questions
nb1234567
reading.pdf
The Relationship between the Integration of Faith and Work with Life and Job Outcomes
Alan G. Walker
Received: 23 January 2012 / Accepted: 25 February 2012 / Published online: 25 March 2012 ! Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract Gallup surveys consistently show that nine in 10 Americans express a belief in God (Nash, Business,
religion, and spirituality: A new synthesis, 2003), while
more than 45 % claim to have some awareness of God on the job (Nash and McLellan, Church on Sunday, Work on
Monday: The Challenges of Fusing Christian Values with
Business Life, 2001). Recently, Lynn et al. (Journal of Business Ethics 85:227–243, 2009) argued that the ability
to integrate the specific beliefs and practices of one’s faith
with the work one does represent an important although neglected area of research. As such, they developed and
demonstrated convergent validity for the faith at work
scale, designed to measure the extent to which individuals believe they are able to integrate their Judaeo-Christian
beliefs and practices and their work. In a subsequent study,
Lynn et al. (Human Relations 64:675–701, 2010) demon- strated that the faith at work scale was related to faith
maturity, church attendance, age, and denominational
strictness, and negatively associated with organizational size. No research, however, has examined the possible
positive benefits of integrating faith and work. I therefore developed and tested hypotheses concerning the relation-
ship between the faith at work scale and seven important
life and work outcomes (satisfaction with life, intent to leave one’s job, self-rated job performance, job satisfac-
tion, and three forms of organizational commitment). In all,
four of seven hypotheses were confirmed.
Keywords Religion ! Spirituality ! Faith at work
Introduction
It appears that having a belief in a higher being or God is
quite pervasive, at least in the United States, given George Gallup’s surveys consistently show that nine in 10 Amer-
icans express a belief in God (Nash 2003). Gallup also
reported that more than 45 % of respondents who were religious claimed to have some awareness of God on the
job (Nash and McLennan 2001). Further, Lynn et al. (2009)
cited evidence from the Baylor religion survey that 84 % of the US population is affiliated with either Judaism or
Christianity.
However, despite the pervasiveness of a belief in a higher being or God in the US, management researchers
have been reluctant to invest energy and attention to this
issue. King (2008) noted that although religion plays a significant role in the lives and interactions of individuals,
management scholars have only lightly and narrowly
explored how religion’s influence is manifested in the workplace. King (2008) concluded that it is time, wholly
appropriate, and important for the management field, to apply its expertise to systematically exploring the nexus of
these two important and enduring human institutions,
religion and work (p. 221). Pfeffer (2003) appears to agree, noting that employed
individuals spend a lot of their waking hours engaged in
work. They further noted that because of the time, energy, and investment spent at work that many individuals derive
a large part of their social self-identity based, in part, on the
work that they perform. Pfeffer therefore argues that what happens at work has significant implications for individu-
als’ mental and physical health and well-being. Unfortu-
nately, Nash and McLennan (2001) have noted in their widely read book ‘‘Church on Sunday, Work on Monday’’
that many individuals perceive themselves as living largely
A. G. Walker (&) Department of Management, Center for Ethical Organizational Cultures, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA e-mail: [email protected]
123
J Bus Ethics (2013) 112:453–461
DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1271-0
bifurcated lives, with a near total separation between their
faith and work. Nash and McLennan’s (2001) interviews with dozens of individuals revealed that this separation of
faith and work causes significant tension, stress, and con-
cern for many individuals. Similarly, Lynn et al. (2009) noted that the ability for
individuals to integrate the specific beliefs and practices of
one’s religion into their working lives represents an important although neglected area of research within the
realm of spirituality and religion at work. As such, they sought to develop a measure of the extent to which indi-
viduals perceive they have the ability to integrate their
Judaeo-Christian beliefs and practices with their work. In developing their measure Lynn et al. (2009) utilized
Rossiter’s (2002) conceptually focused scale development
model and classic scale development procedures. In an initial effort, Lynn et al. gathered data on 59 potential items
measuring the integration of faith and work from 234
individuals. Results of a principal axis factor analysis revealed that a single factor accounted for 59.22 % of the
variance. Lynn et al. retained 15 items for the final version
the ‘‘faith at work scale’’ based on the four criteria of (a) item intercorrelations and item-scale correlations,
(b) degrees of skewness and Kurtosis, (c) factor com-
monalities, and (d) degree of factor loadings. Lynn et al. were also able to provide evidence for convergent validity
by demonstrating a significant positive relationship
between the faith at work scale and Donahue’s 12-item short-form of the faith maturity scale (r = .81; p \ .0001).
