Article Critique #1
jameohxlzb
ARTICLE.pdf
Leadership & Organization Development Journal The relationship of individual spirituality and organizational spirituality with meaning and community at work: An empirical examination of the direct effects and moderating effect models Badrinarayan Shankar Pawar,
Article information: To cite this document: Badrinarayan Shankar Pawar, (2017) "The relationship of individual spirituality and organizational spirituality with meaning and community at work: An empirical examination of the direct effects and moderating effect models", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 38 Issue: 7, pp.986-1003, https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-01-2016-0014 Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-01-2016-0014
Downloaded on: 26 September 2018, At: 10:49 (PT) References: this document contains references to 43 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 563 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2009),"Individual spirituality, workplace spirituality and work attitudes: An empirical test of direct and interaction effects", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 30 Iss 8 pp. 759-777 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730911003911">https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730911003911</ a> (2003),"Workplace spirituality and employee work attitudes: An exploratory empirical assessment", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 16 Iss 4 pp. 426-447 <a href="https:// doi.org/10.1108/09534810310484172">https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810310484172</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald- srm:465118 []
For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by L
ib er
ty U
ni ve
rs ity
J er
ry F
al w
el l L
ib ra
ry A
t 1 0:
49 2
6 Se
pt em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by L
ib er
ty U
ni ve
rs ity
J er
ry F
al w
el l L
ib ra
ry A
t 1 0:
49 2
6 Se
pt em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
The relationship of individual spirituality and organizational spirituality with meaning and
community at work An empirical examination of the direct effects
and moderating effect models Badrinarayan Shankar Pawar
National Institute of Bank Management, Pune, India
Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to carry out an empirical examination to assess the nature of effects an employee’s individual spirituality and organizational spirituality have on the employee’s experience of meaning in work and community at work facets of workplace spirituality. Design/methodology/approach – This paper specifies and examines, using a cross-sectional survey research design, the empirical support for two alternative models – a direct effects model and a moderating effect model – of the likely influences of an employee’s individual spirituality and organizational spirituality on the meaning and community facets of workplace spirituality. Findings – The findings indicate considerable support for the direct effects model but no support for the moderating effect model. Within the direct effects model, organizational spirituality had much stronger association than employees’ individual spirituality with the workplace spirituality facets of meaning and community. Research limitations/implications – This study may encourage future research to examine other antecedents of workplace spirituality, and the moderators and mediators of the relationship between organizational spirituality and workplace spirituality. Practical implications – It suggests to the practitioners that for enhancing employee experiences of workplace spirituality, organizational spirituality implementation is a more effective way than developing employees’ individual spirituality. Social implications – The study indicates that employees’ spiritual needs of meaning and community at work can be better fulfilled through organizational spirituality implementation than through individual spirituality development. Originality/value – This is an original empirical examination and its value partly comes from its research implications and practice implications. Keywords Workplace spirituality, Individual spirituality, Organizational spirituality Paper type Research paper
Introduction “Workplace spirituality refers to employee experiences of spirituality at workplace” (Pawar, 2009a, p. 375). Workplace spirituality, while being a relatively new area of research (e.g. Geh, 2014; Sheep, 2006; Tischler et al., 2007), has received increasing interest (Shinde and Fleck, 2015). Workplace spirituality has great significance for research as it is being noted as “a new paradigm of organizational science” ( Jurkiewicz and Giacalone, 2004, p. 129) and “the spirituality movement” (Karakas, 2010, p. 90). Furthermore, it has utility also for practitioners because it is associated with several employee outcomes (e.g. Benefiel et al., 2014; Whitaker and Westerman, 2014) and thus organizations are interested in enhancing workplace spirituality (e.g. Saks, 2011). It is this phenomenon of great significance for both researchers and practitioners that this paper focuses on by empirically examining its antecedents.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 38 No. 7, 2017 pp. 986-1003 © Emerald Publishing Limited 0143-7739 DOI 10.1108/LODJ-01-2016-0014
Received 25 January 2016 Revised 11 July 2016 6 November 2016 7 December 2016 19 April 2017 Accepted 3 May 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
986
LODJ 38,7
D ow
nl oa
de d
by L
ib er
ty U
ni ve
rs ity
J er
ry F
al w
el l L
ib ra
ry A
t 1 0:
49 2
6 Se
pt em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
Main dimensions of workplace spirituality Meaning in work and community at work dimensions are the main dimensions of workplace spirituality. While inner life was originally included as a dimension of workplace spirituality in Ashmos and Duchon (2000), quite a few more recent works (e.g. Albuquerque et al., 2014; Saks, 2011) do not include it as a dimension of workplace spirituality. The likely reason for this exclusion is that the inner life component mostly reflects an employee’s personal spirituality as suggested by some of the items in the original inner life scale developed by Ashmos and Duchon (2000). Meaning in work or meaningful work refers to the experience emerging from one’s work that one is making a significant contribution to others through one’s work. Meaningful work is the work “which connects workers to a larger good” (e.g. Duchon and Plowman, 2005, p. 814). Community at work refers to the experience emerging from having relationships at work involving “sharing, mutual obligation, and commitment” (e.g. Duchon and Plowman, 2005, p. 814).
A knowledge gap Researchers (e.g. Benefiel et al., 2014; Whitaker and Westerman, 2014) have pointed out that the past research has found workplace spirituality to be related with several outcomes such as employees’ organizational commitment, employee job satisfaction, employee well-being, lower employee frustration, employee retention, employees’ organization-based self-esteem, and productivity. Given such utility of workplace spirituality for enhancing many positive outcomes, it is not surprising that organizations are keen to create spiritual workplaces (Saks, 2011). Thus, naturally, an important question from managers would be: which factors influence workplace spirituality? To answer this managerial question, research needs to empirically examine the antecedents of workplace spirituality.
As workplace spirituality is conceptualized in varied ways including an organization’s features such as a culture reflecting organizational spiritual values or as an expression of individual spirituality in workplace (Kolodinsky et al., 2008), it seems feasible to enhance workplace spirituality by enhancing organizational spiritual values or by enhancing individual spirituality of employees. However, the existing research, to the best of the author’s knowledge, does not provide empirical findings on the relative efficacy of organizational spirituality and an employee’s individual spirituality in influencing employee experiences of workplace spirituality.
The existence of this knowledge gap is reflected in various works in the literature. First, Pawar (2009a) specified a conceptual model for workplace spirituality facilitation which included organizational practices enhancing workplace spirituality and individual spiritual development of employees as two of the antecedents of workplace spirituality and suggested that the future research needs to empirically examine the support for these antecedents’ relationship with workplace spirituality. This suggestion from Pawar (2009a) points out the need for empirically examining the relative efficacy of organizational spirituality and individual spirituality in influencing workplace spirituality. Second, Geigle’s (2012) relatively recent review of empirical research in workplace spirituality listed, in Table III of Geigle (2012), nine empirical studies on workplace spirituality implementation but none of these nine studies examined the relative efficacy of organizational spirituality and individual spirituality in influencing or implementing workplace spirituality. Third, the most recent review of empirical research in the area of spirituality and religion in the workplace (SRW) by Benefiel et al. (2014) suggests, as one of the future research challenges, the need for studying the relative role of individual spirituality and organizational spirituality. Specifically, Benefiel et al. (2014, pp. 182-183) note, “Research has not yet investigated whether employees bring spiritual values in the workplace, or adopt them to organizational requirements ( Jurkiewicz, 2010) […]. Thus, to understand SRW at the individual level, investigation into the integration of individual spiritual values with organizational cultural values is necessary.”
