http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/990503/archive_000896.htm! McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
A STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF WORKPLACE SPIRITUALITY ON EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES: A COMPARISON BETWEEN US AND MEXICAN EMPLOYEES A Dissertation by JOSE LUIS DANIEL
Submitted to Texas A&M International University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
December 2012
Major Subject: International Business
A STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF WORKPLACE SPIRITUALITY ON EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES: A COMPARISON BETWEEN US AND MEXICAN EMPLOYEES A Dissertation by JOSE LUIS DANIEL Submitted to Texas A&M International University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved as to style and content by: Chair of Committee, Committee Members, Chair of Department,
Jacqueline Mayfield Milton R. Mayfield Haibo Wang Leonel Prieto S. Srinivasan
December 2012 Major Subject: International Business Administration
DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my parents.
Esta disertación está dedicada a mis padres.
iv
ABSTRACT
A Study of the Impact of Workplace Spirituality on Employee Outcomes: A Comparison Between US and Mexican Employees (December 2012) Jose Luis Daniel, M.B.A., Texas A&M International University; Chair of Committee: Jacqueline Mayfield
The concept of workplace spiritualty (WS) has gained importance in the last years. However, most of the research has been qualitative and focused on culture in the United States. The purpose of this study is to expand the understanding of workplace spirituality by conducting an empirical analysis of its impact on employee outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and individual innovative behavior in Mexico and the United States. The research model predicts that workplace spirituality will have an effect on all employee outcomes. A total of 304 employees from different industries in Mexico and the US were surveyed. Results from PLS analysis show that workplace spirituality has a positive and significant relationship with all employee outcomes including turnover intention. The latter is different from what was hypothesized, however, a possible explanation is offered. In addition, a test of workplace spirituality perception differences between the two countries was conducted. The result indicates that people from both countries perceive workplace spirituality differently.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all, I’d like to thank my lord Jesus Christ for guiding my life, giving me the wisdom and putting the right people at the right time to complete this study. This dissertation would not have been completed without the guidance and support of my advisor Dr. Jacqueline Mayfield who has been always accessible and willing to help. Thank you very much for your kindness! I’d like to thank my committee members, Dr. Milton Mayfield, Dr. Leonel Prieto, and Dr. Haibo Wang. Also, I’d like to thank Dr. Andres Rivas-Chavez and Dr. Ned Kock for their support and guidance. I also have to thank all the professors that I met through the Ph.D process. I’d like to thank Dr. Tagi Sagafi-Nejad, Dr. William Gruben and Mrs. Pamela Short for taking care of us through all these years. Last but not least I’d like to thank all of my friends that I met through the Ph.D. studies. Friendship will be there forever. Thank you Ruth, Pete, Chaiwat, Murad and all my peers who were always willing to help.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .........................................................................................................v TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................x CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1 Purpose of the study ..................................................................................................2 Significance of the study ...........................................................................................3 Research questions ....................................................................................................4 II LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 5 Theoretical foundations of workplace spirituality.....................................................5 Workplace spirituality definition.............................................................................10 Inner life .........................................................................................................11 Meaningful work ...........................................................................................12 Sense of community .......................................................................................12 Alignment with organizational values ............................................................13 Difference between workplace spirituality and religion .........................................14 Workplace spirituality and employee outcomes .....................................................15 WS and job satisfaction ...................................................................................17 WS and turnover intention ...............................................................................19 WS and organizational commitment ................................................................22 WS and individual innovative behavior ...........................................................25 WS in an international context .........................................................................27 Culture .................................................................................................................... 29 Other differences between the US and Mexico .......................................................33 Hypotheses .............................................................................................................35 III METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................37 Structural equation modeling .................................................................................37 Measurement ..........................................................................................................40 Data collection .........................................................................................................43 Instrument translation ......................................................................................43 US sample .......................................................................................................43 Mexican sample ...............................................................................................44 Manipulation check .................................................................................................44 IV MODEL ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................. 48 Descriptive statistics ................................................................................................48 Measurement model ................................................................................................51 Validity ............................................................................................................51 Reliability.........................................................................................................55 Measurement model differences ......................................................................57 Structural model (structural equivalence) ........................................................59 Effect size.........................................................................................................60 V RESULTS .......................................................................................................................62
