Content uploaded by Andrea Ceschi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrea Ceschi on Mar 23, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Chapter 2
A“GRRR”Goal Orientation
Process-Model: Workplace Long-Term
Relationships Among Grit, Resilience
and Recovery
Andrea Ceschi, Francesco Tommasi, Arianna Costantini, Giorgia Malavasi,
Stephan Dickert, and Riccardo Sartori
Abstract The spark that ignites passion, tenacity and perseverance is defined as
Grit. It encourages individuals to achieve long-term professional goals, especially
when they become challenging. Over time, workers develop the main coping ability
for reacting quickly to challenging situations: Workplace Resilience is a learnable
skill that helps individuals to rebuild the personal resources needed for achieving
long-term goals through Recovery strategies. These construct-relationships (i.e., Grit
!Resilience !Recovery) are analyzed in the present contribution, with the aim of
testing a model named “GRRR”, for the better understanding of workplace goal
orientation processes. Model testing is based on a three-waves longitudinal data
collection (12 months) in which a sample of 582 workers from five Italian companies
have been surveyed. Results reveal a mediated relationship among these constructs
and a progressive causal enhancement over time. The quasi-trait Grit predicts the
development of Resilience, which in turn predicts the development of Recovery
strategies. Results and contributions to the scientific literature are discussed in both
the frameworks of WOP Psychology and the Personality development paradigm.
Practical implications suggest strategies of interventions for enhancing goal orien-
tation through the GRRR process-model.
Keywords Grit · Resilience · Recovery · Goal orientation
A. Ceschi (*) · F. Tommasi · A. Costantini · G. Malavasi · R. Sartori
Department of Human Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
e-mail: andrea.ceschi@univr.it
S. Dickert
School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
©The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to
Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
L. E. van Zyl et al. (eds.), Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Grit,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57389-8_2
17
2.1 Introduction
This chapter aims to test the presence of a significant and positive relationship
between three psychological constructs: grit, resilience and recovery (abbreviated
as “GRRR”). Theoretically, these constructs should relate to each other because they
can trigger similar psychological processes, namely goal orientation, preservation of
well-being, and managing one’s own energies. This investigation finds a suitable
application in the workplace domain, considering the extensive ability to manage
resources and tackling intensive job demands is vital for the employee’s well-being
and performance. The study of these energetic processes is not new in the work
psychology domain, as it has been studied for centuries. Galton (1869) aimed to
collect information on upcoming statesmen, scientists, poets, musicians, and other
professionals to prove that talent alone was not enough to reach professional success.
The characteristics of efficient people, according to Galton, were enthusiastically
skilled individuals who worked hard to reach their long-term goals. Likewise, more
than a century later, Feldhusen (1995) concluded that holding IQ constant, the traits
that in childhood predicted professional lifetime achievement were: persistence of
motive and effort, confidence in abilities and great strength of character. In the
twenty-first Century, Galton’s(1869) and Feldhusen’s(1995) perspective on apti-
tude is defined as grit, the first of the constructs studied in the present study.
Grit is defined by levels of passion and perseverance toward goals (Duckworth,
Quinn, & Seligman, 2009). Grit enhances the significance given to achievements
and redefines the extent of efforts that people are willing to accept to reach their
goals. Gritty people not only display more stamina in a particular task at a given
time, but they do it with permanent strength over the years in seeking their long-term
goals (Duckworth et al., 2016). Several studies in the literature show how gritty
individuals accomplish—and help others to reach—high achievements at work and
in training (Eskreis-Winkler, Duckworth, Shulman, & Beal, 2014). Indeed, grit is a
pipeline energetic construct: it has been shown for instance how gritty professors
promote the better educational results of their students, by improving students’
performance measured after the end of the school year (Duckworth et al., 2009).
When a task becomes challenging, gritty individuals push themselves and others to
achieve goals, since they considered them worth it. Gritty people do not just
outperform because they invest more effort in their work or training, they actually
can persevere in tedious and frustrating behaviors (Duckworth et al., 2011). Grit is
also associated with psychological regulation processes. By aligning actions and
intentions for achieving one’s targets, gritty people able to better manage their
resources in the long run (Eskreis-Winkler et al., 2014). Such a goal orientation
inclination together with the capacity to regulate one’s own psychological capital
allows the gritty individual to cope with more challenging and tough situations
(Ceschi, Sartori, Dickert, & Costantini, 2016).
