Description
The workplace is the physical location where someone works. Such a place can range from a home office to a large office building or factory. The workplace is one of the most important social spaces other than the home, constituting "a central concept for several entities: the worker and his/her family, the employing organisation, the customers of the organisation, and the society as a whole".
Case Study for Ethical Workplace Behaviors
Abstract Spirituality provides descriptions that represent relevant psychological phenomena which can be discretely measured. Because of the requirements of the 1978 Federal Uniform Guidelines, the relationship between spirituality and job-related traits and characteristics need to be well understood in the event they are used for decisions affecting personnel . The merit of any metric associated with performance must be established through a validity study (Uniform Guidelines, Sec. 60-3.2 Scope. B, 2000). Accordingly, we consider the construct validity of the aforementioned measures in the context of the uniform guidelines. As hypothesized, religiosity and spirituality instruments are independent of measures commonly used for personnel selection purposes or measures of workplace deviance. We also establish the impact of gender on the measures and provide implications for recruitment and selection.
Forthcoming in the Journal of Law, Business and Ethics Running Head: Uniform Guidelines Keywords: Management, Selection, Spirituality, Human Resources, Uniform Guidelines Title: Uniform Guidelines, Spirituality, and Predictors of Ethical Workplace Behaviors Spirituality is an often controversial topic in the American business landscape, especially when paired with individual employee behavior. Definitions of the concept of spirituality continues to evolve, based on research among disciplines such as Social
Psychology, Sociology and Organizational Behavior (Giacalone, Jurkiewicz, & Fry, 2005). Despite ambiguity in its definition, spirituality has become sufficiently visible to merit at least one journal in the business academic environment (The Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion), and a new American Psychological Association Journal (Psychology of Religion and Spirituality). Despite apprehension associated with the topics, the past 10 years has seen a growing willingness to incorporate spirituality in the study of the workplace (Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Weaver & Agle, 2002). Definition of Spirituality and Its Differentiation from Religiosity Marques, Dhiman, and King (2005) summarized definitions of spirituality and concluded that it is “a very personal awareness or experience, based on sensitivity towards other living beings”. Elkins (2001) offers several expectations of spirituality: it is universal, phenomenological, characterized by the “mysterious” and ultimately compassionate. Park, Peterson, and Seligman (2004) define spirituality as follows: “… having coherent beliefs about the higher purpose and meaning of the universe, and the meaning of life to shape conduct, and knowing where one fits within the larger scheme. Spirituality may be reflected in social context, but given current conceptions of individual spirituality, may not.” There is a considerable amount of ambiguity in definitions that attempt to differentiate spirituality from religiosity. Some propose that the difference between religion and spirituality is that religion is based on established, unyielding beliefs (Dogma), while spirituality is personal, tolerant, and based on connectedness. However, once researchers propose time-relationships between spirituality and religiosity, the issue becomes muddled. Some researchers see spirituality as a movement away from religion
(Elkins 2001), others as an increased respect for extant practices of traditional religiosity (Hill et al. 2000). Because of this ambiguity it is important to note that in the business literature specifically, spirituality is viewed as more pan-religious, generalized moral beliefs guiding behavior, whereas religiosity refers to more specific ethical codes determined by organized religion (Mitroff, 1999). Interest in Spirituality in the Workplace There are many reasons why American corporations are seemingly more interested in spirituality at work than previously. First, downsizing, reengineering, and current layoffs (as well as those of past decades) have demoralized employees. Second, the workplace has been perceived more as a primary source of community due to a lack of communal activity in America. Third, increased access and curiosity about other cultures and philosophies have promoted a kind of spiritual revival across North America. Fourth, as Baby Boomers retire (or move into another career as dictated by finances) a reconsideration of life's meaning as they move closer to the end of their lives (Marques et. al., 2005). In practice, spirituality in the workplace refers to the policies and practices that focus on the recognition of the “soul” of a person at the organizational level. Gockel (2004) sees a focus on interpersonal caring, relationship building, participatory management, employee empowerment, employee wellness, work-life balance initiatives, and training development or potential ways of revitalizing the “soul” at work. The aforementioned foci are not metaphysical elements, but instead represent relevant and topical issues in the work domains of human resources management and organizational development. While there has been no clear operationalization of “Soul”, the foci