vii
Results overview .....................................................................................................62 Results Mexico ........................................................................................................65 Results US ...............................................................................................................66 Difference of perceptions of WS for Mexico and US .............................................67 VI DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................69 Overview of the findings ................................................................................................69 Managerial implications..................................................................................................72 VII CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................76 Summary .........................................................................................................................76 Limitations and future research ......................................................................................77 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................79 APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................94 APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................95 APPENDIX C .............................................................................................................................99 APPENDIX D ...........................................................................................................................100 VITA .........................................................................................................................................105
viii
LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: Comparison of statistical techniques .........................................................................38 Table 3.2: Scales and their respective reported Cronbach’s alpha .............................................42 Table 3.3: Control variables descriptive statistics ......................................................................44 Table 3.4: Hofstede’s cultural dimensions: Mexico vs US.........................................................45 Table 3.5: Cultural manipulation check ......................................................................................47 Table 4.1: Latent variables mean and standard deviations .........................................................48 Table 4.2: Indicator correlation matrix for Mexico ....................................................................49 Table 4.3: Indicator correlation matrix for US ...........................................................................50 Table 4.4: Loadings and cross loadings for latent variables for Mexico ....................................52 Table 4.5: Loadings and cross loadings for latent variables for US ...........................................53 Table 4.6: Correlation matrix between latent variables and square roots of AVEs for Mexico...................................................................................................55 Table 4.7: Correlation matrix between latent variables and square roots of AVEs for US..........................................................................................................55 Table 4.8: Latent variable reliability coefficients for Mexico ....................................................56 Table 4.9: Latent variable reliability coefficients for US ...........................................................56 Table 4.10: Variance influence factors from full collinearity test for Mexico ...........................57 Table 4.11: Variance influence factors from full collinearity test for the US ............................57 Table 4.12: Measurement model differences ..............................................................................58 Table 4.13: Structural model differences ....................................................................................59 Table 4.14: Direct effect of workplace spirituality for Mexico ..................................................60 Table 4.15: Direct effect of workplace spirituality for US .........................................................61 Table 5.1: Summary of hypotheses for Mexico ..........................................................................66
ix
Table 5.2: Summary of hypotheses for US .................................................................................67 Table 5.3: Difference of perceptions of WS for Mexico and US ..............................................................................................................................68
x
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: The humanistic approach............................................................................................9 Figure 2.1: Workplace spirituality and employee outcomes ......................................................36 Figure 3.1: Hofstede’s cultural dimensions between Mexico and US ........................................46 Figure 5.1: Mexico results model ...............................................................................................63 Figure 5.2: US results model ......................................................................................................64
1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
During recent years, organizations have experienced important transformations in their organizational environment. Structural changes, downsizing, and layoffs in companies have created environments in which employees experience low self-esteem (Brandt, 1996; Driver, 2005). Several organizations have faced difficulties building important aspects of an organization such as a community among employees, a connection between the organization and employees’ values, and an organizational atmosphere in which the employees can demonstrate their capacity. In an effort to improve organizational environments, managers have implemented numerous activities aimed at building a better organizational climate. Some of these policies or activities have the purpose of creating or enhancing what is called workplace spirituality (WS). According to Caudron (1997), “employees are no longer content with just a paycheck and good benefits; they want meaning and passion. Here is how fulfilling work can add up to more productive, happier employees and perhaps a healthier environment” (p. 25). Aktouf (1992) holds that it is important to change organization-based authority in order to increase employees’ willingness to work in the organization. These changes can allow the development of a better environment within the organization and the creation of a more humanist climate.