Successfully coping with these situations is related to the construct of resilience
itself, which is the second dimension considered in the GRRR model. Resilience is
defined as a successful adaptation despite everyday adversities (Rutter, 1985). It
18 A. Ceschi et al.
concerns the ability to not succumb to negative events and to continue developing
oneself, even after a traumatic event. Etymologically, resilience comes from the
Latin word Resalio, which means “to spring back”. Resilience is defined as the
process of adapting well in the face of a psychopathological event, trauma, and
tragedy (Joyce et al., 2018). Indeed, the first development of the construct comes
from clinical psychology and is associated with reactions to any significant sources
of stress, such as health problems or workplace stressors (and finally extended to
others psychological domains like I/O psychology). Before finding an application in
the psychological domain, the term resilience has been used by the metallurgical
sector, indicating the ability of a metal to withstand opposing forces, such as
compression or traction. Also, in biology, it represents the ability to self-repair
after damage; while in ecology, the more an ecosystem has variability in environ-
mental factors, the more the species that belong to it have a high levels of resilience
(Newman, 2005).
Although resilient individuals are able to cope with difficulties, this does not
mean that they are immune to the consequences of situations. On the contrary, a
resilient person can be deeply touched by a traumatic event and often experience
deleterious symptoms, however, this person still carries on with the important
aspects of life (Southwick & Charney, 2018). This person does so by developing
coping strategies and cognitive reframing processes to give meaning and signifi-
cance to such events. According to Anthony (1987), it is wrong to reduce the
phenomenon to invulnerability, which is associated with the resistance to negative
events and paralysis of the subject. The author claims that the construct of “resil-
ience”must be associated with softness, while “resistant”individuals face stressful
situations without giving up, resilient individuals are able to adapt better. Conse-
quently, compared to resilient individuals, resistant people will be more exposed to
stress and longer recovery times.
In summary, resilient individuals who have an adequate repertoire of resources to
deal with life events and the ability to recover from the challenges that they
encounter tend to be increasingly flexible and adaptable, qualities that are essential
for success (Hiebert, 2006). In the organizational domain, resilience has been applied
to the study of those occupational groups more at risk of suffering high stress and
who usually experience acute trauma. These populations include firefighters (Freed-
man, 2004), police officers (Paton & Burke, 2007), disaster relief personnel (Kendra
& Wachtendorf, 2003), nurses (Jackson, 2008), and also military personnel (Bowles
& Bates, 2010). In the specific case of nurses, resilience has been shown to be
fundamental in daily work, because of stressors that a job dedicated to assisting other
people entails (Tusaie & Dyer, 2004). Furthermore, resilience plays an even more
important role in allowing these health workers to survive and develop within very
demanding work situations. Especially for people who go through traumatic expe-
riences in the workplace, primary prevention interventions are needed to build
resilience (Tusaie & Dyer, 2004). However, it should be noted that even in circum-
stances where individuals are subjected to less acute (but more persistent) forms of
stress, deleterious consequences, such has cardiovascular complications or eating
disorders pathologies may arise (Vanhove, Herian, Perez, Harms, & Lester, 2016).
2A“GRRR”Goal Orientation Process-Model: Workplace Long-Term Relationships... 19
Therefore, the time of exposure of workers to stressors has to be considered an
important factor (Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, & Klieger, 2016). Although the
likelihood of developing burnout increases if stress is experienced at high levels for a
long time, resilient individuals usually succeed in overcoming stressors. They are
able to interpret situations differently compared to less resilient individuals, which
allows them to experience stressful events as motivating and to elicit a sense of
personal satisfaction and fulfillment (Finlay-Jones, 2014).
In light of this, the application of grit implies an inclination toward resilience and
going the extra mile implies the ability to react positively to difficult and challenging
situations. One who is able to cope better with the shocks caused by stressors will
also be more motivated to achieve long-term goals (Perkins-Gough, 2013). These
two constructs were examined by Incantalupo-Kuhner (2015), who analyzed the role
of such dispositions in relation to workplace outcomes. Results suggested a strong
causal and positive relationship among the two constructs (i.e., grit and resilience),
but with no overlap among them. Moreover, grit and resilience, despite appearing
synonymous, are distinguished in the literature because “grit is not just having
resilience in the face of failure, but having deep commitments that you remain
loyal to over many years”(Perkins-Gough, 2013, p. 15).