mentioned above that comprise spirituality has merited a wide range of psychometric operationalization. As researchers have summarized evidence of positive individual employee outcomes and organizational outcomes (Benefiel, 2005a), a continued interest of managers, stakeholders, and consultants in spirituality in the workplace is virtually guaranteed. Distinguishing concepts of Religiosity and Spirituality The traditional perspective of research involving religiosity saw religion as encompassing spirituality, focused on personal religiousness with substantive and functional elements that could be construed as either positive or negative (Zinnbauer, Pargament & Scott, 1999). Zinnbauer et al. (1997) found religion associated with “higher levels of authoritarianism, religious orthodoxy, intrinsic religiousness, parental religious attendance, self-righteousness, and church attendance” (p. 561). Religion or religiousness tends to be defined in more organizational terms. References are made not only to a belief in or relationship with God, but also organizational practices like church membership, church attendance, and a commitment to the doctrine of a particular church or religion (Spilka & McIntosh, 1996). Spirituality, on the other hand, is associated with “mystical experiences, New Age beliefs and practices, higher income, and the experience of being hurt by clergy” (Zinnbauer et al., p. 561). While there are references made to a belief in or relationship with God or a higher power, most definitions of spirituality tend to use language that is personal and experiential in nature. Clearly the literature represents an array of constructs that purport to measure spirituality in different contexts from situational/environmental (workplace, functional) to the individual (intrinsic, substantive). Comparing these methods requires care when
selecting the appropriate tools for the study of spirituality. For the purposes of the current study we wanted to avoid performing ungrounded research (Pargament, 1999) and theoretically and empirically driven tools to measure the construct. Spirituality and Personnel Assessment The literature on both religiosity and spirituality in the workplace has been predominantly theoretical and philosophical. Giacalone, Jurkiewicz, and Fry (2005) caution against this approach: “Legitimizing workplace spirituality, therefore, requires a demonstrable positive impact of spiritual values on work place related functioning. Without this demonstration, the topic of workplace spirituality would be marginalized as a philosophical and impractical pursuit”. Advancing the research by using more quantitative methodologies, McGhee and Grant (2008) summarize the finding of eight articles that offer “spiritual values” related to nominative traits (as opposed to psychological constructs, psychometrically measured) that contribute to a “regulative ideal” in a table that is partially reproduced below. Those terms that are relevant to this study are noted in the “Spiritual Values Column”. TABLE 1 about here
The psychological traits in the spiritual values column represent discrete psychometric variables that have been used successfully in pre-employment testing for several decades (Wanek, 1999), and as such are considered below in relation to spirituality. Spirituality and the Uniform Guidelines
Based on the growing interest in the use of spirituality in the workplace, the relationship between spirituality and job-related traits and characteristics become critical should they ever be utilized for any personnel decision-making (based on the requirements of the 1978 Federal Uniform Guidelines). Accordingly a reasonable employment question is whether or not spirituality is associated with job-related traits. Spirituality is a construct that represents psychological phenomenon which can be discretely measured. Importantly, this suggests that what might be construed as “spiritual” attitudes, characteristics or behavior is a collection of psychological phenomena that exists with or without acknowledgement of any standard associated with supernatural or metaphysical dimensions generally associated with spirituality. This sets the stage for employers’ awareness of any potential for legal challenges to selection procedures involving group differences in any selection tool, including any use of measures of spirituality. The Uniform Guidelines uphold the goal of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in human resources decision making that is consistent with legal and validation standards which are accepted by psychologists and employment testing professionals. Specifically, the EEOC aims to prevent adverse impact in any employment decision covered by the uniform guidelines which include the hiring, promotion, demotion, membership (e.g., union), referral, retention, or licensing and certification of an employee, and, in addition, potentially includes the selection for training or transfer providing they lead to any of the above decisions. The guidelines require organizations to demonstrate that administered tests have a valid relationship to the job before any metric is used for personnel decision making. This validity is