This dissertation follows the Journal of Organizational Behavior as a model
2
The study of WS has gained importance, and numerous articles and books have been written with regard to the implications and impact of WS. Ashmos and Duchon (2000) referred to this growing trend as a spiritual movement. They highlighted that the study of WS can provide a better idea about the environment in which employees conduct their activities. Garcia-Zamor (2003) stated that many organizations are considering the incorporation of WS because it can create a positive relationship between the employee and the organization. Moreover, Sheep (2006) mentioned that we are living in a world that can be described as a “society of organizations” (p. 357). He noted that WS is an important concept that can contribute to the wellbeing of individuals, organizations and societies. While the benefits that WS can bring to organizations have been supported by several studies (Daniel, 2010; Ferreira-Vasconcelos, 2010; Garcia-Zamor, 2003), it has also been pointed out that WS is in its early stages and in need of more theoretical and empirical research (Milliman, Czaplewski, & Ferguson, 2003).
Purpose of the study Although the topic of WS has been researched by numerous scholars, it has been suggested that there is a need for more empirical research on the relationship between WS and outcomes such as innovative behavior, job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Rego & Cunha, 2008; Sheep, 2006). The purpose of this investigation is to analyze the impact that WS has on individual outcomes such as job satisfaction, turnover intention, organizational commitment, and innovative behavior in two different countries (Mexico and the US). The main goal of conducting a cross-cultural research is to see how the model behaves in two different cultures.
3
Significance of the study One of the main objectives of every organization is to have an ideal environment in which employees can demonstrate their full capacity. Numerous problems such as interpersonal conflicts, dissatisfied employees, and lack of trust can be the consequence of a poor organizational environment. The study of WS in organizations can provide important information to team leaders, knowledge professionals and human resource managers about the conditions in which the employees are working. For instance, analyzing intention to quit as an independent variable can reveal important information about employees’ feelings regarding the organization. Having dissatisfied employees can lead to high turnover and absenteeism rates, which will negatively affect the productivity and effectiveness of the organization (Dalton & Mesch, 1991; Hinshaw & Atwood, 1983). In addition, the study of WS in two countries can also uncover potential lines of research that will contribute to the development and understanding of workplace spirituality in different cultures. Several organizations have acknowledged that WS can provide several benefits for the employees and the organization (Ferreira-Vasconcelos, 2010). By studying the concept of WS, firms can have a better understanding of the organizational climate within the organization. Outcomes such as organizational commitment can uncover relevant information about an employee’s affection toward the organization. Also, variables such as individual innovative behavior can show how an employee perceives the environment for developing and implementing ideas. In addition, it has been noted that the study of WS can alleviate problems such as humiliation, conflict, abrasion to an employee’s mental health, and vassalage(Brown, 2003a; Hancock, 1997; Rego & Cunha, 2008). WS can also help organizations create programs or polices aimed at building a better organizational climate.
4
Several authors have pointed out how companies have incorporated spirituality in their organizations in different ways. Meditation rooms, spiritual practices or day cares for employees have been described as ways to improve spirituality in the workplace (Finlayson, 2001; Leigh, 1997; McDonald, 1999). This study is also relevant because WS has not been tested in Mexico and the US. Both countries provide an interesting opportunity for conducting the research because they possess economic, demographic and cultural differences. Only a few studies have tested the concept of WS in different countries. For instance Rego, Cunha and Souto (2007) studied the relationship between WS and commitment, and WS and individual performance using samples from Portugal and Brazil. Other studies have also analyzed the impact of WS but in a specific country (Pawar, 2009; Usman & Danish, 2010). In sum, studying workplace spirituality can lead to a better understanding of the actual status of the organizational climate. It can also reveal information about the conditions in which employees conduct their activities. This leads to the development of the following research questions.
Research questions 1.- What relationship does WS have with individual outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and innovative behavior?
2.- Is there any difference between the way people perceive WS in the US and the way it is perceived in Mexico?