Finally, in the “GRRR”relationship the last letter applies to recovery strategies.
The relationship between resilience and recovery is relatively robust and has been
examined for decades. Resilience is likely to help the individual to rebuild the
personal resources needed for achieving long-term goals through recovery strategies.
Recovery can be defined as a mechanism by which the strain decreases and the
functioning of the individual returns to the pre-stressor level (Sonnentag, 2001). Two
theoretical models have addressed the theme of recovery, emphasizing the impor-
tance of this process in individual well-being as well as health and in countering the
negative effects of a difficult work situation. The Effort-Recovery model suggests
that work performance involves the development of (negative) emotional, behavioral
and cognitive reactions (Meijman, Mulder, Drenth, Thierry, & de Wolff, 1998).
Usually these responses are reversible, so that, when a subject is no longer exposed
to work demands, his/her psychobiological system can return to the optimal level
and recovery begins. However, if the subject remains exposed to job demands even
after working hours, recovery cannot take place and fatigue levels remain high. In
this way, the worker will start the next day having to apply a compensatory effort, in
order to sustain performance. On the contrary, according to the Resource Conser-
vation Theory (Meijman et al., 1998), people struggle to obtain, preserve and protect
their resources, which are composed of objects, personal characteristics, and ener-
gies useful to the individual. To recover resources, it is necessary to engage in
recreational activities, which allow to “recharge”and increase self-esteem. While the
Effort-Recovery model argues that moving away from job demands can favor the
recovery process, Resource Conservation Theory supports the idea that, in leisure
time, the subject can recover lost or threatened resources, through the investment of
new resources. However, according to both perspectives, in order for the recovery
process to take place it is necessary to move mentally away from one’s employment
(Sonnentag, 2001). Typically, the best recovery experiences occur during breaks
20 A. Ceschi et al.
from the workplace (Trougakos, Beal, Green, & Weiss, 2008), free evenings (Rook
& Zijlstra, 2006), weekends (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005) or on vacation (Westman &
Eden, 1997).
In conclusion, to detach from work and recover energy, it is important for people
to have enough time to recover in order to rebuild their energy. On the other hand,
some individual inclinations might boost such processes. Recent research by Hearne
(2017) has investigated the causal relationship of individual resilience and recovery
within the relationship between stressor, work strain, and performance. Intuitively,
the greater the degree of resilience, the lower the need for recovery, as this personal
resource moderates the relationship between work demands, exhaustion and low
performance (Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2007). With the
present contribution, we aim to replicate this relationship and to incorporate the
construct of grit, since it has a role in rebuilding personal resources, and long-term
goal achievement. Indeed, the passionate, perseverant and goal orientated person
(i.e., gritty) develops the capacity to regulate the psychological capital allowing the
individual to cope with challenging situations (i.e., resilience). In turn, the same
individuals who have the ability to rebuild their personal resources from challenges
quickly also tend to find moments dedicated to recovery (Hiebert, 2006). Grit,
resilience and recovery are constructs which (in this order) could represent a
development process that will be tested in the next section.
2.2 Method
2.2.1 Participants, Materials, and Procedure
The present sample belongs to a study designed with multiple research purposes.
Since in this study our aim was to examine a development process, three-waves
(4 months each) of data collection were conducted. For this study, socio-anagraphic
data and measurements of the three constructs was collected from newly hired
(<5 years) Italian workers. Five companies, belonging to a North-East Italy indus-
trial district of small-medium dimensions were selected first. The survey deadline
was extended online to include more subjects.
A total of 582 employees completed and returned the questionnaire (response rate
62%). Fifty-nine percent of the employees identified as female. Their age ranges
between 19 and 54 years with an average of 33 years (SD ¼15.82). The educational
demographic showed that 24% of this population had higher vocational training
(24%) or a high school degree (57%). Most participants worked as clerks (45%) with
no qualified profession inside the companies.
Besides the socio-anagraphic data, we also administered three instruments to
measure levels of grit, resilience, and recovery over time as follows.
Grit The personality trait Grit was assessed by using the Short Grit Scale, an eight-
item self-report questionnaire with established construct and predictive validity.