987
Individual spirituality and organizational
spirituality
D ow
nl oa
de d
by L
ib er
ty U
ni ve
rs ity
J er
ry F
al w
el l L
ib ra
ry A
t 1 0:
49 2
6 Se
pt em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
Thus, the above-outlined views and assessments in the existing literature suggest that there is a knowledge gap on the relative efficacy of organizational spirituality and an employee’s individual spirituality for enhancing workplace spirituality. The present paper seeks to address this knowledge gap by empirically examining the relationship of an employee’s individual spirituality and organizational spirituality with workplace spirituality. In the section below, it points out that individual spirituality, organizational spirituality, and workplace spirituality are distinct concepts. Thereafter, the hypotheses, methods, results, and discussion parts follow.
Employees’ individual spirituality, organizational spirituality, and workplace spirituality as three distinct concepts The examination of the influence of individual spirituality and organizational spirituality on workplace spirituality is based on the premise that these three are distinct constructs. These three are distinct constructs in that individual spirituality and organizational spirituality refer to an individual’s characteristics and to an organization’s features, respectively, but workplace spirituality refers to an employee’s certain workplace-bound experiences. This distinction is consistent with the various views in the literature as outlined below.
Individual spirituality tends to be characterized by an individual’s “closeness with God, and feelings of interconnectedness with the world and living things” (Zinnbauer et al., 1999, p. 896). Spirituality refers to individuals’ efforts to instill the sacred in their lives Zinnbauer et al. (1999). Another view suggests that “Spirituality reflects the presence of a relationship with a higher power or being that affects the way in which one operates in the world” (Fry, 2003, p. 705). Some views (e.g. Paloutzian et al., 2003) focus on spirituality as a tendency to seek transcendence and govern oneself by transcendental concerns. Thus, in general, individual spirituality can be viewed as an individual’s relationship with God, higher power, or the transcendent, and the reflection of this relationship in the individual’s functioning. This indicates that individual spirituality is a characteristic of an individual.
In contrast to individual spirituality as an individual’s characteristic, organizational spirituality is an organization’s possession of certain features such as spiritual values and practices. This view is reflected in Weitz et al. (2012, p. 256) who note, “OS, on the other hand, may be defined as ‘organizational culture guided by mission statement, leadership and business practices that are socially responsible and value driven, that recognizes the contributions employees make to the organization, that promotes individual spiritual development and well being’ (Kinjerski and Skrypnek, 2006, p. 262).” These descriptions of individual spirituality and organizational spirituality indicate that these two are distinct concepts. Consistent with this, Weitz et al. (2012, p. 265) expressed, “we differentiate between two levels of spirituality: individual and organizational.”
In contrast to the above, workplace spirituality components of meaning and community, for which comparable terms are calling and membership (Duchon and Plowman, 2005), are referred to in the literature as employees’ psychological states (Vandenberghe, 2011) and as employee experiences (e.g. Rego and Pina e Cunha, 2008). The domain of these experiences is workplace and hence workplace spirituality reflects employees’ workplace-bounded experiences such as meaning in work and community at work. Thus, workplace spirituality, being employee experiences in workplace, is distinct from an individual’s characteristic of individual spirituality or an organization’s feature of organizational spirituality.
The above discussion indicates that individual spirituality, organizational spirituality, and workplace spirituality are distinct concepts. Consistent with this, Vandenberghe’s (2011) model included workplace spirituality dimensions of calling and membership, for
988
LODJ 38,7
D ow
nl oa
de d
by L
ib er
ty U
ni ve
rs ity
J er
ry F
al w
el l L
ib ra
ry A
t 1 0:
49 2
6 Se
pt em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
which the corresponding alternative terms are meaning and community, personal spirituality, and organizational spiritual climate as three different concepts. Furthermore, the results of an empirical study of Fry et al. (2005) suggest that organizational spirituality- related features such as vision and altruistic love are distinct from the workplace spirituality experience dimensions of calling and membership. Thus, conceptual specifications, views in the literature, as well as empirical findings, as outlined above, suggest that individual spirituality, organizational spirituality, and workplace spirituality are distinct constructs. The hypothesized relationships of individual spirituality and organizational spirituality with workplace spirituality are outlined in the next section.
Hypotheses Hypotheses for the direct effects model The existing literature, as outlined below, suggests that both organizational spirituality and an employee’s individual spirituality can potentially shape the employee’s experience of workplace spirituality. Specifically, Kolodinsky et al. (2008) outline three possible conceptualizations of workplace spirituality. The two of the three views suggested by Kolodinsky et al. (2008), which can suggest a direct effects model of the influence of individual spirituality and organizational spirituality on workplace spirituality, are outlined below.
First, Kolodinsky et al. (2008, p. 466) note, “At the most basic level, workplace spirituality can be viewed as the incorporation of one’s own spiritual ideals and values in the work setting […] this view of workplace spirituality presumes that one’s personal spiritual values have an effect on worker behavior as well as interpretations of, and responses to, work- related events.” This view suggests that an employee’s individual spirituality can influence the employee’s workplace spirituality experiences.
Second, outlining the second view, Kolodinsky et al. (2008, pp. 466-467) note, “Workplace spirituality can also refer to a more macro-level view of the organization’s spiritual climate or culture.” This suggests that organizational spirituality can influence employee experiences of workplace spirituality.
Consistent with the above, the discussion in Ashmos and Duchon (2000) also suggests that an employee’s individual spirituality and organizational spirituality are likely to influence the employee’s experience of workplace spirituality. First, Ashmos and Duchon’s (2000, p. 134) view about individual spirituality suggests that “the spiritual dimension of human beings” is the “dimension concerned with finding and expressing meaning and purpose and living in relation to others and to something bigger than oneself […].” This suggests that individual spirituality reflects an individual’s urge to find meaning in life and to live in connection with others. Consistent with this, researchers (e.g. Yoon et al., 2015) have noted that individual spirituality influences meaning in life and/or connectedness with others. Thus, it is plausible that employees with high level of individual spirituality will seek and have high levels of workplace spirituality experiences.