5
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to understand the possible effects of WS one must look at the theoretical foundations of this construct. Providing a definition for WS will enable us to differentiate it from religion and have a better understanding of the concept. Also, it is necessary to analyze the relationship that WS has with different employee outcomes. The next sections will address these issues.
Theoretical foundations of workplace spirituality Ashmos and Duchon (2000) mentioned that “organizations that have been viewed as rational systems are considering making room for the spiritual dimension” (p.134). This spirituality dimension can be analyzed by the appearance of a humanistic approach within organizations. This approach saw its origins in the 1920s and had its roots in the field of humanistic psychology (McGuire, Cross, & O'Donnell, 2005). Some authors noted that this increase of interest in humanism was due to a shift of management styles within organizations. Organizations realized the important role that employees play within companies and moved from a tough, rigid, bureaucratic management style to a people-oriented style (Aldridge, Macy, & Walz, 1982; Argyris, 1964; Henderson, 1996). A humanistic theory can better explain the shift that has been occurring in organizations. Aldridge et al. (1982) proposed the theory of humanocracy for understanding this movement. This theory highlights the importance of human values and principles. They noted that individuals have developed a complex psychological adaptation to bureaucracies called
6
“bureau-neurosis”. According to them, bureau neurosis is about learning to survive in an organization but at the high cost of giving up their human needs. They noted that bureauneurosis is not inevitable but can coexist with humanocracy, which recognizes the humanness of people in organizations. Other studies and theories can also explain the importance of humanness of people. Some of the first studies that gave credit to the humanistic approach were the Hawthorne experiments. These studies pointed out that there is a strong relationship between workers’ behavior and sentiments, that a group influences individual behavior, and that money is not as important for worker output as group standards, sentiments and security (Robbins, 2005). Moreover, researchers such as Mayo (1933) noted that satisfaction in the workplace depends on the informality of work groups. He also highlighted the necessity of creating the proper conditions for group affiliation and cooperation. After the Hawthorne studies, other authors continued viewing and analyzing the human side of individuals. For instance, Maslow (1954) noted that human beings have a hierarchy of five needs: physiological, safety, social, esteem and self-actualization. According to Maslow (1954), individuals need to satisfy lower basic needs before reaching higher ones. He noted that self-actualized people were those who were fully fulfilled and reached all they were capable of. Frankl (1959) also contributed to the humanism approach by writing about his experience in a concentration camp during World War II and developing his theory of logotherapy. According to him, logotherapy is founded in the statement that finding meaning in life is the most important and powerful force in humans. Frankl (1997) states that “there must be a meaning to life under any conditions even in the worst conceivable ones” (p. 141). He stated that meaning in life can be discovered by:
7
1. - Conducting a deed or creating a work. 2. - Experiencing something or encountering someone. 3. - The attitude people have when facing a fate they cannot change, or an unfavorable situation. Frankl (1997) also noted that the human spirit plays an important role in the theory of logotherapy. However, he viewed the spirit as a will inside the human being rather than something related to religion. In other words, his focus was more in a search for meaning rather than a search for God. The theory of logotherapy has also highlighted the humanism movement within organizations. The popularity that the concept gained after Frankl’s writings led researchers to study the needs, preferences and motivations of people at work (Engelbrecht & Schlechter, 2006). Other authors studied the relationship between meaning and outcomes, such as commitment and organizational change (Burger, Crous, & Roodt, 2008; Markow & Klenke, 2005). Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman (1959) also highlighted the human aspect of employees within organizations by presenting the two-factor theory (motivation-hygiene). Their investigation involved the feelings that people experience in their jobs. According to them, there are two factors that affect motivation to work: hygiene factors and motivators. Hygiene factors include elements such as company policies and administration, salary, and working conditions. Motivators include elements such as recognition, stimulating work, and responsibility. The presence of motivators can move the employee from being not satisfied to being satisfied whereas the presence of hygiene factors can be used to prevent dissatisfaction, but not used to increase satisfaction.
