, 1998: 174). Further, with increased attention to moral behaviors and ethical decision making
in organizations, ethical leadership may also lend support to promoting courageous action and moral
courage among organizational members (Brown & Trevino, 2006; Sekerka & Bagozzi, 2007).
Echoing Lester, Vogelgesang, Hannah, and Kimmey (2010), we also suggest that the development
and facilitation of behavioral courage in the workplace should be a responsibility of leaders. Research
indicates that providing training programs and developmental interventions can be an effective way to
foster behavioral courage in organizations (Kilmann, O’Hara, & Strauss, 2010). For example, training
programs that involve role playing and simulation-based activities have been suggested as effective tools
to develop individual skills and self-competence, to act on situations that require courageous work
behaviors (Harbour & Kisfalvi, 2014; Simola, 2015). Training programs may also include identity-
based interventions that point to individual awareness-raising, ethical self-regulation, and courageous
decision-making to encourage morally courageous acts (Sekerka & Bagozzi, 2007; May, Luth, &
Schwoerer, 2014). As such, we suggest that organizational leaders and managers utilize such devel-
opmental interventions to effectively promote skills, self-competence, and values that are needed to
foster behavioral courage in the workplace (Sekerka, McCarthy, & Bagozzi, 2011).
Further, as our results indicate, behavioral courage is likely to be beneficial irrespective of the
position in the organizational hierarchy. In other words, human resource interventions on promoting
courage in the workplace should not be limited to the managers at the top of an organization.
Specifically, Worline, Wrzesniewski, and Rafaeli (2002) asserted that the courageous behaviors of an
individual could influence the agency of other organizational members, thus increasing a collective
sense of organizational agency. Given recent empirical research supporting the link between courageous
actions and innovation in organizations (Koerner, 2014), as well as the argument that the failure of
courage is directly linked to failures in organizational performance (Worline, Wrzesniewski, & Rafaeli,
2002), we suggest that identifying and removing constraints that suppress behavioral courage at all
organizational levels may be instrumental to sustaining competitive organizational performance.
In summary, in line with the growing literature on courage in the workplace (Koerner, 2014; Detert &
Bruno, 2017), the results of this study point to the importance of creating and sustaining an organizational
culture where behavioral courage can be developed and exercised. As the workplace is continuously
reported to be a place where leaders lack trustworthiness and employees often pursue self-interests rather
than collective purposes, the need for courage scholarship cannot be overstated (Detert & Bruno, 2017).
With regard to practice, we suggest that organizational leaders, human resource development, and
organization development professionals should increase their efforts in promoting the value of being
courageous, developing ‘courage’ skills in employees, and also reducing the fear of workplace failure.
LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Limitations
There are several limitations in the present study. First, the behavioral dimensions that the study
employed were based on convenience. Although we developed the measures while taking face validity
under consideration, we were somewhat limited in our options. Specifically, we were not able to