In a subsequent study, Lynn et al. (2010) examined
whether or not the ability to integrate faith and work may be affected by variables such as age, gender, pay,
denominational group membership, and formative influ-
ences. Results from a stratified sample of 412 business school alumni indicated that work-faith integration was the
strongest for those individuals who (a) were older,
(b) reported deep faith maturity as measured by the Do- nahue short-form of the faith maturity scale, (c) reported
attending religious services frequently, and (d) are affili-
ated with more strict denominations (where Evangelical and Mormons were coded as strict, while mainline prot-
estants and catholics were coded as less strict). Interest-
ingly, results also revealed that faith at work was negatively related to organizational size indicating that
respondents reported less ability to integrate their faith and
work in larger organizations. While the two studies summarized above offer evidence
for the validity of the faith at work scale and also provide
some evidence concerning what can affect the ability of individuals to integrate their faith and work, empirical
evidence linking the degree of integration of faith and work
to important life and work-related outcomes is at present non-existent. The purpose of my study, therefore, is to
hypothesize and then empirically test potential relation-
ships between the ability to integrate one’s faith and work as measured by the faith at work scale and measures of life
satisfaction, intent to leave one’s current job, self-reported
job performance, job satisfaction and affective, normative, and continuance organizational commitment. In the fol-
lowing section, I discuss why each of the six outcome
variables should be related to the ability to integrate faith and work.
Satisfaction with Life
Given that work is an important aspect of employed peo-
ple’s lives and that the majority of individuals in the US
express a belief in a higher being or God it would seem reasonable that to the extent that one can integrate these
two important components of life that one’s overall satis-
faction with life would be improved. Thus, while research to date has supported the psychometric soundness of the
faith at work scale, the ability to integrate faith and work
should result in positive benefits for individuals of faith. More specifically, I expect the ability to integrate faith and
work as measured by the faith at work scale to be associ-
ated with higher life satisfaction.
Hypothesis 1 There will be a positive relationship between the faith at work scale and a measure of satis-
faction with life.
Intent to Leave
Given the ability to integrate one’s faith and work is likely
a very desirable situation for people of faith, I would also expect that those who are able to integrate their faith and
work in their current job will value this situation, and thus report less intent to leave. In other words, I expect that to
the extent that one’s current job situation allows them to
integrate their faith and work they will be less likely to leave their current job.
Hypothesis 2 There will be a negative relationship between the faith at work scale and intent to leave one’s job.
Self-reported Job Performance
I also expect that the ability to integrate one’s faith and
work should be associated with better job performance. This is because the ability to integrate one’s faith and work
should allow people of faith to be more fully engaged on
the job, thus resulting in improved innovativeness and creativity.
454 A. G. Walker
123
Hypothesis 3 There will be a positive relationship between the faith at work scale and a measure of self-
reported, in-role job performance.
Job Satisfaction
Perhaps the most obvious positive outcome concerning the
ability to integrate faith and work is improved job satis- faction. That is, to the extent that one’s job allows them to
integrate their faith and work, I expect them to report
greater job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 4 There will be a positive relationship between the faith at work scale and a measure of job
satisfaction.
Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment has been conceptualized and
operationalized by Allen and Meyer (1990) as consisting of three distinct domains: affective commitment, continuance
commitment, and normative commitment. Affective com-
mitment refers to the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in, the organization.
Continuance commitment is based on the costs that the employee associates with leaving the organization. Finally,
normative commitment refers to the employee’s feelings of
moral obligation to remain with the organization. I expect that to the extent that one’s job provides the
ability to integrate faith and work that this will be associ-
ated with positive emotional affect along with a sense of attachment and commitment to the organization. Thus:
Hypothesis 5 There will be a positive relationship between the faith at work scale and a measure of affective organizational commitment.