8
McClelland (1961) and McGregor (1960) also contributed to the growth of the humanistic approach. McClelland (1961) noted that human beings are motivated by three needs: the need for achievement, the need for power, and the need for affiliation. He also pointed out that the environment has an important effect on each individual motivation. McGregor (1960) presented theory X and theory Y as another way to understand, motivate and manage employees within organizations. Theory Y basically states that people usually accept and seek responsibility, they enjoy their mental and physical work duties, and employees view work as being natural, like rest or play. Theory X claims that employees dislike work and, whenever possible, they will attempt to avoid it. Even though the majority of these theories focused on what motivates employees, they highlighted the need for understanding and seeing employees as human beings within organizations (Van Buren, 2008). The rise of a humanistic approach within organizations encouraged firms to change their organizational structures. This change became evident in organizational theory literature (Melé, 2003a). Within organizational theory, there seems to be an increase in the humanistic view in terms of personal growth and self-actualization (Alvesson, 1982). Alvesson (1982) named this phenomenon “humanistic organization theory,” which is characterized by “its emphasis on the use of intrinsic (non-instrumental) motivation and growth of the qualifications of the personnel as a method for organizational economic efficiency. This tradition stresses the possibility of integrating humanistic values such as well-being and personal growth with management goals such as maximum productivity and long-range economic rationality” (p.117). Melé (2003a) also pointed out that organizational theory had focused on aspects such as strategy, structure and managerial systems to control organizations. Nonetheless, he noted that
9
there has been an incorporation of humanistic elements in the field of organizational theory. This appearance of humanistic elements began to be reflected in the culture of the organizations (Melé, 2003b). Previous literature shows that organizational culture is about informal practices and values, like respect and integrity, and assumptions and symbols that are shared by employees and define the way an organization is conducted (Barney, 1986; Martin, 2002; Schein, 1984). Research has also noted that WS is part of organizational culture (Daniel, 2010; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003). Moreover, it has been argued that WS is about the incorporation of programs and practices with the objective of boosting organizational values and employee fulfillment (Leigh, 1997). Figure 1-1 presents the evolution of the humanistic approach.
Figure 1.1: The humanistic approach
Workplace spirituality encompasses several activities aimed at building an environment in which employees can fulfill their capacity and foster their full potential. Understanding the meaning, its difference from religion, and its relationship with individual attitudes becomes relevant for the foundations of the concept.
10
Workplace spirituality definition The concept of WS has been used in different ways in the academic field. This extensive and varied use of the concept makes it difficult to find a unique definition (Tischler, Biberman, & McKeage, 2002). Some authors have argued that the understanding of WS stems from organizational culture (Daniel, 2010; Leigh, 1997). Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2003) defined WS as “a framework of organizational values that is evidenced in the culture that promotes employees’ experience of transcendence through the work process, facilitating their sense of being connected to others in a way that provides feelings of completeness and joy” (p. 137). This view of WS as an element of organizational culture gives important details regarding the role that the employee and the organization play in the development of a spiritual workplace. Kolodinsky, Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2008) noted that WS can be understood through three perspectives: individual, organizational and interactive. At the individual level, WS can be seen as how the person brings his/her own set of spiritual ideas and values to the workplace. At the organizational level, WS can be viewed as an individual’s perception of the spiritual values in the organization. The interaction perspective involves the relationship between a person’s values and those provided in the organization. Mitroff and Denton (1999a) mentioned that WS is about finding a purpose in life, creating a strong connection with co-workers and having a match between the individual’s core values and the values of the organization. Ashmos and Duchon (2000) also stated that WS involves a sense of community. They defined WS as “the recognition that employees have an inner life that nourishes and is nourished by meaningful work that takes place in the context of community” (p.137). They developed a scale for measuring WS, and found factors at the individual, group and organizational level. They found that WS can be seen as encompassing
11
aspects of connectedness, meaningful work and the incorporation of individual life with work activities. They also noted that these aspects become relevant in the measurement of the WS construct. This study adopts three factors at the individual and one factor at the organizational level from the scale created by (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000). The factors were chosen for two reasons. First, they have been used and tested in previous articles (Duchon & Plowman, 2005; Rego & Cunha, 2008; Rego, et al., 2007). Second, the four factors could give the research a more parsimonious approach by considering the individual and organizational level (Milliman, et al., 2003). An explanation of each dimension becomes relevant for the purpose of understanding spirituality in the workplace.