Second, in indicating the role of organizational spirituality, Ashmos and Duchon (2000) suggest that workplace spirituality is likely to manifest to a greater extent in an organization that provides employees meaning in work and that supports and values employees. This suggestion is reflected in Ashmos and Duchon’s (2000, p. 137) view that “a workplace where people experience joy and meaning in their work is a place where spirituality is more observable […] a workplace in which people see themselves as part of trusting community, where they experience personal growth as a part of their work community, where they feel valued and supported, would be a workplace in which spirituality thrives.” Similarly, Pawar (2009b) specified organizational spiritual values as a factor influencing employee experiences of workplace spirituality. Furthermore, Fry (2003) proposed and Fry et al. (2005) found empirical support that certain organizational features such as culture of altruistic love and vision influence employee experiences of calling
989
Individual spirituality and organizational
spirituality
D ow
nl oa
de d
by L
ib er
ty U
ni ve
rs ity
J er
ry F
al w
el l L
ib ra
ry A
t 1 0:
49 2
6 Se
pt em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
(meaning) and membership (community) dimensions of workplace spirituality. These views and empirical findings suggest that organizational spirituality is likely to influence employee experiences of workplace spirituality.
The above discussion indicates that an employee’s individual spirituality and organizational spirituality are likely to make separate and additive contributions to the employee’s experience of meaning and community facets of workplace spirituality. Based on the above discussion, the following hypotheses are specified:
H1. There will be a positive relationship between employees’ individual spirituality and employee workplace spirituality experience of meaning and community.
H2. There will be a positive relationship between organizational spirituality and employee workplace spirituality experience of meaning and community.
The direct effects model suggested by the above two hypotheses is presented in Figure 1.
Hypotheses for the moderating effect model The above two hypotheses specifying a direct effects model were based on two distinct views of workplace spirituality outlined in Kolodinsky et al. (2008) and on other supportive literature. However, Kolodinsky et al. (2008, p. 467) outline a third view that “Yet a third conceptualization of workplace spirituality is an interactive one. From this vantage, workplace spirituality reflects the interaction between an individual’s personal spiritual values and the organization’s spiritual values” (emphasis added). This conceptualization suggests that the effect of one of these two factors – employees’ individual spirituality and organizational spirituality – will depend on the level of other factor. This suggests that one of these two factors will moderate the effect of other factor on employee experiences of workplace spirituality.
The plausibility of this inference about the likely interaction of individual spirituality and organizational spirituality is also reflected in Jurkiewicz and Giacalone (2004). Jurkiewicz and Giacalone (2004, p. 137) note, “might a very non-spiritual person have decreased personal performance in a spiritual environment because of the inconsistency between it and her own worldview? Similarly, might a highly spiritual individual in a moderately spiritual environment experience decreases in personal performance because the culture ‘is not spiritual enough’. The likelihood of interactive effects is intriguing and will require a great deal of research to understand.” It may be noted that while the focus of Jurkiewicz and Giacalone’s (2004) interactive effects discussion is on the outcome variable of employee performance, it also seems open to be extended to other outcome variables such as an employee’s experience of workplace spirituality. A similar inference emerges from Tombaugh et al. (2011, p. 163) who suggest that employees are likely to be more at ease in making overt spiritual expressions in those workplaces where the management supports spiritual values. This suggests that an employee’s individual spirituality is likely to more strongly manifest in the employee’s workplace spirituality experiences if the employee’s
Employees’ Individual Spirituality
Organizational Spirituality
Meaning in work
Community at work H2
H1
H1
H2
Figure 1. Direct effects model ( from H1 and H2)
990
LODJ 38,7
D ow
nl oa
de d
by L
ib er
ty U
ni ve
rs ity
J er
ry F
al w
el l L
ib ra
ry A
t 1 0:
49 2
6 Se
pt em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
organization possesses spiritual values. Based on the above discussion, the following hypothesis is specified:
H3. The relationship between employees’ individual spirituality and employee workplace spirituality experience of meaning and community will be moderated by organizational spirituality.
The moderating (interactive) effect model suggested by H3 is presented in Figure 2.
Methods Sample and procedures Data were collected from participants in various management development programs at a management institute in India. Different groups of participants came from different organizations and hence the study sample constitutes some employees from two electric power generation organizations, a warehousing organization, and academic institutes. The study questionnaire distribution, completion, and collection process occurred during exclusive time in the program classroom in the presence of the researcher. The questionnaire covering letter requested the participants to voluntarily complete the study questionnaire for the researcher’s academic research. While assuring confidentiality of the respondents’ information, the study questionnaire also required the participants to provide their names as a part of demographic information (e.g. age, gender, work experience). A total of 115 completed and usable questionnaires were received.
For the study participants, the average age was 42.61 years, 93.5 percent reported male gender, average of total work experience was 17.74 years, average years spent with the current organization was 14.22 years, and average years in the present position was 3.83 years. In terms of the highest education level completed, 39.3 percent had a bachelor’s degree and 46.4 percent had a master’s degree. Participants in the management development programs were from different types of organizations, thus yielding diversity of the participants in the study sample (45.22 percent from a thermal electricity generation organization, 15.65 percent from a hydro-based electricity generation organization, 21.74 percent from a central warehousing organization, and 17.39 percent from various academic organizations). Majority (64.9 percent) of the participants held positions of assistant manager, manager, senior manager, while some held the positions of general
Organizational Spirituality
Employees’ Individual Spirituality
Meaning in Work
Employees’ Individual Spirituality
Organizational Spirituality
Community at Work Figure 2.
Moderating effect model ( from H3)
991
Individual spirituality and organizational
spirituality
D ow
nl oa
de d
by L
ib er
ty U
ni ve
rs ity
J er
ry F
al w
el l L
ib ra
ry A
t 1 0:
49 2
6 Se
pt em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
manager (16.2 percent), associate professor (6.3 percent), and professor (5.4 percent). The functional departments of the participants included operations, finance and accounting, human resource management, and teaching.
Measures Workplace spirituality measures. The two components –meaning in work and community at work – of workplace spirituality were measured by the meaning and community scales from Ashmos and Duchon (2000) having seven and nine items, respectively. For both these scales, a seven-point response format ranging 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) was used. In the present study, Cronbach’s α reliability coefficient was 0.81 for the meaning scale and 0.85 for the community scale.
Individual spirituality. Individual spirituality was measured using the daily spiritual experiences scale (DSES) (e.g. Underwood, 2006). The DSES measures individuals’ daily life experiences such as mercy and gratitude emerging from their knowledge of and connection to the transcendent entity which may be termed as the divine or God. Underwood and Teresi (2002) provided evidence on the reliability and validity of DSES and also outlined its suitability for being used in other cultures. DSES is appropriate for measuring individual spirituality because Underwood (2006) pointed out that it is more effective than other measures in predicting outcomes. DSES contains 16 items of which the first 15 items have a six-point response format in which the extreme points range from “never or almost never” to “many times a day.” In this study, the scale response format was arranged from “never or almost never” (1) to “many times a day” (6) in order to maintain consistency with the ascending response format used for other scales in the study questionnaire. This anchor point ordering for the DSES response format used in the present study is different from the original anchor point ordering in DSES where anchor descriptors are arranged from “many times a day” (1) to “never or almost never” (6). An example item from DSES is, “I feel thankful for my blessings.” Item 16 in DSES is worded as “in general, how close do you feel to God?” and carries a four-point response format in which response options range from “not at all” (1) to “as close as possible” (4). Underwood (2006, p. 206) indicated that the four-point response format of item 16 “can be handled in a variety of ways.”As the other 15 items have a six-point response format, the score from four-point response option on item 16 was divided by 4 and multiplied by 6 to obtain this item’s transformed score on a six-point response range. Scale score was computed by dividing the sum of item scores by the number of items. Cronbach’s α reliability coefficient for this scale in the present study was 0.89.