I also expect that to the extent that one’s job provides the ability to integrate faith and work that this will be
associated with a sense of obligation and/or reciprocity
toward the organization which will be associated with higher levels of normative commitment.
Hypothesis 6 There will be a positive relationship between the faith at work scale and a measure of normative commitment.
Finally, I expect that to the extent one’s job provides the ability to integrate faith and work that this will be associ-
ated with self-reported intentions to remain with the
organization. That is, I expect the ability to integrate faith and work to combine with other potential benefits such as
valued relationships with co-religionists, pension plans,
stock options etc., thus enhancing the negative conse-
quences of leaving (e.g., the loss of valued relationships).
Hypothesis 7 There will be a positive relationship between the Faith at Work Scale and a measure of con- tinuance commitment.
Methods
Participants
Participants were 216 individuals recruited from the
StudyResponse pool of participants hosted by the School of Information Studies at Syracuse University. This pool of
candidates serves as an on-line, social science research
resource. The StudyResponse database consists of over 50,000 registered, volunteer panelists, making many dif-
ferent types of research projects feasible. Utilizing the
StudyResponse dataset, I was able to configure a custom- ized sample for my study that included only individuals
who were 19 years of age or older, employed for at least a
year, and working in the USA. StudyResponse sent anon- ymous and confidential recruiting messages to 330 indi-
viduals in their database. Of these 330, 275 finished both
waves of my data collection efforts for a response rate of 83 %. I then deleted 41 participants who indicated that they
were atheists. This was because to integrate faith and work
one must first be a person of faith. That is, it would be conceptually meaningless to measure the degree to which
an atheist perceives that they have an opportunity to inte-
grate their faith and work given faith or religion is not a perceived element of their self-identity to begin with. I also
deleted four Muslims given the Judeao-Christian nature of
the faith at work scale. Finally, I deleted another 14 cases due to excessive missing data. This resulted in a final
sample size of 216. StudyResponse provided me with a database of demo-
graphic information for all 330 panelists who were initially
invited so that I could compare responders to non-responders on these demographic variables. Results indicated that
responders were slightly older than non-responders (37.7 vs
35.02 years old; t = -2.52, df = 328, p \ .05), but did not differ in terms of race, sex, or education level.
Of the 216 participants who responded to both waves of
data collection, 114 or 52.8 % were male, 163 or 75.5 % indicated that they were Caucasian, 22 or 10.2 % were
Asian or Pacific Islander, 9 or 4.2 % were African Amer-
ican, 9 or 4.2 % were Latin American, and 5 or 2.3 % were Native American. Eight participants or 3.7 % did not
indicate their race. With regard to religious denominations,
73 participants or 33.8 % indicated that they were Catholic, 37 or 17.1 % indicated that they did not belong to any
Integration of Faith and Work 455
123
religious denomination, 40 or 18.5 % were Protestant, 34
or 15.7 % were non-denominational Christians, and 13 or 6.0 % were Jewish. Nineteen participants or 8.8 %, did not
respond to the denomination demographic variable. Par-
ticipants had been with their current employer, on average, between 5 and 9 years (85 or 39.4 % of my participants
indicated that they had been with their current employer for
‘‘5–9 years’’). 45 % (98) of participants indicated that they had earned a bachelor’s degree. A wide range of occupa-
tions was represented from bar tenders to medical doctors. The average age of participants was 39.
Design and Procedure
In order to minimize response set and common method
variance issues, the data were collected in two waves separated by 6 weeks. I believed that 6 weeks was a suf-
ficient time to insure that responses from the first wave
would have little or no impact on responses from the sec- ond wave, but not so long that I might run the risk of losing
participant interest. In addition to collecting data at two
points in time, I also varied the order of presentation of the scales to avoid the possibility that participants, in an effort
to maintain cognitive consistency, might alter their
responses on the faith at work scale to be more consistent or commensurate with their responses on the life and work
outcome variables (or vice versa). I also counterbalanced
my data collection. That is, half of the participants (chosen at random) completed the faith at work scale and demo-
graphic items in wave 1 and the life and work outcome
measures in wave 2, whereas the other half of respondents completed the life and work outcome measures in wave 1
and the faith at work and demographic items in wave 2.