Inner life The workplace has become a place for employees to express aspects of their personality, find a sense of meaning and bring their whole selves (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Fairholm, 1996). Workplaces have become an important element of employees’ lives. Inner life can be defined as “the feeling that individuals have about who they are, what they are doing and the contributions they make” (Vail, 1998, p. 218). Duchon and Plowman (2005) also noted that the workplace can be important for employees if they find the proper conditions that will enable them to express their inner lives. Inner life can also be related to identity. According to Duchon and Plowman (2005) inner life is related to two constructs: individual identity and social identity. Individual identity is about a person’s self-concept or a person’s inner view of themselves. It is also what distinguishes one individual from another (Gioia, 1998). Social identity is related to belonging to a group such as
12
an organization; it exists when individuals have the need to belong to a social context in order to express themselves.
Meaningful work Several researchers have emphasized the importance of the activities that employees conduct in their workplaces. Morse and Weiss (1955) conducted a study in order to explore the meaning of work. They found that most surveyed men believed their job served functions other than merely earning a living. More recently, Bowie (1998) looked to Immanuel Kant in order to achieve a better understanding of meaningful work. According to Kant work can be considered meaningful if it is entered freely, allows the worker to have autonomy and independence, develops her/his rational capacities, provides sufficient wages, supports the moral development of employees and is not paternalistic. Meaningful work is about “how employees interact with their day to day work at the individual level” (Milliman et al., 2003, p. 429). Meaningful work is about working on something that is important, energizing, and fulfills the employees’ needs (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000).
Sense of community Community can be defined as “a partnership of free people committed to the care and nurturing of each other’s mind, body, heart, and soul through participatory means” (Naylor, Willimon and Osterberg, 1996, p. 42). Community also means having a sense of belonging, a shared faith that is presented among individuals (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). According to Naylor (1996) individuals in workplaces can find a sense of community if the following characteristics are present: shared vision, common values, boundaries, empowerment,
13
responsibility sharing, growth and development, tension reduction, education, feedback and friendship. Recently, studies have shown that people value workplaces where they can feel as part of a community (Miller, 1998; Mirvis, 1997; Pfeffer & Veiga, 1999). Employees can find a strong connectedness in workplaces where they experience shared values and a shared sense of purpose (Chappell, 1993).
Alignment with organizational values Organizational alignment is “the degree to which an organization’s design, strategy, and culture are cooperating to achieve the same desired goals” (Sender, 1997, p. 23). He also argued that the alignment can be understood as a distance between ideal and real elements that are part of the organization. This alignment can also be viewed as a relationship between the employee and the organization. Milliman et al. (2003) stated that alignment with organizational values is about working in an organization with a sense of ethics and integrity. Alignment is about having employees and managers that share appropriate values and have a strong conscience (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000). This match between the organization and the employee has been mentioned in previous articles. For instance, Dehler and Welsh (1994) state that “individuals have internalized the organization’s values and beliefs, (i.e.) its most fundamental meanings, and can act instinctively in accordance with those values without resorting to information processing” (p. 21). They provide G.E. (General Electric) as an example where alignment with organizational values was evident during the 1980s when Jack Welch was the CEO of the company. Alignment with organizational values can be understood as a match between an employee’s personal beliefs, values ideas and the organization’s mission and purpose (Milliman, et al., 2003). Having defined the dimensions that will be used for workplace
14
spirituality, it is also necessary to distinguish between workplace spirituality and religion. The next section will address this issue.