Organizational spirituality. The organizational spiritual values scale (OSVS) used in Kolodinsky et al. (2008) was used for measuring organizational spirituality in the present study. Kolodinsky et al. (2008, p. 469) indicate that OSVS was prepared by rephrasing items from human spirituality scale of Wheat (1991, as cited in Kolodinsky et al., 2008) “into statements intended to assess one’s perceptions of spiritual values exhibited by one’s organization, rather than the individual’s personal spirituality.” OSVS has 20 items and a five-point response format with anchor points ranging from “completely false” (1) to “completely true” (5). An example item from OSVS is “This organization fosters giving to others in need.” Another example item from OSVS is “In this organization there is a real sense of connection with the world at large.” Scale score was computed by dividing the sum of item scores by the number of items. Cronbach’s α reliability coefficient for OSVS in the present study was 0.94.
Results[1] Consistent with the individual-level measurement and analysis practice adopted in the past workplace spirituality research (e.g. Milliman et al., 2003; Pawar, 2009b;
992
LODJ 38,7
D ow
nl oa
de d
by L
ib er
ty U
ni ve
rs ity
J er
ry F
al w
el l L
ib ra
ry A
t 1 0:
49 2
6 Se
pt em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
Rego and Pina e Cunha, 2008), this study also used the individual-level measurement and analysis. The means, standard deviations, and reliability levels for the study variables and the correlations between study variables are presented in Table I.
As reported in Table I, all the scales used in the study had reliability levels higher than 0.7 which is the minimum satisfactory recommended reliability level (e.g. Hair et al., 2006; Hinkin, 1995). The results of analysis, after controlling for study participants’ age, gender, and education, examining the support for the direct effects model (Figure 1) and the moderating effect model (Figure 2) are successively described below.
Results for the direct effects model The direct effects model (Figure 1) associated with H1 and H2 specified that an employee’s individual spirituality and organizational spirituality are likely to be positively associated with the employee’s workplace spirituality experience of meaning and community at work. To assess the support for H1 and H2, two separate multiple regression analyses were carried out. In the first regression equation, meaning and in the second regression equation, community was regressed on the independent variables of individual spirituality and organizational spirituality after controlling for participants’ age, gender, and education. The results of this analysis are presented in Table II.
In Table II results, both individual spirituality ( po0.05) and organizational spirituality ( po0.001) had a significant association with the meaning in work facet of workplace spirituality. Individual spirituality and organizational spirituality jointly
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4
1. Organizational spirituality 3.61 0.69 (0.94) 2. Individual spirituality 4.11 0.82 0.11 (0.89) 3. Meaning in work 4.03 0.55 0.54*** 0.29** (0.81) 4. Community at work 3.77 0.65 0.72*** 0.17 0.69*** (0.85) Notes: Effective sample size (n) varies for correlations between different pairs of variables. Cronbach’s α reliability coefficients are in parentheses on the diagonal of the table. **po0.01; ***po0.001
Table I. Descriptive statistics,
reliabilities, and correlations for study
variables
Dependent variables (workplace spirituality facets) Meaning in work Community at work
Control and independent variables B B
Intercept 1.6*** 0.735 Age 0.014* 0.013**** Gender 0.029 0.059 Education 0.042 0.037
R2 0.174** R2 0.16** F(3, 65) 4.568** F(3, 63) 3.994**
Organizational spirituality 0.323*** 0.621*** Individual spirituality 0.125* 0.036
ΔR2 0.219*** ΔR2 0.417*** F(2, 63) 11.395*** F(2, 61) 30.027*** Total R2 0.394*** Total R2 0.577*** F(5, 63) 8.175*** F(5, 61) 16.615***
Notes: Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported in the column titled “B.” *po0.05; **po0.01; ***po0.001; ****po0.1
Table II. Results of regressing
meaning and community on organizational spirituality and
individual spirituality
993
Individual spirituality and organizational
spirituality
D ow
nl oa
de d
by L
ib er
ty U
ni ve
rs ity
J er
ry F
al w
el l L
ib ra
ry A
t 1 0:
49 2
6 Se
pt em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
accounted for 21.9 percent ( po0.001) variance in meaning in work. Furthermore, individual spirituality did not have but organizational spirituality ( po0.001) had a significant association with the community at work facet of workplace spirituality. Individual spirituality and organizational spirituality jointly accounted for 41.7 percent ( po0.001) variance in community at work. Thus, H1 which specified a positive relationship of individual spirituality with the meaning and community facets of workplace spirituality was supported only for the meaning but not for the community facet of workplace spirituality. Furthermore, H2 which specified a positive relationship of organizational spirituality with the meaning and community facets of workplace spirituality was completely supported. Overall, the direct effects model (Figure 1) was completely supported for the direct effects of organizational spirituality but was only partly supported for the direct effects of individual spirituality.
Results for the moderating effect model The moderating effect model (Figure 2) associated with H3 specified that the effect of employees’ individual spirituality on employee workplace spirituality experiences of meaning and community will be moderated by organizational spirituality. To assess the support for this hypothesis, consistent with the practice of assessing support for moderating effects in the literature (e.g. McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992; Witt, 1991), moderated multiple regression was used. Two moderated multiple regression analyses were carried out. In one moderated multiple regression analysis, meaning in work was regressed on individual spirituality and organizational spirituality along with the control variables of participants’ age, gender, and education in step 1 and in step 2, the interaction term formed by the multiplicative product (e.g. Hair et al., 2006) of organizational spirituality and individual spirituality was entered. The significance of the interaction term in step 2 was used to examine whether the moderating effect of organizational spirituality on the relationship between individual spirituality and meaning in work was significant. In another moderated multiple regression analysis, community at work was regressed on individual spirituality and organizational spirituality along with the control variables of participants’ age, gender, and education in step 1 and in step 2, the interaction term formed by the multiplicative product (e.g. Hair et al., 2006) of organizational spirituality and individual spirituality was entered. The significance of the interaction term in step 2 was used to examine whether the moderating effect of organizational spirituality on the relationship between individual spirituality and community at work was significant. The results of these analyses are presented in Table III.
In Table III results, the interaction term and also the incremental variance added by the interaction term were not significant for both meaning in work and community at work facets of workplace spirituality. Thus, H3 and the associated moderating effect model failed to receive support.