Measures
Faith at Work Scale
The degree to which participants integrated their religious
beliefs and practices and their work was measured using the 15-item faith at work scale developed by Lynn et al.
(2009). This scale was based on several critical assump-
tions. First, it is based on the assumption that the focus of such a scale should be at the individual level, and more
specifically, individuals’ perceptions of how and to what
degree their religious beliefs and practices integrate with their work. Second, the scale was developed to be appli-
cable to a broad range of Judaeo-Christian traditions,
occupations, and demographics. That is, it was developed to be applicable to a wide variety of individuals—espe-
cially given the religious language used in the scale is
broad and inclusive, and that 84 % of Americans report being affiliated with either Judaism or Christianity. A five-
point Likert-type scale was used where 1 = never or infrequently and 5 = always or frequently. Example items include ‘‘I sense God’s presence while I work,’’ ‘‘I view my
work as a partnership with God,’’ and ‘‘I see connections
between my worship and my work’’. Lynn et al. (2009, 2010) reported the reliability of the faith at work scale to be
.77. In the current study, the reliability of the faith at work
scale was .98.
Life Satisfaction
Life satisfaction was measured using the satisfaction with
life scale (SWLS) developed by Diener et al. (1985). The SWLS was designed to narrowly assess global life satis-
faction and does not measure closely-related constructs
such as positive affect or loneliness. The five items include, ‘‘In most ways my life is close to my ideal,’’ ‘‘The con-
ditions of my life are excellent,’’ ‘‘I am satisfied with my
life,’’ ‘‘So far I have gotten the important things I want in life,’’ and ‘‘If I could live my life over, I would change
almost nothing.’’ Diener et al. (1985) report a 2 month
test–retest reliability to be .82. In the present study the reliability was estimated to be .92.
Intent to Leave
The three-item intent to leave scale adapted in a modified
version for brevity from Mobley et al. (1978) was admin- istered. A five-point Likert-type scale was used where
1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. Higher scores indicate more intent to leave one’s job. The three items include, ‘‘The thought of quitting my job often
crosses my mind,’’ ‘‘I often consider finding a new job,’’
and ‘‘I often actively look for a new job.’’ In the present study the reliability of the intent to leave scale was .88.
Job Performance
Self-reported in-role job performance was measured using
a five-item scale developed by Podsakoff (1989) and sub- sequently used by Janssen and Van Yperen (2004). The
five items are designed to assess the quality and quantity of
in-role work tasks and utilizes a seven-point Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. The five items include, ‘‘I always complete the duties
specified in my job description,’’ ‘‘I meet all the formal performance requirements of my job,’’ ‘‘I fulfill all
responsibilities required by my job,’’ ‘‘I never neglect
aspects of the job that I am obligated to perform,’’ and ‘‘I often fail to perform essential duties.’’ Jansses and Van
Yperen (Janssen and Van Yperen 2004) report reliability to
be .85. In the present study the reliability was .77.
456 A. G. Walker
123
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction was measured using five items from the Brayfield–Rothe (1951) job satisfaction scale. This short
form of the Brayfield–Rothe scale has been widely used in
previous research (e.g. Judge et al. 2005, 2004, 2003, 2000). The five items include, ‘‘Most days I am enthusi-
astic about my work,’’ ‘‘I feel fairly satisfied with my
present job,’’ ‘‘I find real enjoyment in my work,’’ ‘‘Each day at work seems like it will never end,’’ and ‘‘I consider
my job rather unpleasant.’’ The last two items are reverse
scored. The scale was rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. The reliability for this scale in the present study was .83.
Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment was measured using the scale developed by Allen and Meyer (1990). The scale utilizes a
seven point Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree and contains items designed to assess all three components of organizational commitment.