Difference between workplace spirituality and religion It is important to differentiate between WS and religion. Although they might sound similar they are two different concepts (Garcia-Zamor, 2003). In a study seeking to understand spirituality in the workplace, Mitroff and Denton (1999b) found that contrary to religion, spirituality is highly individual and intensively personal. They stated that spirituality presents the following attributes: •
Spirituality is not formal, structured, or organized.
•
Spirituality is broadly inclusive, embracing everyone.
•
Spirituality is universal and timeless.
•
Spirituality is the ultimate source and provider of meaning and purpose in life.
•
Spirituality is the awe felt in the presence of the transcendent.
•
Spirituality is the sacredness of everything, the ordinariness of everyday life.
•
Spirituality is a deep feeling of the interconnectedness of everything.
•
Spirituality involves inner peace and calm.
•
Spirituality is an inexhaustible source of faith and will power.
•
Spirituality represents the ultimate end of itself.
Mitrof and Denton (1999a) also mentioned that compared to spirituality, religion is viewed as intolerant and divisive. Likewise, Cash, Gray and Rood (2000) believe that spirituality can be viewed as a workplace practice. Spirituality is about looking inward and having an
15
awareness of universal values whereas formal religion is about looking inward using rites and scriptures. Laabs (1995) states that spirituality at work “is not about religion. It’s not about converting people. It’s not about making people believe a belief system or a thought system or a religious system. It’s about knowing that we are all spiritual beings having a human experience. It’s about knowing that every person has within him or herself a level of truth and integrity. And that we all have our own divine power” (p.3). Laabs (1995) also noted that individuals are more than just mind and body; they have spirits and special gifts. Marques (2007) also supported the view that both concepts are different. She pointed out that religion refers to “an established mindset, held by one or more individuals regarding practices and values they consider appropriate” (Marques, 2007, p. 95). With regard to spirituality, she stated that it is about a personal emotion that determines one’s perspectives of, and in connection with, the self, others, and the universe. Mitroff (2003) interviewed high-level managers and executives regarding the relationship between spirituality and religion. According to the results, most people differentiated between religion and spirituality. On the one hand, Mitroff (2003) found that religion is about division, it is closed minded and implies excluding those who do not hold the same point of view. On the other hand, he noted that spirituality is more universal, open minded and includes everyone. Having explained the difference between spirituality and religion, it is important to note the relationship that workplace spirituality has with employee outcomes.
Workplace spirituality and employee outcomes WS has an important effect at the organizational, team and individual level (Burack, 1999; Daniel, 2010; Krishnakumar & Neck, 2002). According to Kolodinsky et al. (2008), the
16
impact that WS has on employees can be viewed as a relationship between the individual and the organization. They referred to this association as a person-organization fit (P-O fit). This concept relies on judgments of congruence between an employee’s personal values and the organizational culture (Cable & DeRue, 2002). Research on P-O fit has suggested that when there is a strong match between the organization and the employee, there will be a positive effect on employee outcomes, such as job satisfaction and productivity, and a negative effect on turnover intention (Izzo & Klein, 1998; Kouzes & Posner, 1995; O'Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). Another way of understanding the impact of spirituality on employee outcomes is through spillover theory. According to this theory, satisfaction in one aspect of life has an effect on the satisfaction of another aspect of life (Diener, 1984; Wilensky, 1960). This theory can be split in two categories: vertical and horizontal (Lee, Sirgy, Efraty, & Siegel, 2003). Vertical spillover occurs when someone experiences satisfaction or dissatisfaction in an aspect of life such as satisfaction in spiritual life, and it spills over to a higher order aspect, such as life satisfaction. Horizontal spillover occurs when a person experiences satisfaction in an aspect of his/her life and then it influences the satisfaction of another neighboring aspect of life. For example, spiritual well-being can have an effect on job satisfaction (Emmons, 1999). In this study, job satisfaction, turnover intention, individual innovative behavior and organizational commitment will be used as dependent variables. There are several reasons why these variables were selected. First, they can reveal important information regarding the feelings and actual situation of the employees in an organization. Second, previous research about WS has mentioned that most of the empirical studies have neglected variables such as turnover intention, job satisfaction, and innovative behavior (Rego & Cunha, 2008; Rego, et al., 2007). Third, it has been noted that the study of WS has not produced critical analysis or empirical
17
results, and there is a need for increasing the study of its relationship with individual outcomes (Mitroff & Denton, 1999b). Fourth, no empirical study has tested the relationship between WS and these attitudinal variables in Mexico and the US. Having explained each of the WS dimensions (inner life, sense of community, alignment with organizational values and meaningful work), it is important to understand their relationship with the individual outcomes adopted for this research.