Overall, the results indicate that the direct effects model is completely supported for organizational spirituality and partly supported for individual spirituality (Table II) but the moderating effect model failed to receive any support (Table III). At a more detailed level, organizational spirituality has a significant positive association with both meaning and community facets of workplace spirituality. However, individual spirituality has a direct association with meaning but not with community; thus, it serves as an antecedent of meaning but not of community. Furthermore, the lack of support for the moderating effect model indicates that individual spirituality and organizational spirituality do not have an interactive effect on the meaning and community facets of workplace spirituality implying that the effect of individual spirituality (organizational spirituality) on workplace spirituality facets of meaning and community is not moderated by organizational spirituality (individual spirituality).
994
LODJ 38,7
D ow
nl oa
de d
by L
ib er
ty U
ni ve
rs ity
J er
ry F
al w
el l L
ib ra
ry A
t 1 0:
49 2
6 Se
pt em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
Results of follow-up analysis performed to further understand the relative effects of individual spirituality and organizational spirituality The above-described pattern of results of the direct effects model suggests that organizational spirituality has greater efficacy than individual spirituality in influencing workplace spirituality experiences of employees. To examine this pattern further, follow-up analysis, separate from the analysis performed to test the study hypotheses, was performed for both the meaning and community facets of workplace spirituality to assess the unique effect of organizational spirituality beyond the effect of individual spirituality and the unique effect of individual spirituality beyond the effect of organizational spirituality. This was done by performing a series of stepwise regression analysis involving different sequence of entry of the organizational spirituality and individual spirituality as independent variables after controlling for participants’ age, gender, and education. The results of this follow-up analysis are presented in Table IV.
As indicated in Table IV, for the meaning facet of workplace spirituality as the dependent variable, individual spirituality and organizational spirituality, after controlling for participants’ age, gender, and education, jointly accounted for 21.9 percent (po0.001) variance. Of this variance of 21.9 percent, organizational spirituality, when entered before individual spirituality, accounted for 18.2 percent (po0.001) variance while individual spirituality, entered after organizational spirituality, accounted for only 3.7 percent ( po0.05) variance. Similarly, individual spirituality, when entered before organizational spirituality, accounted for 4.8 percent (po0.05) variance while organizational spirituality, entered after individual spirituality, accounted for 17.2 percent (po0.001) variance. This pattern indicates that for the meaning facet of workplace spirituality, the unique variance accounted for by organizational spirituality is
Dependent variables (workplace spirituality facets) Meaning in work Community at work
B B
Step 1 Step 1 (Only the control variables and main effect variables entered) Intercept 1.6*** Intercept 0.735*** Age 0.014* Age 0.013**** Gender 0.029 Gender 0.059 Education 0.042 Education 0.037 Organizational spirituality 0.323*** Organizational spirituality 0.621*** Individual spirituality 0.125* Individual spirituality 0.036 R2 0.394*** R2 0.577*** Step 2 Step 2 (Interaction term added to the above model)
(Interaction term added to the above model)
Intercept 0.25 Intercept 1.258 Age 0.013* Age 0.013**** Gender 0.031 Gender 0.060 Education 0.038 Education 0.038 Organizational spirituality 0.714 Organizational spirituality 0.467 Individual spirituality 0.471 Individual spirituality −0.096 (Organizational spirituality × individual spirituality)
−0.097ns (Organizational spirituality × individual spirituality)
0.037ns
Full model R2 0.402 Full model R2 0.577 ΔR2 due to the interaction term 0.008ns ΔR2 due to the interaction term 0.001ns
Notes: ns, not significant. Unstandardized coefficients are reported in the column titled “B.” *po0.05; ***po0.001; ****po0.1
Table III. Test for assessing the moderating effect of
organizational spirituality on the
relationship between individual spirituality and the meaning and community facets of
workplace spirituality
995
Individual spirituality and organizational
spirituality
D ow
nl oa
de d
by L
ib er
ty U
ni ve
rs ity
J er
ry F
al w
el l L
ib ra
ry A
t 1 0:
49 2
6 Se
pt em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
17.2 percent which is about five times higher than the unique variance of 3.7 percent accounted for by individual spirituality. This suggests that organizational spirituality has considerably stronger (nearly five times stronger) association than individual spirituality with the meaning facet of workplace spirituality.
For the community facet of workplace spirituality as the dependent variable (Table IV ), individual spirituality and organizational spirituality, after controlling for participants’ age, gender, and education, jointly accounted for 41.7 percent ( po0.001) variance. Of this variance of 41.7 percent, organizational spirituality, when entered before individual spirituality, accounted for 41.5 percent (po0.001) variance while individual spirituality, entered after organizational spirituality, accounted for only 0.2 percent (not significant) variance. Similarly, individual spirituality, when entered before organizational spirituality, accounted for only 1.5 percent (not significant) variance while organizational spirituality, entered after individual spirituality, accounted for 40.2 percent ( po0.001) variance. This pattern indicates that for the community facet of workplace spirituality, the unique variance accounted for by organizational spirituality is 40.2 percent which is about 200 times higher than the unique variance of 0.2 percent accounted for by individual spirituality. This suggests that organizational spirituality has vastly stronger, about 200 times stronger, association than individual spirituality with the community facet of workplace spirituality.
Discussion Theoretical contributions Five contributions of the study are outlined below. First, researchers (e.g. de Klerk, 2005; Duchon and Plowman, 2005) pointed out a need for more empirical research on the topic of workplace spirituality. This study provides an empirical assessment and thus addresses the need for greater empirical research on workplace spirituality.
Second, Tischler et al. (2007) suggested that workplace spirituality research studies need to build on the earlier studies. Addressing this requirement, the present study builds on the existing research on workplace spirituality. Kolodinsky et al. (2008) and Pawar (2008, 2009a)
Control and independent variable Dependent variable Meaning in
work Community at
work Variance (R2) Variance (R2)
Step 1: control variables (age, gender, education) (R2) 0.174** 0.16**
Variable entry order after control variables: organizational spirituality followed by individual spirituality Step 2: entered: organizational spirituality (ΔR2) 0.182*** 0.415*** Step 3: entered: individual spirituality (ΔR2) 0.037* 0.002 R2 due to individual spirituality and organizational spirituality 0.219*** 0.417*** Total R2 (due to control variables and independent variables of individual spirituality and organizational spirituality)
0.394*** 0.577***
Step 1: control variables (age, gender, education) (R2) 0.174** 0.16**
Variable entry order after control variables: individual spirituality followed by organizational spirituality Step 2: entered: individual spirituality (ΔR2) 0.048* 0.015 Step 3: entered: organizational spirituality (ΔR2) 0.172*** 0.402*** R2 due to individual spirituality and organizational spirituality 0.220*** 0.417*** Total R2 (due to control variables and independent variables of individual spirituality and organizational spirituality)
0.394*** 0.577***
Notes: *po0.05; **po0.01; ***po0.001
Table IV. Follow-up analysis: unique variance accounted for by organizational spirituality and individual spirituality in the meaning and community facets of workplace spirituality
996
LODJ 38,7
D ow
nl oa
de d
by L
ib er
ty U
ni ve
rs ity
J er
ry F
al w
el l L
ib ra
ry A
t 1 0:
49 2
6 Se
pt em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
suggested the possible influences of individual spirituality and organizational spirituality on workplace spirituality. Building on and extending such existing research, the present study empirically examined the influence of these two antecedents. Thus, this study builds on the existing literature and addresses the requirement (e.g. Tischler et al., 2007) for more adequately building on the existing literature.