consider cognitive, emotional, and other relevant aspects that the act of courage in the workplace may
entail (Rate et al., 2007). Second, our study was based on a cross-sectional design and leaves room for
speculation in regard to causality among the constructs. To overcome this limitation and improve the
generalizability of the results, future research may rely on longitudinal methods and time-lagged
designs when examining the relationship between behavioral courage and other organizational
constructs. Third, although the use of direct supervisors’ ratings (as external observers) was supported
by theory (Harbour & Kisfalvi, 2014), including other ratings (i.e., peers, direct reports, etc.) could
have yielded a somewhat broader perspective on the observed behaviors. In addition, our research
design did not permit controlling for the effects of larger social (and structural) systems. As various
organizations (and organizational units) appear to constrain or foster this type of behavior (Kilmann,
O’Hara, & Strauss, 2010), multilevel modeling (i.e., using a nested structure) could have shed more
light on the relationship between acts of courage in the workplace and the workplace itself. Finally, as
our data represent behavioral patterns that may be typical for managers in mid- and large-sized
for-profit organizations, we do not expect these results to be generalizable to nonprofit or small- and
entrepreneurial types of organizations.
Future research
While previous research attempted to explore various individual characteristics that may be predictive of
courageous behavior (e.g., O’Connell, 2009), an inquiry into specific elements of organizational contexts
that might promote behavioral courage could also advance our understanding of the construct. A
qualitative inquiry into the conditions that may induce acts of courage in some organizations and, in
turn, suppress such acts in others could be one of avenues for future research. In addition, as we suggested
above, a multilevel analysis could be also considered as a method for studying the effects of larger social
settings on behavioral courage. Specifically, being able to control for larger (nested) structures could
advance our understandings of the effects of various social contexts (e.g., a team, an organizational unit,
an organization) on individual behavioral courage. To wit, the use of hierarchical linear modeling and
other similar statistical methods could be a promising direction in research on courage in the workplace.
As courageous behavior appears to be positively associated with job performance, this type of
behavior could be seen as one of the important factors predicting career advancement (i.e., promotion).
Future research could explore whether having higher ratings on behavioral courage actually leads to the
employees’ career advancement in their organizations (or even lead to turnover intentions). An inquiry
into the relationship between behavioral courage and career advancement (promotion) and factors that
affect this relationship would provide interesting insight into both practice and theory. Similarly, as
some organizations (or units) may fall into bureaucratic or fearful types (Kilmann, O’Hara, & Strauss,
2010), where employees exhibit low acts of courage, another avenue for future research could be an
exploration of employee motivation to stay with or leave such organizations, once they find that
courageous behavior is inhibited. Similarly, an investigation of the effects of various organizational
variables on the relationship between behavioral courage and risk of career derailment (or turnover
intention) could provide useful insights to organizational leaders. Likewise, exploring the relationship
between behavioral courage and job performance (or other organizational outcomes) in different
national contexts may also be a promising avenue for future research. Rather than using cultural region
analyses (i.e., GLOBE country clusters), a country-by-country analysis could provide more useful
findings (Clark et al., 2016).
Lastly, this study assessed gender as male and female participants, which is consistent with prior
studies that examined the concept of behavioral courage (e.g., Palanski et al., 2015). Future research on
courage in the workplace should add attention to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender com-
munity. For instance, an investigation of behavioral courage across different industries, including those

industries that are traditionally considered hostile to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
community (Collins & Callahan, 2012), could shed more light on the pressures of acting courageously
across a broader population.
CONCLUSION
Courage in the workplace is an emerging yet important construct. As recently noted by Detert and
Bruno (2017), a variety of perspectives, definitions, and approaches are needed to advance our
understanding of the construct and its relationship with other important organizational outcomes.
In this regard, our study has provided several important contributions. First, our results indicated that
behavioral courage may lead to higher levels of job performance. Second, although the nature of work
may set higher expectations for managers at the top regarding courageous behaviors, individual acts of
courage appear to be beneficial to organizations irrespective of the manager’s position in the
organizational hierarchy. Finally, we find that, while the social construction of courageous business
leaders may have set higher expectations for men in the contemporary workplace, when behavioral
courage is demonstrated to a large extent, it is equally associated with high levels of performance
for both genders. We hope that our findings stimulate future interests in empirically testing the
utility of behavioral courage in the workplace and its relevance to important individual and
organizational outcomes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Brenton M. Wiernik and several other colleagues from the University
of Minnesota for their helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.
References
Augustin (1887). On the morals of the Catholic Church. In P. Schaff (Ed.), St. Augustin: The writings against the
Manichaeans, and against the Donatists, a select library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church
(Vol. 4, pp. 41–63). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing [Orig. pub. 388].
Avolio, B. J., Mhatre, K., Norman, S. M., & Lester, P. (2009). The moderating effect of gender on leadership
intervention impact: An exploratory review. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(4), 325–341. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1548051809333194
Baker, S. D. (2007). Followership: The theoretical foundation of a contemporary construct. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 14(1), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002831207304343
Bass, B. M. (1998). The ethics of transformational leadership. In J. Ciulla (Ed.), Ethics, the heart of leadership
(pp. 169–192). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Bono, J. E., Braddy, P. W., Liu, Y., Gilbert, E. K., Fleenor, J. W., Quast, L. N., & Center, B. A. (2017). Dropped on
the way to the top: Gender and managerial derailment. Personnel Psychology, 70(4), 729–768.
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly,
17(6), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004
Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Chun, R. (2005). Ethical character and virtue of organizations: An empirical assessment and strategic implications.
Journal of Business Ethics, 57(3), 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-6591-2
Clark, J. M., Quast, L. N., Jang, S., Wohkittel, J. M., Center, B., Edwards, K., & Bovornusvakool, W. (2016).
GLOBE Study culture clusters: Can they be found in importance ratings of managerial competencies? European
Journal of Training and Development, 40(7), 534–553. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-03-2016-0016
Collins, J. C., & Callahan, J. L. (2012). Risky business: Gay identity disclosure in a masculinized industry. Human
Resource Development International, 15(4), 455–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2012.706427

