Description

The Work Relationships Scale (WRS-15) is a 15-item self-report measure developed by Khodarahimi, Hashim, and Mohd-Zaharim to assess the nature, content, and quality of interpersonal relationships in the workplace.

The scale covers both positive and negative aspects of workplace relationships. In addition to cooperation and social support, it assesses critical, restrictive, and disciplinary experiences that may affect employees’ psychological well-being and workplace functioning.

The WRS-15 was developed using employees from different occupational settings in Malaysia. It should be distinguished from the scale with the same name developed by Finley and colleagues specifically for assessing relationships among staff in primary care clinics.

Purpose

The main purpose of the WRS-15 is to systematically assess how employees experience their interpersonal relationships within the workplace.

The scale can be used to:

  • assess the quality of workplace relationships;
  • identify supportive and psychologically demanding interpersonal experiences;
  • investigate associations with stress, depression, anxiety, and psychological distress;
  • compare occupational groups, departments, or organisations;
  • evaluate interventions intended to improve communication and cooperation;
  • examine relationships with job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and turnover intentions.

The WRS-15 is not a direct measure of employee performance and should not be used as a diagnostic instrument for mental disorders.

Structure

The original factor analysis identified four dimensions that collectively explained 68.72% of the total variance.

Critical and Procrustean Relationships

This dimension contains six items and assesses experiences involving criticism, disparagement, restriction, fault-finding, or attempts by others to make the employee conform rigidly to workplace expectations.

Higher scores indicate greater exposure to negative and psychologically demanding workplace relationships.

Satisfactory Relationships

This dimension consists of four items and assesses employees’ general satisfaction with the relationships they have developed in their workplace.

Higher scores indicate greater satisfaction with workplace relationships.

Supportive and Sympathetic Relationships

This dimension contains three items and assesses whether employees have colleagues or other workplace contacts to whom they can turn for support, understanding, or assistance.

Higher scores indicate greater perceived social and emotional support.

Disciplinary Relationships

This dimension consists of two items and assesses the extent to which the workplace is perceived as strict, controlling, or focused on disciplinary enforcement.

Higher scores indicate a stronger perception of disciplinary control and consequences for non-compliance.

Administration

Respondents indicate their agreement with each of the 15 statements using a five-point Likert scale:

  1. Strongly disagree
  2. Disagree
  3. Neither agree nor disagree
  4. Agree
  5. Strongly agree

The scale may be administered in paper-based or electronic form and usually requires only a few minutes to complete. Anonymity, confidentiality, and independence from employee appraisal procedures should be emphasised to encourage honest responses.

Scoring

Responses are summed or averaged separately for each dimension. The possible summed-score ranges are:

  • Critical and Procrustean Relationships: 6–30
  • Satisfactory Relationships: 4–20
  • Supportive and Sympathetic Relationships: 3–15
  • Disciplinary Relationships: 2–10

The four subscales do not have the same interpretive direction. High scores for satisfactory and supportive relationships reflect positive experiences, whereas high scores for critical and disciplinary relationships indicate more negative or controlling experiences.

The four subscale scores should therefore preferably be reported separately. If a total positive-relationship score is calculated, the negative dimensions must first be reverse-scored according to a clearly specified protocol. A total score should not be calculated by simply adding all responses without accounting for the different directions of the dimensions.

No established diagnostic cut-off scores are available. Scores should be interpreted comparatively using the characteristics and distribution of the relevant sample.

Data Analysis

Analysis of WRS-15 data may include:

  • descriptive statistics for each subscale;
  • item-level response analysis;
  • internal-consistency assessment using Cronbach’s alpha or McDonald’s omega;
  • exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis;
  • correlations with occupational stress, depression, anxiety, burnout, and job satisfaction;
  • comparisons between departments, occupations, and organisations;
  • regression analysis to examine predictive relationships;
  • longitudinal comparisons before and after organisational interventions;
  • measurement-invariance testing across occupational or cultural groups.

For employees nested within departments or organisations, multilevel analysis may be appropriate because responses from members of the same workplace may not be statistically independent.

Reliability and Validity

The original study included 199 employees from different workplaces in Penang, Malaysia. The four-factor structure explained 68.72% of the total variance.

Internal-consistency coefficients for the individual dimensions ranged from 0.81 to 0.86, while a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.83 was reported for the overall scale. These findings indicate satisfactory internal consistency.

Evidence of convergent validity was obtained through associations with interpersonal sensitivity and workplace stress. Critical and disciplinary relationships were positively associated with stress and psychological distress, whereas satisfactory and supportive relationships generally showed inverse associations with adverse psychological outcomes.

Limitations

The WRS-15 was developed using a relatively small sample from a specific cultural setting. Its four-factor structure should not be assumed to apply unchanged across all countries, organisations, or occupational sectors.

As a self-report measure, responses may be influenced by current mood, social desirability, recent workplace conflicts, and concerns about confidentiality.

Use in a new language or cultural setting requires:

  • systematic translation and back-translation;
  • assessment of cultural and conceptual equivalence;
  • pilot testing;
  • confirmatory factor analysis;
  • evaluation of reliability and validity;
  • measurement-invariance testing across relevant groups.

The scale should not be used independently for employee selection, disciplinary decisions, or individual performance appraisal.

References

Khodarahimi, S., Hashim, I. H. M., & Mohd-Zaharim, N. (2012). Workplace relationships, stress, depression and anxiety in a Malaysian sample. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1–9.

Finley, E. P., Pugh, J. A., Lanham, H. J., Leykum, L. K., Cornell, J., Veerapaneni, P., & Parchman, M. L. (2013). Relationship quality and patient-assessed quality of care in VA primary care clinics: Development and validation of the Work Relationships Scale. Annals of Family Medicine, 11(6), 543–549. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1554

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multisample study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(3), 293–315.