Third, it can be inferred from the contents of review papers (e.g. Benefiel et al., 2014; Karakas, 2010) that there is considerable research on the outcomes of workplace spirituality. In contrast, not much research has empirically examined the antecedents of workplace spirituality. In light of this, the present study contributes to the workplace spirituality research by empirically examining the antecedents of workplace spirituality.
Fourth, as described in the early part of this paper, organizations are interested in enhancing workplace spirituality (e.g. Saks, 2011) and employees’ individual spirituality and organizational spirituality are two potential antecedents of workplace spirituality but there is a knowledge gap on the relative influence of these two antecedents on workplace spirituality. The results of the follow-up analysis (Table IV) of this study fill this knowledge gap in workplace spirituality research by revealing that organizational spirituality has much stronger (about five times stronger influence on meaning and about 200 times stronger influence on community) influence than individual spirituality on workplace spirituality. Each of the above four contributions addresses a distinct workplace spirituality research requirement for doing empirical research, building on the existing research, examining the antecedents of workplace spirituality, and revealing the relative influence of workplace spirituality antecedents.
Fifth, though the distinction between individual spirituality, organizational spirituality, and workplace spirituality can be inferred from the existing literature, it has not been explicitly and precisely specified in the existing research. Possibly as a result of this, the distinction between individual spirituality, organizational spirituality, and workplace spirituality is not always clearly grasped by researchers. For example, Rego and Pina e Cunha’s (2008, p. 63) workplace spirituality items included an item “The leaders of my organization try to be helpful to the larger social good of the community” which is more of a feature of an organization’s leadership. Thus, in the above example, the distinction between organizational spirituality and workplace spirituality is not clearly grasped. As another example, Weitz et al. (2012, p. 268) measured individual spirituality using spirit at work scale which includes measures of “meaning or purpose at work” and “sense of community” at work. However, as meaning and community at work are components of workplace spirituality (e.g. Albuquerque et al., 2014; Duchon and Plowman, 2005; Saks, 2011), Weitz et al. (2012) seem to be including workplace spirituality items in attempting to measure individual spirituality. Thus, this example illustrates inadequately clear grasp of the distinction between individual spirituality and workplace spirituality. In light of such occasional instances of inadequately clear distinction between individual spirituality, organizational spirituality, and workplace spirituality, this paper enhances the clarity of the distinction by: more explicitly and precisely pointing out, based on conceptual literature and empirical findings, in an earlier separate section that these three are distinct concepts; hypothesizing and identifying a systematic pattern of relationships among them; separately measuring them by using an available distinct measure for each three of them; and revealing through its results (Table I) that the present study’s empirically observed correlation between individual spirituality and organizational spirituality is very small at 0.11, the average correlation of individual spirituality with the meaning and community aspects of workplace spirituality is somewhat small at 0.23, and the average correlation of organizational spirituality with the meaning and community aspects of workplace spirituality is 0.63 (which implies an overlapping variance of about 39 percent (square of 0.63) and much greater unique or non-overlapping variance of 61 percent). This explicit
997
Individual spirituality and organizational
spirituality
D ow
nl oa
de d
by L
ib er
ty U
ni ve
rs ity
J er
ry F
al w
el l L
ib ra
ry A
t 1 0:
49 2
6 Se
pt em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
and precise distinction between individual spirituality, organizational spirituality, and workplace spirituality pointed out on the basis of the above four aspects in this paper will help future researchers to more clearly grasp and consistently follow the distinction while using these three terms.
Practical implications Given that workplace spirituality is associated with a variety of positive employee and organizational outcomes (e.g. Benefiel et al., 2014; Karakas, 2010), the presence of workplace spirituality features in an organization can make the organization a great place to work (Marques, 2005), and organizations are interested in enhancing workplace spirituality (Saks, 2011), practicing managers need guidance on what factors to act upon for enhancing workplace spirituality experiences of their employees. The present study’s findings make the following contributions to address this input requirement of practicing managers.
First, the results of the direct effects model and its follow-up analysis reveal that organizational spirituality is nearly five times and over 200 times more efficacious than individual spirituality in influencing the workplace spirituality components of meaning and community, respectively. Thus, the results of the present study provide the first action guideline for managers that for enhancing employee experiences of workplace spirituality in their organizations, managers should primarily focus on enhancing organizational spirituality and then secondarily consider enhancing employees’ individual spirituality.
Second, the results of the moderating effect model indicate that employees’ individual spirituality and organizational spirituality do not have an interactive effect on the meaning and community facets of workplace spirituality. This suggests that if managers enhance organizational spirituality for workplace spirituality facilitation, then the effect of organizational spirituality enhancement will not vary across employees having different individual spirituality levels. Thus, the action guideline for managers is that they can implement organizational spirituality improvement which may enhance employee experience of the meaning and community facets of workplace spirituality regardless of the employees’ individual spirituality level. Another associated action guideline is that managers should focus more on organizational development efforts to enhance spiritual features in an organization than on HRM activities such as selection activity to select employees having high levels of individual spirituality or training activity to enhance individual spirituality of employees.
Third, while the results of this study suggest that managers should focus on enhancing organizational spirituality, several specific action areas for managers can be identified from the existing literature. For example, Jurkiewicz and Giacalone (2004) proposed that values such as benevolence, humanism, respect, justice, and trust can be incorporated in an organization’s culture for the organization to exhibit workplace spirituality. Thus, instilling spiritual values in an organization’s culture is one possible approach to enhance organizational spirituality and, through it, workplace spirituality. The description of spiritual leadership theory (e.g. Fry, 2003, 2005) also suggests that certain organizational features such as a vision which emphasizes service and a culture of altruistic love can enhance employee experiences of workplace spirituality. Thus, for enhancing organizational spirituality, managers can focus on various specific actions to incorporate spiritual values in an organization’s culture and to adopt a vision that emphasizes service to others and provides meaning.
Limitations While this study makes contributions to the workplace spirituality literature, it also has some limitations. Two of the study limitations are outlined below.