2A“GRRR”Goal Orientation Process-Model: Workplace Long-Term Relationships... 21
Participants have endorsed items by indicating consistency of passions “I have been
obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short time but later lost interest”(reverse-
scored) and consistency of effort “Setbacks don’t discourage me,”over time, by
using a 5-point Likert-type scale (5 ¼very much like me, 1 ¼not at all like me).
Resilience: The Dispositional Resilience Scale (DRS-15) by Bartone (2007) and
validated in Italian by Picardi et al. (2012) was used to measure resilience. We
selected the five items which concern work activities, such as “By working hard you
can nearly always achieve your goals”or “I really look forward to my work
activities”. The rating is expressed on a 4-point rating scale (1 ¼totally disagree,
4¼totally agree). Recovery: Recovery strategies were measured using the 16-item
Recovery Experience Questionnaire (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). Participants were
asked to respond to the items with respect to their free time after work. All scales
originally included four items, which were rated on a five-point scale ranging from
1 (totally agree) to 5 (totally disagree); e.g. “I use the time to relax”(relaxation), “I
distance myself from my work”.
2.2.2 Data Testing
All scales present acceptable reliability indexes (Cronbach’sα>.84). Moreover, we
tested the reliability of the aggregate resilience resource score, by carrying out a
confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) for each scale. The CFAs show adequate fit
indexes for all the three constructs investigated (i.e., grit, resilience, and recovery).
Next, we followed the statistical procedure suggested by Hayes, to test the presence
of a (partial or full) mediation model. Before proceeding with the modeling of the
mediation, we first tested if grit is a predictor of resilience and, in turn, if resilience
can predict recovery. Results confirmed a full mediation model, R
2
¼.42, p<.001,
F(494,1) ¼26.80, in the presumed direction, where, except for the main effect
between grit and recovery, the other relationships were all significant (Grit !
recovery: t¼.61, p¼.54; Grit –>resilience: t¼5.18, p<.001; Resilience !
recovery: t¼3.09, p<.001). The analysis of the direct effect was not significant
95% confidence interval (CI) [.19, .09], whereas the indirect effect was (CI) [.21,
.05].
2.3 Discussion
This chapter investigated whether grit, resilience, and recovery can be defined as a
process (i.e., GRRR) to rebuild the personal resources needed for achieving long-
term goals through recovery strategies. Results show that this process could look like
and be conceptualized as a mediation model based on these three interconnected
constructs. The proposed order of this process is based primarily on theoretical
relationships. Grit develops the capacity to better regulate and rebuild personal
22 A. Ceschi et al.
resources through resilience, especially during challenging situations, by developing
adequate recovery strategies (Hiebert, 2006). The proposed order is also based on
their psychological nature. Grit is considered a personality trait characterized by an
instinctive need to achieve objectives despite the hurdles that may come along the
way. Compared to the classic Big 5 traits, which remain fairly stable for most of us,
Duckworth, Gendler, and Gross (2016) suggests that through experience grit
develops. Duckworth et al. (2016) found that there are four components processes
in particular that occur to develop grit: practice, purpose, interest, and hope. Practice
is defined as the constant discipline of trying to do things better. Duckworth’s
research recommends merging moments of deliberate practice in order to build the
skills to master. Purpose denotes the extent to which the goal matters to the person,
their value system, and to others since grit can spread among a group if such values
are shared. Interest designates the feeling that accompanies or causes special atten-
tion to something, followed by development and a lifetime of deepening. Hope
allows persevering when things get difficult. It allows us to be more optimistic by
challenging the reasons for setbacks or failures as nothing permanent (Duckworth
et al., 2016).
The processes that define the development of grit are in line also with the five
typical characteristics which allow developing resilience: self-esteem, self-efficacy,
internal locus of control, awareness, and hope. Self-esteem is the evaluation of
having a set of certain attributes; self-efficacy is based on knowing how to solve
problems, which derives from the knowledge of strengths and weaknesses; internal
locus of control is the tendency to interpret the results and effects of actions as
caused by their own behavior; awareness, which coincides with an orientation
towards acceptance of experiences; and finally, hope is already presented above.
As for grit, the five components of the model described so far interact dynamically
with each other and result in resilient people having the capacity to cope with life
events, acquiring the ability to face various situations which enhances their ability to
adapt (Oshio, Kaneko, Nagamine, & Nakaya, 2003).