Allen and Meyer (1990) define affective commitment as
employees’ emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in, the organization. The scale contains
eight items assessing affective commitment. Example
items include ‘‘I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization,’’ and ‘‘This organization
has a great deal of personal meaning for me.’’ Reliability
for the affective component was .68 in the present study. Allen and Meyer (1990) define normative commitment
as employees’ feelings of obligation to remain with the
organization. The scale contains six items assessing nor- mative commitment. Example items include, ‘‘This orga-
nization deserves my loyalty,’’ and ‘‘I owe a great deal to
this organization.’’ Reliability for the normative component
was .76 in the present study. Finally, Allen and Meyer 1990) define continuance commitment as being comprised
of the costs or negative consequences associated with
leaving the organization. The scale contains eight items assessing continuance commitment. Example items include
‘‘One of the major reasons I continue to work for this
organization is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice,’’ and ‘‘Too much in my life would be
disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization now.’’ Reliability for the continuance component was .79
in the present study.
Results
Table 1 presents the intercorrelations among the key vari-
ables. As can be seen, and consistent with hypotheses 1, 5,
and 6, the faith at work scale was significantly related to life satisfaction (r = .15; p \ .05), affective commitment (r = .13; p = .06) and normative commitment (r = .27; p \ .01). These results indicated that the ability to integrate faith and work was related to higher levels of life satis-
faction and two of the three forms of organizational com-
mitment. However, inconsistent with hypotheses 2, 3, 4, and 7, the faith at work scale was not related as expected
to intent to leave (r = .20; p \ .01), job performance (r = -.34; p \ .01), job satisfaction (r = -.05; p [ .05), and continuance commitment (r = .12; p [ .05). In fact, the relationship was significant, yet in the opposite direc-
tion than expected, for intent to leave and job performance. That is, while it was expected that the ability to integrate
faith at work would be associated with lower intent to leave
and higher self-rated job performance the results provided evidence of just the opposite.
Table 1 Intercorrelations among key study variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Faith at work (.98)
2. Life satisfaction .15* (.92)
3. Intent to leave .20** -.13^ (.88)
4. Job performance -.34** .01 -.20** (.77)
5. Job satisfaction -.05 .46** -.54** .33** (.83)
6. Affective com .13^ .41** -.28** .02 .47** (.68)
7. Normative com .27** .39** -.31** -.02 .42** .62** (.76)
8. Continuance com .12 .02 .04 .14^ .10 .34** .40** (.79)
Values in parentheses along the diagonal are coefficient alphas
Affective Com affective organizational commitment, Normative Com normative organizational commitment, Continuance Com continuance organizational commitment
^p ? .06 (2-tailed)
* p \ .05 (2-tailed) ** p \ .01 (2-tailed)
Integration of Faith and Work 457
123
Tests of Hypotheses
I tested my hypotheses utilizing a series of seven hierar- chical regression analyses (one for each of the seven
dependent variables). Before analyses, all variables were
standardized to address any concerns about colinearity among the variables. Each of the seven regression analyses
followed the general format of entering the control vari-
ables of age, sex, and education on the first step, and then entering the faith at work scale on the second step. This
allowed me to determine whether or not the faith at work
scale explained unique variance in my seven life and job outcome variables above that explained by the demo-
graphic variables of age, sex, and education. Table 2 pre-
sents the results from the second step for each of my seven regression analyses.
Recall that hypothesis 1 stated that there would be a
positive relationship between the faith at work scale and satisfaction with life. As it can be seen in Table 2,
hypothesis 1 was partially supported as those who reported
higher levels of faith-work integration tended to have higher levels of life satisfaction (b = .13, t = 1.73, p = .09). Note however, that hypothesis 1 is partially supported because the results did not reach the .05 level of significance (i.e., p = .09). Hypothesis 2 stated that there would be a negative relationship between the faith at work
scale and intent to leave one’s job. Hypothesis 2 was not supported as the results were actually significant but in the
opposite direction than what was expected (b = .14, t = 2.06, p \ .05). Thus, it appears that integrating faith and work was associated with stronger (not weaker)
intentions to leave one’s job. Hypothesis 3 stated that there
would be a positive relationship between the integration of faith and work and job performance. Hypothesis 3 was not
supported as the results were significant but in the opposite
direction than what was expected (b = -.25, t = -3.80, p \ .001). Thus, it appears that integrating faith and work was associated with lower (not higher) levels of self-
reported job performance. Hypothesis 4 stated that the ability to integrate faith and work would be related to
higher levels of job satisfaction. Hypothesis 4 was not
supported as the faith at work scale was unrelated to my measure of job satisfaction (b = -.03, t = -.38, p [ .05). Hypothesis 5 stated that the ability to integrate faith and
work would be associated with higher levels of affective organizational commitment. Hypothesis 5 was supported as
those who reported higher levels of faith-work integration
tended to report higher levels of affective job commitment (b = .16, t = 2.18, p \ .05). Hypothesis 6 stated that the ability to integrate faith and work would be related to higher levels of normative organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 6 was supported as those who reported higher
levels of faith-work integration tended to report higher
levels of normative organizational commitment (b = .28, t = 4.05, p \ .001). Hypothesis 7 stated that the ability to integrate faith and work would be associated with higher
Table 2 Results from second step of hierarchical regression analyses
Dependent variable B SE B R2 DR2
Satisfaction with life
Step 2 .04 .02?