WS and job satisfaction Job satisfaction can provide managers with important information about whether employees are satisfied or dissatisfied with the activities they conduct in the organization. According to the Conference Board, which is a global research association, job satisfaction is a relevant variable for those organizations that aim to understand their employees (Gibbons, 2010). In their annual job satisfaction survey conducted in the US in 2009, it was found that only 45% of respondents were satisfied with their job. The results showed a significant drop from the survey conducted in 1987 in which 61% of respondents indicated they were satisfied with their job. Studies have found that when employees feel satisfied with their activities at work they show positive intentions to stay in the organization(Brown & Yoshioka, 2003b; Kramer & Schmalenberg, 1991a, 1991b; Randolph, 2005). A dissatisfied workforce can be translated into high absenteeism and high organizational costs (Cropanzano & Wright, 2001; Mirvis & Lawler, 1977; Tziner & Birati, 1996). Dalai Lama and Cutler (2003) defined job satisfaction as “a productive and meaningful activity, the exercise of skills, though interacting with and shaping our environment” (p. 191). Research has suggested that elements such as sense of community, meaningful work, and inner
18
life have an effect on employee job satisfaction (Friedlander & Margulies, 1969; Glisson & Durick, 1988). For instance, Milliman, Ferguson, Trickett and Condemi (1999) studied the integration of a spiritual-based model in an organization. They proposed that an organization that promotes a sense of community will have a more satisfied and motivated workforce. In addition, Burroughs and Eby (1998) stated that job satisfaction is a possible consequence of a psychological sense of community. Wisher (1991) proved that meaningful work could be a predictor of job satisfaction. Bokemeier and Lacy (1987) studied determinants of job satisfaction for men and women in relation to meaningful work. They found that both men and women prefer work that is important, meaningful, and provides them with a feeling of accomplishment. Inner life is about recognition of the person’s self-concept or inner view of themselves (Duchon and Plowman, 2005). Shamir (1991) presented a self-concept theory as a complement to motivation theories. He stated that a congruence between the person’s self-concept and his/her work leads to work motivation. Following this approach, Judge, Locke, Durham and Kluger (1998) analyzed the effect of core self-evaluations on job satisfaction. They found that the evaluations had a direct and indirect effect on job satisfaction. Alignment with organizational values can also have a positive association with job satisfaction. Researchers have proposed that when there is a good match between the values of the organization and the ones of the employees, they will feel satisfied with their jobs (Lund, 2003; Milliman, et al., 2003; Milliman, et al., 1999). Empirical research has also found a positive relationship between the WS construct and job satisfaction. For instance, Robert, Young and Kelly (2006) studied the relationship between workers’ spiritual wellbeing (measured by spiritual well being, religious well being and existential well being) and job satisfaction. Using a bivariate correlation and multiple regression
19
analysis, they found that individual spirituality is positively correlated with job satisfaction. Also, Komala and Ganesh (2007) studied the relationship between individual spirituality at work and healthcare professionals. Using a sample of doctors and nurses from a hospital they found a positive correlation (p