Furthermore, these individuals can increase possibilities of recovery by:
(1) adapting the workload; (2) receiving feedback in order to understand the
strengths and weaknesses of work; (3) developing psychological detachment con-
ceived as “the individual sense of being far from work situations”despite the fact
that new technologies make this increasingly difficult; (4) increasing autonomy, in
order to foster the development of the individual’s ability to recover and, in turn,
increase work productivity (Bakker, Rodríguez-Muñoz, & Derks, 2012). Some of
the strategies indicated above can be seen as a conglomerate of experiences which
could help to develop resilience. As shown by Ceschi et al. (2017), individuals can
develop more resilience through working experiences by adapting their coping
strategies and frequently transforming stressful aspects into learning chances. This
is done by developing more control over the environment and using cognitive
reappraisal to reframe a negative situation in order to moderate its emotional impact.
Moreover, if one acquires awareness of such processes, this increases the ability to
cope with adversity and to continue to grow resilience. Indeed, compared to grit, the
resilience process is considered a coping strategy, and much more developable than a
2A“GRRR”Goal Orientation Process-Model: Workplace Long-Term Relationships... 23
personal trait, but still not completely based on self-awareness. In contrast, recovery
strategies are probably considered the most conscious and ductile construct of the
entire GRRR model (see Fig. 2.1).
One can choose how to develop its recovery strategies; which can basically be of
two types: internal recovery (e.g., work breaks) and external recovery methods, as
they occur outside working hours. Among the numerous studies on the holiday-
recovery relationship, Caplan and Jones (1975) showed that, following the holiday
period, anxiety, depression and heart rate were lower than 5 months before. Fur-
thermore, Etzion (2003) noted that work stress and exhaustion scores had decreased
after a holiday break, which can remain low even after 3 weeks later from the break.
On the contrary, work-related activities have usually a negative impact on situational
well-being, as continuing to think about work commitments prevents the recovery
process from starting (Sonnentag, 2001). Domestic and home-related activities,
instead, according to the authors, would not favor the Recovery process. Demerouti,
Taris, and Bakker (2007) have found that those home-work interferences and the
need for recovery influence each other. In this way, strains experienced at home can
interfere with work activities, favoring a greater need for Recovery, and vice versa
for what concerns work. Finally, when considering only weekend recovery, research
by Fritz and Sonnentag (2005) showed that extra-work weekend problems prevented
the recovery process from taking place, fostering disengagement and a low level of
health after the weekend. Conversely, weekend fatigue levels were lower than
weekly ones when people were less involved in work activities and the quality of
sleep increased. However, these benefits seemed to fade over time. A real recovery is
closely linked to what happens when a person leaves their work environment since it
can provide detachment from it.
2.4 Conclusion and Practical Implications
During times of constant changes and impending deadlines, organizations ask
employees to face the exposure to frequent stress and overwhelming job demands,
which, if prolonged, can result in exhaustion. The scientific literature confirms that
these three psychological constructs (i.e., grit, resilience and recovery) are not only
beneficial in achieving company goals but that they can also help their employees to
prevent, manage, and recover from exhaustion. Connecting them theoretically and
practically would be helpful in order to develop training for enhancing awareness
levels of grit, resilience and recovery for workers. For instance, resilience is often
confused by HRs with the concept of “Psychological Resistance”. This distinction
can be clarified by presenting some classical definitions of both constructs and by
stressing how the resistance culture of “keep going”is replaced by evidence-based
practices for the development of organizational resilience. Grit instead is often
associated with a short and intense effort in the long run when the original definition
presents an exactly opposite construct similar to the capacity of “run a marathon”
(Littman-Ovadia & Lavy, 2016). Finally, it would be opportune to realize the effects
24 A. Ceschi et al.
GRIT
Grit is defined by
levels of passion and
perseverance tow ard
goals (Duckw orth,
Quinn, & Seligman,
2009).
RESILIENCE
Resilience is defined
as a successful
adaptation despite
everyday adversities
(Rutter, 1985).
RECOVERY
Recovery can be
defined as a
mechanism by which
the strain decreases
and the functioning of
the individual returns
to the pre-stressor
level (Sonnentag,
2001).