Dahlsgaard, K., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2005). Shared virtue: The convergence of valued human
strengths across culture and history. Review of General Psychology, 9(3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-
2680.9.3.203
Dai, G., Yii Tang, K., & De Meuse, K. P. (2011). Leadership competencies across organizational levels: A test of the
pipeline model. Journal of Management Development, 30(4), 366–380. https://doi.org/10.1108/026217111
11126837
Detert, J. R., & Bruno, E. A. (2017). Workplace courage: Review, synthesis, and future agenda for a complex construct.
Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 593–639. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0155
Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the contradictions. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 31(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14716402.2007.00326.x
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership
Quarterly, 14(6), 807–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.004
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and
laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569–591.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current
appraisal. In T. Eckes, & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grahek, M. S., Thompson, A. D., & Toliver, A. (2010). The character to lead: A closer look at character in leadership.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(4), 270–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022385
Harbour, M., & Kisfalvi, V. (2014). In the eye of the beholder: An exploration of managerial courage. Journal of
Business Ethics, 119(4), 493–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1835-7
Hornstein, H. A. (1986). Managerial courage: Revitalizing your company without sacrificing your job. New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons.
Jacobs, T. O., & Lewis, P. (1992). Leadership requirements in stratified systems. In R. L. Phillips, & J. G. Hunt (Eds.),
Strategic leadership: A multiorganizational-level perspective (pp. 15–25). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Kaiser, R. B., & Craig, S. B. (2011). Do the behaviors related to managerial effectiveness really change with organi-
zational level? An empirical test. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 14(2), 92–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10887156.2011.570140
Karatepe, O. M., Yavas, U., Babakus, E., & Avci, T. (2006). Does gender moderate the effects of role stress in frontline
service jobs? Journal of Business Research, 59(10), 1087–1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.08.004
Kilmann, R. H., O’Hara, L. A., & Strauss, J. P. (2010). Developing and validating a quantitative measure of orga-
nizational courage. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9125-1
Kim, B. P., Murrmann, S. K., & Lee, G. (2009). Moderating effects of gender and organizational level between role
stress and job satisfaction among hotel employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4), 612–619.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.04.001
Klein, M., & Napier, R. (2003). The courage to act: 5 factors of courage to transform business. Palo Alto, CA: Davies–Black
Publishing.
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
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2008). The leadership challenge. New York: Wiley.
Lawrence, B. S. (1988). New wrinkles in the theory of age: Demography, norms, and performance ratings. Academy of
Management Journal, 31, 309–337. https://doi.org/10.2307/256550
Lester, P. B., Vogelgesang, G., Hannah, S. T., & Kimmey, T. (2010). Developing courage in followers: Theoretical and
applied perspectives. In C. Pury, & S. Lopez (Eds.), The psychology of courage: Modern research on an ancient virtue
(pp. 210–245). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lim, D. H., Song, J. H., & Choi, M. (2012). Work-family interface: Effect of enrichment and conflict on job
performance of Korean workers. Journal of Management & Organization, 18(3), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1833367200000869
May, D. R., Luth, M. T., & Schwoerer, C. E. (2014). The influence of business ethics education on moral efficacy,
moral meaningfulness, and moral courage: A quasi-experimental study. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(1), 67–80.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1860-6

May, R. (1975). The courage to create. New York, NY: Norton.