Education .10 .07
Sex .04 .07
Age -.05 .07
Faith at work .13? .07
Intent to leave
Step 2 .12 .02*
Education .01 .07
Sex .03 .07
Age -.30*** .07
Faith at work .14* .07
Job performance
Step 2 .22 .06***
Education -.08 .06
Sex -.19** .06
Age .24*** .06
Faith at work -.25*** .06
Job satisfaction
Step 2 .05 .01
Education -.01 .07
Sex .12 .07
Age .19 .07
Faith at work -.03 .07
Affective commitment
Step 2 .04 .02*
Education .06 .07
Sex .07 .07
Age .08 .07
Faith at work .16* .07
Normative commitment
Step 2 .09 .08***
Education -.01 .07
Sex .07 .07
Age .07 .07
Faith at work .28*** .07
Continuance commitment
Step 2 .06 .03*
Education -.09 .07
Sex -.14* .07
Age .09 .07
Faith at work .18* .07
?p = .09; * p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001
458 A. G. Walker
123
levels of continuance commitment. Hypothesis 7 was
supported as those who reported higher levels of faith-work integration tended to report higher levels of continuance
organizational commitment (b = .18, t = 2.48, p \ .05). In sum, four of my seven hypotheses received either
partial or full support. Interestingly, however, three of my
seven hypotheses not only were not supported, but two
were actually significant in the opposite direction than expected.
Discussion
My main finding is that I have provided the first empirical
evidence that the faith at work scale is indeed associated
with positive life and work outcomes. Although other researchers have provided evidence of the psychometric
soundness of the faith at work scale and been able to
demonstrate the antecedents of the ability to integrate faith and work, my study provides the first empirical evidence
that the integration of faith and work may actually be
associated with positive life and work-related outcomes. In particular, my results provide support that the ability to
integrate faith and work may be associated with higher
levels of life satisfaction as well as affective, normative, and continuance organizational commitment.
Of course, it must be mentioned that not all of my
findings were as anticipated. Notably, the ability to inte- grate faith and work was not associated with job satisfac-
tion. Perhaps this is due to the existence of a myriad of
potential factors that can affect job satisfaction along with the possibility that the effect size associated with the ability
to integrate faith and work is relatively small in comparison
to these other factors (e.g., relationship with boss and co- workers, pay, benefits, ability to utilize valued skills etc.).
It may also be possible that the ability to integrate faith and
work may not be as important, or can otherwise be over- ridden, if one does not particularly like the job that they are
doing to begin with. In other words, the ability to integrate
faith and work may be a necessary, but not sufficient condition for overall job satisfaction. It is also possible that
the relationship between the ability to integrate faith and
work is moderated by numerous contextual variables such as a faith-friendly organizational culture, support of boss
and others, existence of co-religionists, etc. An exploration
of the contextual variables that might moderate the rela- tionship between the integration of faith and work with job
satisfaction might be an area ripe for future research.