Psychological
trait
Coping
strategy
Self-conscious
strategies
+
developable /
self-conscious
++
developable /
self-conscious
Such a goal orientation inclination
together with the capacity to regulate
one’s own psycho-logical capital allows
the gritty individual to copu with more
challenging and tough situaetions (Ceschi,
Sartori, Dickert, & Costantini, 2016)
Resilient individuals who have an
adequate repertoire of resources to deal
with life events and the ability to recover
from the challenges (Hiebert, 2006)
Fig. 2.1 Graphic representation of the process based on an increase of self-consciousness and development between grit, resilience and recovery constructs
2A“GRRR”Goal Orientation Process-Model: Workplace Long-Term Relationships... 25
of adequate Recovery processes, which should not only be limited to activities
during the working day, but they should be related also to levels of detachment
from work. Instead of just repeating to employees to ‘resist during stressful times’,
organizations should promote a shared acceptance of workforce limits by instilling
the awareness that hard times are momentary experiences and do not last forever.
Therefore, the expectations of companies should be informed by and directed
towards management strategies that foster coping with stress.
References
Anthony, E. J. (1987). Risk, vulnerability, and resilience: An overview. In The invulnerable child
(pp. 3–48). New York: Guilford.
Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work
engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99
(2), 274.
Bakker, A. B., Rodríguez-Muñoz, A., & Derks, D. (2012). La emergencia de la psicología de la
salud ocupacional positiva. Psicothema, 24(1), 66–72.
Bartone, P. T. (2007). Test-retest reliability of the dispositional resilience scale-15, a brief hardiness
scale. Psychological Reports, 101(3), 943–944.
Bowles, S. V., & Bates, M. J. (2010). Military organizations and programs contributing to resilience
building. Military Medicine, 175(6), 382–385.
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, 9(2),
378–404.
Caplan, R. D., & Jones, K. W. J. J. (1975). Effects of work load, role ambiguity, and type A
personality on anxiety, depression, and heart rate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(6), 713.
Ceschi, A., Fraccaroli, F., Costantini, A., & Sartori, R. (2017). Turning bad into good: How
resilience resources protect organizations from demanding work environments. Journal of
Workplace Behavioral Health, 32(4), 267–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/15555240.2017.
1398659.
Ceschi, A., Sartori, R., Dickert, S., & Costantini, A. (2016). Grit or honesty-humility? New insights
into the moderating role of personality between the health impairment process and counterpro-
ductive work behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 7.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01799.
Demerouti, E., Taris, T. W., & Bakker, A. B. (2007). Need for recovery, home–work interference
and performance: Is lack of concentration the link? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(2),
204–220.
Duckworth, A. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance (Vol. 234). New York:
Scribner.
Duckworth, A. L., Gendler, T. S., & Gross, J. J. (2016). Situational strategies for self-control.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1), 35–55.
Duckworth, A. L., Kirby, T. A., Tsukayama, E., Berstein, H., & Ericsson, K. A. (2011). Deliberate
practice spells success: Why grittier competitors triumph at the National Spelling Bee. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 2(2), 174–181.
Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., & Seligman, M. E. (2009). Positive predictors of teacher
effectiveness. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(6), 540–547.
Eskreis-Winkler, L., Duckworth, A. L., Shulman, E. P., & Beal, S. (2014). The grit effect:
Predicting retention in the military, the workplace, school and marriage. Frontiers in Psychol-
ogy, 5, 36.
26 A. Ceschi et al.
Etzion, D. J. A. (2003). Annual vacation: Duration of relief from job stressors and burnout. Anxiety
Stress & Coping, 16(2), 213–226.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1995). Talent development: The new direction in gifted education. Roeper Review,
18,92–93.
Finlay-Jones, A. L. (2014). Self-compassion and psychological health among psychologists. Bent-
ley WA: Curtin University.
Freedman, T. G. (2004). Voices of 9/11 first responders: Patterns of collective resilience. Clinical
Social Work Journal, 32(4), 377–393.
Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Recovery, health, and job performance: Effects of weekend
experiences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(3), 187.
Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences (Vol. 27). London:
Macmillan.
Hearne, A. (2017). Moderating effects of resilience and recovery on the stressor-strain relationship
among law enforcement officers. Mankato: Minnesota State University.
Hiebert, B. (2006). Creating a resilient workplace. Division of applied psychology,University of
Calgary. NATCON Papers.