McKay, P. F., & McDaniel, M. A. (2006). A reexamination of black-white mean differences in work performance:
More data, more moderators. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 538–554. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.91.3.538
Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). The leadership skills strataplex: Leadership skill
requirements across organizational levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(2), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
leaqua.2007.01.005
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). Organizational tenure and job performance. Journal of Management, 36(5),
1220–1250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309359809
O’Connell, W. (2009). Courageous leadership (Unpublished Doctorial dissertation). The Claremont Graduate
University, Claremont, CA.
Palanski, M. E., Cullen, K. L., Gentry, W. A., & Nichols, C. M. (2015). Virtuous leadership: Exploring the
effects of leader courage and behavioral integrity on leader performance and image. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(2),
297–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-23172
PDI Ninth House (2004). PROFILOR® for managers. Minneapolis, MN: PDI Ninth House.
PDI Ninth House (2006). PROFILOR® technical summary. Minneapolis, MN: PDI Ninth House.
Peterson, C., & Park, N. (2006). Character strengths in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(8),
1149–1154. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.398
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues. Washington, DC: Oxford University Press.
Plato (1961). Laches (B. Jowett, Trans.). In E. Hamilton & H. Cairns (Eds.),The Collected Dialogues of Plato, Including
the Letters (pp. 123-144). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pury, C. L., & Lopez, S. J. (2010). The psychology of courage: Modern research on an ancient virtue. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Pury, C. L., Lopez, S. J., & Key-Roberts, M. (2010). The future of courage research. In C. L. Pury, & S. J. Lopez
(Eds.), The psychology of courage: Modern research on an ancient virtue (pp. 229–235). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Rachman, S. J. (1990). Fear and courage (2nd ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Rana, S., Ardichvili, A., & Tkachenko, O. (2014). A theoretical model of the antecedents and outcomes of employee
engagement: Dubin’s method. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(3/4), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-09-
2013-0063
Rankin, L. E., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Is his heroism hailed and hers hidden? Women, men, and the social
construction of heroism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(4), 414–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-
6402.2008.00455.x
Rate, C. R., Clarke, J. A., Lindsay, D. R., & Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Implicit theories of courage. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 2(2), 80–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701228755
Rate, C. R., & Sternberg, R. J. (2007). When good people do nothing: A failure of courage. In J., Langan-Fox, C. L.
Cooper, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and
symptoms (pp. 3–21). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Schilpzand, P., Hekman, D. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (2014). An inductively generated typology and process model of
workplace courage. Organization Science, 26(1), 52–77. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0928
Sekerka, L. E., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). Moral courage in the workplace: Moving to and from the desire and decision to
act. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16(2), 132–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2007.00484.x
Sekerka, L. E., McCarthy, J. D., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2011). Developing professional moral courage: Leadership lessons
from everyday ethical challenges in today’s military. In D. R. Comer, & G. Vega (Eds.), Moral courage in
organizations: Doing the right thing at work (pp. 130–141). Arkmonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Simola, S. (2015). Understanding moral courage through a feminist and developmental ethic of care. Journal of Business
Ethics, 130(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2203-y
Sosik, J. J., Gentry, W. A., & Chun, J. U. (2012). The value of virtue in the upper echelons: A multisource examination
of executive character strengths and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 367–382. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.08.010
Staub, R. E. (1996). The heart of leadership: 12 practices of courageous leaders. Provo, UT: Executive Excellence.
Stephenson, W. (1953). Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Van Eynde, D. F. (1998). A case for courage in organizations. Management Review, 87(2), 62.
Wang, A. C., Chiang, J. T. J., Tsai, C. Y., Lin, T. T., & Cheng, B. S. (2013). Gender makes the difference: The
moderating role of leader gender on the relationship between leadership styles and subordinate performance.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
obhdp.2013.06.001
Ward, L. (2001). Nobility and necessity: The problem of courage in Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics. American Political
Science Review, 95(1), 71–84.
Woodard, C. R., & Pury, C. L. (2007). The construct of courage: Categorization and measurement.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 59(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.
59.2.135
Worline, M. C. (2004). Valor. In C. Peterson, & M. Seligman (Eds.), Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and
classification (pp. 213–228). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Worline, M. C. (2012). Courage in organizations: An integrative review of the ‘difficult virtue’. In G. M. Spreitzer, &
K. S. Cameron (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 304–315). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Worline, M. C., Wrzesniewski, A., & Rafaeli, A. (2002). Courage and work: Breaking routines to improve
performance. In R. Lord, R. Klimoski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions at work (pp. 295–330). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2012). Are women better leaders than men? Harvard Business Review, 15, 80–85.


Tkachenko 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tkachenko 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Management & Organization, page 1 of 17

OLEKSANDR TKACHENKO,* LOUIS N. QUAST,** WEI SONG§ AND SOEBIN JANG**

Received 27 November 2016. Accepted 18 February 2018

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 1

THEORETICAL GROUNDING AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

2 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

Source Deﬁnitions and descriptions

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 3

Courage in the workplace and job performance

Behavioral courage and organizational hierarchy

Behavioral courage and gender

4 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 5

Moderating variables: organizational level and gender

6 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 7

Oleksandr Tkachenko, Louis N. Quast, Wei Song and Soebin Jang

1. Age 42.76 8.06

0.53 0.50 0.033* 0.019 0.01

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Age −0.01*** 0.00 −0.00 0.00 −0.00 0.00

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 9

FIGURE 1. INTERACTION EFFECT BETWEEN BEHAVIORAL COURAGE (BC) AND GENDER.

10 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 11

LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

12 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 13

14 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 15

May, R. (1975). The courage to create. New York, NY: Norton.

16 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 17

You might also like

OLEKSANDR TKACHENKO,* LOUIS N. QUAST, WEI SONG§ AND SOEBIN JANG