Perhaps most puzzling, however, are the results involving the relationship between the ability to integrate
faith and work and the intent to leave one’s job and self-
reported job performance. Perhaps those who are most effective at integrating their faith and work view work from
a broader perspective. That is, perhaps they see beyond
their current job and are open to the idea that God may want them to move to other organizations in the fulfillment
of His plans for their lives. As such, they may become less
attached (although not necessarily less committed) to any one single organization. As an example, an individual of
faith who strongly endorses items such as ‘‘I view my job
as a mission from God’’ or ‘‘I view my work as a part- nership with God’’ may realize that the fulfillment of this
‘‘mission’’ or ‘‘partnership’’ may indeed involve movement from one organization to another. Such employees may
therefore more openly embrace the idea of movement
among organizations and possess less intent to stay at any one, single organization.
Perhaps the negative relationship between the ability to
integrate faith and work and self-reported job performance is also due to viewing work from a broader perspective.
That is, perhaps individuals who integrate their faith and
work view contextual aspects of their performance as being more important than the more task-oriented aspects. This
may especially be the case given my measure of self-
reported job performance largely consisted of task-oriented rather than contextual-oriented items. For example, per-
haps those who integrate their faith and work were more
concerned with being cooperative, assisting others, or developing meaningful relationships with others (i.e.,
contextual factors) than they were for ‘‘completing duties
specified in my job description,’’ or meeting ‘‘all the formal performance requirements of my job’’ (i.e., more task-
oriented items in my measure). Indeed, future research that
may be needed is an exploration of when, and under what conditions, the integrating of faith and work results in
either improved, unchanged, or diminished job
performance.
Practical Implications
I agree with Weaver and Agle (2002) that tolerance of
religiosity at work is the key. This is especially important
given the expression of religiosity at work is often dis- couraged or deliberately suppressed. Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and 1991 not only forbids discrimina-
tion based on religion but also further requires employers to accommodate individuals’ religious beliefs and practices
(Noe et al. 2008). Given the events of 9/11, combined with
survey evidence that 84 % of the world’s population is part of a religion while 80 % of individuals in the United States
consider their religion to be important, it is not surprising
that the EEOC has witnessed an increase in cases involving religious discrimination and accommodation (King 2008).
In addition to legal requirements, to the extent that
expression of religiosity at work is tolerated, the potential positive effects may be realized. For example, the current
Integration of Faith and Work 459
123
study provides evidence that the ability to integrate faith
and work was related to higher organizational commitment and overall life satisfaction. This is especially likely to
occur when this tolerance is combined with well-developed
organizational guidelines and positive manager role-mod- eling for such expression. As Weaver and Agle (2002) have
commented, ‘‘Tolerance of religious expression is likely to
make it easier for individuals to identify coreligionists at work, thus enhancing the salience of religion.’’ (p. 93).
Limitations
My data were collected from a single source using a common method. This might raise concerns about common
method variance. However, Conway and Lance (2010)
recently identified three common misconceptions regarding common method bias. The first misconception is that
relationships between self-reported variables are routinely
upwardly biased. Conway and Lance (2010) described a study in which they re-analyzed data from 18 published
multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) matrices based on a
variety of constructs and methods (Lance et al. 2010). This re-analysis led them to conclude that (a) inflationary and
attenuating effects on relationships among variables due to
utilizing same-source, same-method designs offset each other, (b) same-method observed scores were accurate
representations of their true-score counterparts, and
(c) ‘‘the widespread belief that common method bias serves to inflate common method correlations as compared to their
true-score counterparts is substantially a myth.’’ (p. 327).
The second misconception that Conway and Lance (2010) address is that other-reports (or other methods) are
superior to self-reports. Instead, their review of the litera-
ture concludes that many commonly suspected biasing factors associated with using self-reports (such as social
desirability, negative affect, and acquiescence) appear to
have only weak and inconsistent effects. Further, they argue that using another method does not necessarily pro-
vide any benefit given other methods may also be subject to
method effects. Referring again to their recent re-analysis of 18 published MTMM studies, they concluded that using
different methods is likely to result in less accurate,
attenuated relationships than in using same-method correlations.