998
LODJ 38,7
D ow
nl oa
de d
by L
ib er
ty U
ni ve
rs ity
J er
ry F
al w
el l L
ib ra
ry A
t 1 0:
49 2
6 Se
pt em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
First, the data on dependent and independent variables were obtained from the same source (respondents) in the self-report format. This creates the potential for common method variance (e.g. Podsakoff et al., 2003). However, the nature of independent variables – organizational spirituality and individual spirituality – and the dependent variable – the meaning and community facets of workplace spirituality – is such that it partly necessitated the collection of the data on dependent and independent variables from a single source (respondents). Consistent with this, the inevitability of using the self-report measures for assessing perceptions, emotions, or attitudes is noted by Spector (2006). This may suggest that the likelihood of common methods variance is unavoidable in some circumstances. Furthermore, some researchers (e.g. Crampton and Wagner, 1994; Spector, 2006) have indicated that percept-percept inflation and common method variance problem may not be as significant an issue as it may appear from some of the literature. These two views may indicate the likely inevitability and limited significance of common method variance and they, thus, may alleviate the concern about the common method variance in this study. Moreover, to control common method variance, one of the procedural remedies recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003, p. 888) is “to assure respondents that there are no right or wrong answers and that they should answer questions as honestly as possible.” Consistent with this recommendation, the study questionnaire’s first page contained a similar request to respondents for completing the study questionnaire. The above-discussed two views from the literature about the likely inevitability and limited significance of common method variance and adoption of a procedural remedy recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003) to control the common method variance may alleviate the concerns about common method variance in this study.
Second, another limitation of this study is that while the relationship of organizational spirituality and individual spirituality with workplace spirituality, in the hypothesis specification and discussion, is implied to be a causal one, the test of the hypothesis through the regression analysis does not completely examine the causality. More adequate assessment of causality would require a field experiment design. However, to the best of the author’s understanding, this is the first study to examine the empirical support for the direct effects model and moderating effect model specified in this study. Further extension of this study, encouraged by the present findings, through future research can do a more adequate assessment of causality.
Directions for future research The results of this study suggest quite a few directions for future research as outlined below. First, future research should focus on extending the direct effects model and avoid pursuing further the present moderating effect model. The direct effects model, which received support in the present study, can be extended by adding antecedents other than individual spirituality and organizational spirituality in order to more adequately explain the variance accounted for in workplace spirituality. For example, spiritual values of employees’ supervisors are one of the potential antecedents which could be explored in future research.
Second, while the direct effects model linking the antecedents of individual spirituality and organizational spirituality with the meaning and community facets of workplace spirituality received support, the relationship of these antecedents with the meaning facet is different from their relationship with the community facet. For example, individual spirituality and organizational spirituality jointly account for much greater variance in community (R2¼ 41.7 percent) than in meaning (R2¼ 21.9 percent) (Table II). This pattern of findings suggests that the meaning and community facets of workplace spirituality have somewhat different characteristics implying that it may be relevant for future research to examine the differential antecedents of meaning and community components of workplace spirituality.
999
Individual spirituality and organizational
spirituality
D ow
nl oa
de d
by L
ib er
ty U
ni ve
rs ity
J er
ry F
al w
el l L
ib ra
ry A
t 1 0:
49 2
6 Se
pt em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
Third, the direct effects model results indicate the presence of strong direct effects but do not point out the possible mediating mechanisms through which the association of organizational spirituality and individual spirituality with the meaning and community facets of workplace spirituality occurs. Thus, specifying and examining the empirical support for the possible mediators of organizational spirituality and individual spirituality is a relevant direction for future research.
Fourth, given that the results (Tables II and IV) of the present study indicate that organizational spirituality has a strong association with workplace spirituality, future research can examine the situations in which this association is strengthened or weakened. This suggests that the future research needs to examine the moderators of the relationship between organizational spirituality and the meaning and community facets of workplace spirituality. This research on moderators will help understand whether the direct relationship between organizational spirituality and workplace spirituality found in this study has different levels of strengths in different contexts characterized by features such as organizational characteristics (age, size, sector, etc.) and employee characteristics (employee personality, etc.).
Fifth, both quantitative and qualitative approaches can be used to study spirituality at workplace (e.g. Heaton et al., 2004). Furthermore, Benefiel (2003) notes the importance of quantitative approach for researching spirituality in organizations. Consistent with the utility of quantitative approach for studying spirituality in workplace, this study used the quantitative (positivistic) approach and revealed the relative influence of individual spirituality and organizational spirituality on workplace spirituality. To extend and complement the present study for obtaining more fine-grained understanding of the issue, future research can use the qualitative (interpretive) approach to understand the differences between the qualitative nature of employee experiences of workplace spirituality coming from individual spirituality enhancement and employee experiences of workplace spirituality coming from organizational spirituality enhancement.
Sixth, this study explicitly and precisely pointed out that an employee’s individual spirituality, organizational spirituality, and workplace spirituality are three distinct concepts and illustrated that at times the distinction between these three concepts is not adequately grasped in the use of these terms in the existing research. Furthermore, the study findings provide empirical support for a certain systematic pattern of relationship among these three concepts. In light of this, one direction for future research is to develop measures of workplace spirituality concept which adequately reflect the distinction of this concept from the concepts of organizational spirituality and individual spirituality.
Seventh, future research can also more adequately assess the causal relationship of the antecedent variables – individual spirituality and organizational spirituality – with workplace spirituality. For this, future research may use field experiment designs.
Eighth, though the present findings emerge from a reasonably diverse sample coming from several different types of organizations and hold even after controlling for participant age, gender, and education, they are likely to have limited generalizability because of the sample characteristics. As external validity reflects generalizability of study findings “across different measures, settings, and populations” (Mitchell, 1985, p. 198), future research should use different measures and samples from different populations and settings to further enhance generalizability of the present study findings.
Conclusion This study is of theoretical significance as it addressed the research requirements expressed in the existing workplace spirituality research for greater empirical research, empirical research that builds on the existing research, and empirical research for examining the relative influence of individual spirituality and organizational spirituality on workplace spirituality.
1000
LODJ 38,7
D ow
nl oa
de d
by L
ib er
ty U
ni ve
rs ity
J er
ry F
al w
el l L
ib ra
ry A
t 1 0:
49 2
6 Se
pt em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
This study also has practical significance because managers are interested in enhancing workplace spirituality (e.g. Saks, 2011) and the study results suggest to managers that they should primarily improve organizational spirituality in order to enhance employee experiences of workplace spirituality. The study results also provide eight specific future research directions to meaningfully extend workplace spirituality research.
Note
1. In the organizational spirituality scale containing 20 items, item 13 is negatively worded and was reverse coded for being used in data analysis. The reverse-scored item had low negative or positive correlations with other 19 items and hence it was dropped and OS scale formed with the remaining 19 items was used in the analysis results presented and used in the paper. However, a separate analysis was also done with a full 20-item organizational spirituality scale and the substantive results pattern from it (in terms of the support for hypotheses) was the same as results from the use of organizational spirituality scale containing 19 items.
References
Albuquerque, I.F., Cunha, R.C., Martins, L.D. and Britosa, A. (2014), “Primary health care services: workplace spirituality and organizational performance”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 59-82.
Ashmos, D.P. and Duchon, D. (2000), “Spirituality at work: a conceptualization and measure”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 134-145.
Benefiel, M. (2003), “Mapping the terrain of spirituality in organization research”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 16, pp. 367-377.
Benefiel, M., Fry, L.W. and Geigle, D. (2014), “Spirituality and religion in the workplace: history, theory, and research”, Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 175-187.
