In line with the following rules of George and Mallery (2003): " > 0.9 = Excellent
  • In line with the following rules of George and Mallery (2003): " > 0.9 = Excellent, > 0.8 = Good, > 0.7 = Acceptable, > 0.6 = Questionable, > 0.5 = Poor, and > 0.5 = Unacceptable." The minimum value of alpha was for the Factor 3A = relational decency (a = 0.75), and even it was in the range between acceptable and good, also bearing in mind the restricted number of items for each factor. Correlations between the two parts of the WRC order TAK-901 construct and the measures used to verify some aspects of concurrent validity showed good values: all the relationships among the variables under investigation were in the right direction with the right significance. In line with these results and in the spirit of positive psychology, we should talk about WRC rather than WI in order to promote effective and lifelong self and relational management (Di Fabio, 2015a) across the numerous personal and professional transitions and complex challenges of the 21st century (Blustein, 2011; Di Fabio and Maree, 2013; Di Fabio, 2014a; Di Fabio and Gori, 2016). Indeed, focusing on WRC gives significant value to the preventive approach in psychology (Hage et al., 2007; Kenny and Hage, 2009), specifically in endeavoring to increase resources and, at the same time, decrease risks. This new brief, mirror measure (WRC) thus promotes positive behavior in a framework of primary prevention (Hage et al., 2007; Kenny and Hage, 2009; Di Fabio and Kenny, 2015; Di Fabio et al., in press), and helps build a relational work environment that is safer and more decent.TABLE 5 | Summary of correlations among the two parts of WRC, SWLS, RSES, MSPSS, WI. SWLS Relational readiness Relational culture Relational decency WRC part A Interpersonal readiness Relational culture Relational decency WRC part B 0.299** 0.344** 0.407** 0.420** 0.337** 0.344** 0.336** 0.391** RSES 0.106 0.230* 0.204* 0.210* 0.013 0.175 0.178 0.135 MSPSS 0.311** 0.308** 0.319** 0.381** 0.202* 0.137 0.147 0.189* WI ?.020 ?.054 ?.036 ?.042 0.032 ?.131 0.038 ?.**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05. SWLS, Satisfaction with Life Scale; RSES, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; MSPSS, Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support; WI, Workplace incivility.LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONSThe study had a number of shortcomings: first of all, the number of participants was small because of the difficulty of recruiting subjects with the required features. Future studies should therefore examine this novel construct (WRC) and its mirror measurement assessment using a bigger sample. It would also be interesting to examine the construct and the assessment in a cross-cultural context in order to investigate the role of the complexity of human relationships from a cultural point of view. Future research should also examine WRC in relation to other promising variables in organizational contexts such as abilitybased emotional intelligence and trait emotional intelligence as well as other variables such as positive affect for hedonic well-being, meaning in life for eudaimonic well-being and also competency based perspective (Boyatzis et al., 2002, 2015a,b; Boyatzis and Saatcioglu, 2008; Boyatzis, 2009; Hazy and Boyatzis, 2015). WRC could be also studied in relation to objective outcomes of performance in organizational contexts. However, on the basis of the results of the present study, we can affirm that the WRC scale is a brief mirror measure with good psychometric properties that can promote individuals' strengths and also the growth of decent work.Fr.