In addition to dispelling these misconceptions, Conway
and Lance (2010) also offer suggestions for researchers to address concerns about common method bias. For example,
they suggest that researchers should clearly articulate why
they believe self-reports are appropriate. In the current study, I believe that my participants were certainly in the
best position to evaluate their ability to integrate their faith
and work and to assess their degree of job satisfaction, intent to leave, life satisfaction, and organizational
commitment. In fact, it is difficult to imagine how another
source could more accurately assess these measures. Another recommendation by Conway and Lance (2010)
is that there should not be overlap in items contained in
independent and dependent variables as this can clearly lead to bias relationships. An examination of my measures
of the faith at work scale with my outcome measures
reveals no overlap in item content. A final recommendation from Conway and Lance
(2010) is that researchers should clearly demonstrate they proactively considered potential issues with common
method bias in the design of their study. Citing Podsakoff
et al. (2003), Conway and Lance (2010) offer numerous procedures for researchers to demonstrate their a priori
consideration of common method bias. These procedures
include the ‘‘temporal, proximal, psychological, or meth- odological separation of measurement,’’ ‘‘protecting
respondent anonymity and reducing evaluation apprehen-
sion,’’ and ‘‘counterbalancing question order’’ (pp. 887–888). I incorporated these recommendations by sepa-
rating my data collection by 6 weeks (with the faith at
work scale and life and work outcome measures always being collected in separate waves) and by counterbalancing
the order of presentation of scales to my participants.
In reference to my internet sample, Gosling et al. (2004) recently compared the results of research conducted with a
very large self-selected web-based sample of 361,703
(outofservice.com) to the results obtained from traditional samples drawn from a full year of studies published in the
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Their results revealed that the samples drawn from the large self-selec- ted web-based samples were more diverse and represen-
tative than traditional samples with respect to gender,
socioeconomic status, geographical location, and age and about as representative as traditional samples with respect
to race.
In conclusion, my study provides evidence that the integration of faith and work is indeed related to important
life and work outcomes, and thus worthy of future study.
Specifically, I provided evidence that the integration of faith and work is associated with higher levels of life sat-
isfaction and three forms of organizational commitment. In
addition, the results of my study provide additional evi- dence of both construct and criterion-related validity for
the faith at work scale and support its continued use.
References
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
460 A. G. Walker
123
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307–311.
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 325–334.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59(2), 93–104.
Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. O. (2004). Employees goal orientations, the quality of leader–member exchange and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47 , 368–384.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self- evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self- concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 90 , 257–268.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237–249.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale (CSES): Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–331.
Judge, T. A., Van Vianen, A. E. M., & De Pater, I. E. (2004). Emotional stability, core self- evaluations, and job outcomes: A review of the literature and an agenda for future research. Human Performance, 17 , 325–346.
King, J. E. (2008). (Dis)Missing the obvious: Will mainstream management research ever take religion seriously? Journal of Management Inquiry, 17 , 214–224.
Lance, C. E., Dawson, B., Birklebach, D., & Hoffman, B. J. (2010). Method effects, measurement error, and substantive conclusions. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 435–455.
Lynn, M. L., Naughton, M. J., & VanderVeen, S. (2009). Faith at work scale (FAW): Justification, development, and validation of a measure of Judaeo-Christian religion in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 227–243.
Lynn, M. L., Naughton, M. J., & VanderVeen, S. (2010). Connecting religion and work: Patterns and influences of work-faith integration. Human Relations, 64, 675–701.
Mobley, W. H., Horner, S. O., & Hollingsworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation of precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 408–414.
Nash, L. L. (2003). A spiritual audit of business: From tipping point to tripping point. In O. F. Williams (Ed.), Business, religion and spirituality: A new synthesis. Notre Dame: Notre Dame Press.
Nash, L. L., & McLennan, S. (2001). Church on sunday, work on monday: The challenges of fusing christian values with business life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M. (2008). Human resource management: gaining a competitive advantage (6th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Pfeffer, J. (2003). Business and the spirit. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Mackenzie, S. B. (1989). A second generation measure of organizational citizenship behavior, Working paper. Bloomington: Indiana University, Indiana.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavior research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale develop- ment in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19, 305–335.
Weaver, G. R., & Agle, B. R. (2002). Religiosity and ethical behavior in organizations: A Symbolic interactionist perspective. Acad- emy of Management Review, 27 , 77–97.
Integration of Faith and Work 461
123
Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