Incantalupo-Kuhner, J. (2015). Teacher dispositions and perceived environment: The relationship
among grit, resiliency, and perceptions of school climate. New York: Hofstra University.
Jackson, D. (2008). Servant leadership in nursing: A framework for developing sustainable research
capacity in nursing. Collegian, 15(1), 27–33.
Joyce, S., Shand, F., Tighe, J., Laurent, S. J., Bryant, R. A., & Harvey, S. B. (2018). Road to
resilience: A systematic review and meta-analysis of resilience training programmes and
interventions. BMJ Open, 8(6), e017858.
Kendra, J. M., & Wachtendorf, T. (2003). Elements of resilience after the world trade center
disaster: Reconstituting New York City’s emergency operations Centre. Disasters, 27(1),
37–53.
Littman-Ovadia, H., & Lavy, S. (2016). Going the extra mile: Perseverance as a key character
strength at work. Journal of Career Assessment, 24(2), 240–252.
Meijman, T., Mulder, G., Drenth, P., Thierry, H., & de Wolff, C. (1998). Handbook of work and
organizational psychology. Work Psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Sage.
Newman, R. (2005). APA’s resilience initiative. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
36(3), 227.
Oshio, A., Kaneko, H., Nagamine, S., & Nakaya, M. (2003). Construct validity of the adolescent
resilience scale. Psychological Reports, 93(3 suppl), 1217–1222.
Paton, D., & Burke, K. J. (2007). Personal and organizational predictors of posttraumatic adaptation
and growth in police officers. Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies.
Perkins-Gough, D. (2013). The significance of grit: A conversation with Angela Lee Duckworth.
Educational Leadership, 71(1), 14–20.
Picardi, A., Bartone, P. T., Querci, R., Bitetti, D., Tarsitani, L., Roselli, V., & Flynn, B. (2012).
Development and validation of the Italian version of the 15-item dispositional resilience scale.
Rivista di psichiatria, 47(3), 231–237.
Rook, J. W., & Zijlstra, F. R. (2006). The contribution of various types of activities to recovery.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(2), 218–240.
Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric
disorder. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 147(6), 598–611.
Sonnentag, S. (2001). Work, recovery activities, and individual well-being: A diary study. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(3), 196.
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and
validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 204.
Southwick, S. M., & Charney, D. S. (2018). Resilience: The science of mastering life’s greatest
challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2A“GRRR”Goal Orientation Process-Model: Workplace Long-Term Relationships... 27
Trougakos, J. P., Beal, D. J., Green, S. G., & Weiss, H. M. (2008). Making the break count: An
episodic examination of recovery activities, emotional experiences, and positive affective
displays. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 131–146.
Tusaie, K., & Dyer, J. (2004). Resilience: A historical review of the construct. Holistic Nursing
Practice, 18(1), 3–10.
Vanhove, A. J., Herian, M. N., Perez, A. L., Harms, P. D., & Lester, P. B. (2016). Can resilience be
developed at work? A meta-analytic review of resilience-building programme effectiveness.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(2), 278–307.
Westman, M., & Eden, D. (1997). Effects of a respite from work on burnout: Vacation relief and
fade-out. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 516.
Andrea Ceschi is Senior (Tenure-Track) Assistant Professor in Work and Organizational Psy-
chology (WOP) at the Human Sciences Department of Verona University. His field of work is
organizational behavior, individual differences and decision-making at work, and social dynamics
in the applied psychology field.
Arianna Costantini is a Ph.D. in Psychology at Verona University, Department of Human
Sciences, Italy. Her field of work is job crafting, behavior change, and work-place innovation.
Giorgia Malavasi is an MPhil student at the Milano Cattolica University. Her field of interest
concerns Grit, Resilience and Recovery constructs and interventions in the workplace.
Stephan Dickert is a Reader (Associate Professor) in Marketing at Queen Mary University of
London, School of Business and Management. He currently also holds a full Professorship of
Psychology at the University of Klagenfurt, Austria. His research focuses on judgment and decision
making in social and economic contexts.
Riccardo Sartori is an Associate Professor in Work and Organizational Psychology at Verona
University (Italy), Department of Human Sciences. His field of work is organizational innovation
and the assessment processes linked to this topic included psycho-logical assessment and human
resources management.
28 A. Ceschi et al.