Crampton, S.M. and Wagner, J.A. III (1994), “Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: an investigation of prevalence and effect”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 67-76.
de Klerk, J.J. (2005), “Spirituality, meaning in life, and work wellness: a research agenda”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 64-88.
Duchon, D. and Plowman, D.A. (2005), “Nurturing spirit at work: impact on work unit performance”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 807-833.
Fry, L.W. (2003), “Toward a theory of spiritual leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp. 693-727.
Fry, L.W. (2005), “Toward a theory of ethical and spiritual well-being, and corporate social responsibility through spiritual leadership”, in Giacalone, R., Jurkiewicz, C. and Dunn, C. (Eds), Positive Psychology in Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, pp. 47-83.
Fry, L.W., Vittucci, S. and Cedillo, M. (2005), “Spiritual leadership and army transformation: theory, measurement, and establishing a baseline”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 835-862.
Geigle, D. (2012), “Workplace spirituality empirical research: A literature review ”, Business and Management Review, Vol. 2 No. 10, pp. 14-27.
Geh, E.Z. (2014), “Organizational spiritual leadership of worlds ‘made’ and ‘found’ ”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 137-151.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, Dorling Kindersley, New Delhi.
Heaton, D.P., Schmidt-Wilk, J. and Travis, F. (2004), “Constructs, methods, and measures for researching spirituality in organizations”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 17, pp. 62-82.
Hinkin, T.R. (1995), “A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 21, pp. 967-988.
1001
Individual spirituality and organizational
spirituality
D ow
nl oa
de d
by L
ib er
ty U
ni ve
rs ity
J er
ry F
al w
el l L
ib ra
ry A
t 1 0:
49 2
6 Se
pt em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
Jurkiewicz, C.L. and Giacalone, R.A. (2004), “A values framework for measuring the impact of workplace spirituality on organizational performance”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 49, pp. 129-142.
Karakas, F. (2010), “Spirituality and performance in organizations: a literature review”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 89-106.
Kolodinsky, R.W., Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L. (2008), “Workplace values and outcomes: exploring personal, organizational, and interactive workplace spirituality”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 81, pp. 465-480.
McFarlin, D.B. and Sweeney, P.D. (1992), “Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 626-637.
Marques, J. (2005), “HR’s crucial role in the establishment of spirituality in the workplace”, The Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 27-31.
Milliman, J., Czaplewski, A.J. and Ferguson, J. (2003), “Workplace spirituality and employee work attitudes: an exploratory empirical assessment”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 426-447.
Mitchell, T.R. (1985), “An evaluation of the validity of correlational research conducted in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 192-205.
Paloutzian, R.F., Emmons, R.A. and Keortge, S.G. (2003), “Spiritual well-being, spiritual intelligence, and healthy workplace policy”, in Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L. (Eds), The Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance, ME, Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 123-136.
Pawar, B.S. (2008), “Two approaches to workplace spirituality facilitation: a comparison and implications”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 544-567.
Pawar, B.S. (2009a), “Workplace spirituality facilitation: a comprehensive model”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 90, pp. 375-386.
Pawar, B.S. (2009b), “Individual spirituality, workplace spirituality and work attitudes: an empirical test of direct and interaction effects”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 759-777.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Rego, A. and Pina e Cunha, M. (2008), “Workplace spirituality and organizational commitment: an empirical study”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 21, pp. 53-75.
Saks, A.M. (2011), “Workplace spirituality and employee engagement”, Journal of Management, Spirituality, and Religion, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 317-340.
Sheep, M.L. (2006), “Nurturing the whole person: the effects of workplace spirituality in a society of organizations”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 66, pp. 357-375.
Shinde, U. and Fleck, E. (2015), “What spirituality can bring to leaders and managers: enabling creativity, empathy and a stress free workplace”, Journal of Organizational Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 101-110.
Spector, P.E. (2006), “Method variance in organizational research”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 221-232.
Tischler, L., Biberman, J. and Altman, Y. (2007), “A model for researching about spirituality in organizations”, Business Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 23-37.
Tombaugh, J.R., Mayfield, C. and Durand, R. (2011), “Spiritual expressions at work: exploring the active voice of workplace spirituality”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 146-170.
Underwood, L.G. (2006), “Ordinary spiritual experience: qualitative research, interpretive guidelines, and population distribution for daily spiritual experience scale”, Archive of the Psychology of Religion, Vol. 28, pp. 181-218.
1002
LODJ 38,7
D ow
nl oa
de d
by L
ib er
ty U
ni ve
rs ity
J er
ry F
al w
el l L
ib ra
ry A
t 1 0:
49 2
6 Se
pt em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
Underwood, L.G. and Teresi, J.A. (2002), “The daily spiritual experience scale: development, theoretical description, reliability, exploratory factor analysis and preliminary construct validity using health-related data”, Annals of Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 22-33.
Vandenberghe, C. (2011), “Workplace spirituality and organizational commitment: an integrative model”, Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 211-232.
Weitz, E., Vardi, Y. and Setter, O. (2012), “Spirituality and organizational behavior”, Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 255-281.
Whitaker, B.G. and Westerman, J.W. (2014), “Linking spirituality and values through psychological measurement”, Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 269-291.
Witt, L.A. (1991), “Exchange ideology as a moderator of job attitudes-organizational citizenship behaviors relationships”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 21, pp. 1490-1501.
Yoon, E., Chang, C.C., Clawson, A., Knoll, M., Aydin, F., Barsigian, L. and Hughes, K. (2015), “Religiousness, spirituality, and eudaimonic and hedonic well-being”, Counseling Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 132-149.
Zinnbauer, B.J., Pargament, K.I. and Scott, A.B. (1999), “The emerging meanings of religiousness and spirituality: problems and prospects”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 67 No. 6, pp. 889-919.
Further reading
Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L. (2003), “Toward a science of workplace spirituality”, in Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L. (Eds), The Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance, ME, Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 3-28.
About the author Dr Badrinarayan Shankar Pawar received PhD from Oklahoma State University in 1996 (with the highest possible grade point average (GPA) of 4 out of 4). He has conducted research in various areas including organizational citizenship behavior, transformational leadership, and workplace spirituality. His single-authored or coauthored academic works include articles published in Academy of Management Review, Long Range Planning, Journal of Business Ethics, Applied Research in Quality of Life, Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, Journal of Management Education, Best Papers Proceedings of the Academy of Management, two chapters in books published in the USA and the Netherlands, and paper presentations at the Academy of Management. He has also served as the guest editor for a special issue of Journal of Organizational Change Management on transformational leadership (2004, Volume 17 (2)). His most recent publications include six articles since 2008 on topics related to workplace spirituality. He has also published two books. Dr Badrinarayan Shankar Pawar can be contacted at: [email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
1003
Individual spirituality and organizational
spirituality
D ow
nl oa
de d
by L
ib er
ty U
ni ve
rs ity
J er
ry F
al w
el l L
ib ra
ry A
t 1 0:
49 2
6 Se
pt em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