established by a validity study (Uniform Guidelines, Sec. 60-3.2 Scope. B, 2000). Preemployment selection variables which are related to the job by accurately reflecting the position (content validity), demonstrate empirical correlations to important aspects of the job (criterion related validity), or reflect central psychological constructs important to the job (construct validity). The current research establishes the construct validity of spirituality in the context of other integrity based personnel selection tools. Section 5 of the Uniform Guidelines (General standards for validity studies) describes acceptable types of validly studies are established. Section B specifies criterion related, content and construct studies as being acceptable. Section C relates the guidelines as being consistent with the professional standards of the American Psychological Association (APA), the American Educational Research Association (AERA), and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). Section 9.D.3 (Accuracy and completeness, construct validity studies, construct definition) states: “A clear definition of the construct(s) which are believed to underlie successful performance of the critical or important work behavior(s) should be provided (essential). This definition should include the levels of construct performance relevant to the job(s) for which the selection procedure is to be used (essential). There should be a summary of the position of the construct in the psychological literature, or in the absence of such a position, a description of the way in which the definition and measurement of the construct was developed and the psychological theory underlying it (essential). Any quantitative data which identify or define the job constructs, such as factor analyses, should be provided (essential).”
Based on the requirements of the Uniform Guidelines and our review of spirituality, we consider the relationship between spirituality and associated psychometric preemployment measures. Sex, Spirituality, and Human Resources Decision Making The Civil Rights Act of 1991 prohibits norming based on protected class membership (Lorber, 1992).Inclusion of sex differentiation is therefore an important element of a construct validity study in order to establish potential differential (adverse impact) scores between males and females. Data suggests that men and women differ in their religious behaviors and expressions, women being more religious and spiritual. For example, the 1990 US General Social Survey showed that more women than men pray, and that women study religious texts more than men (Davis & Smith, 1991). Integrity Related Measures and Human Resources Selection Integrity tests have been used for pre-employment selection measures of occupational behaviors such as honesty, violent tendencies, turnover, theft likelihood, white-collar crime and other counterproductive employment behaviors (Wanek, 1999). Psychological integrity tests were developed because of the lack of validity associated with polygraph tests in the measurement of honesty (Miner & Capps, 1996). Integrity tests take two forms, overt (factually) and personality based (Sackett, Burris, and Callahan, 1989). The measures used in the current study are personality based. In a meta-analysis, Ones and Viswesvaran (2001) used 665 validity coefficients to investigate integrity test validities across three different categories: job performance, general counterproductive work behavior, and theft. They found that after correcting for range restriction and unreliability in the criterion, validity coefficients of 0.29 were found
for broad counterproductive behaviors, and 0.41 between supervisory ratings of overall job performance and personality based measures of integrity. This meta-analysis has implications for our study because it meets the uniform guideline requirement that require that agencies only accept a claim of construct validity when the selection procedure (in this case, integrity related measures) have been used elsewhere in a situation in which a criterion-related study have been conducted. Because it meets the uniform guideline requirements, this enables us to establish the relationship between integrity related measures and psychometric measures of religiosity and spirituality for the purposes of a construct validation. Given our business student participants’ desire to enter the white collar workforce, we were acutely interested in a wide range of integrity related measures used to predict the propensity to commit white collar crime. Collins and Schmidt (1993) compared federal prison inmates convicted for white-collar crimes to white-collar managers that had not been accused of any crime. In their study they tested correlation between integrity and subscales of the California Personality Inventory (specifically the responsibility, stability, and self-control scales), a biodata scale, and a PDI Employment Inventory (a personality measure predictive of productive or counterproductive employee behavior). They found strong to moderate correlations between the 365 criminals and 344 managers on measures of stability (0.57), responsibility (0.40), and self-control (0.23). In the current study, we establish the factorial relationship between measures of integrity, responsibility, stability, self-control, and spirituality. Deviant Behavior in the Workplace
Given the assumed breadth of impact that individual spirituality has been purported to exert on ethics related employee behavior, it becomes important to establish the relationship between spirituality and work behaviors other than integrity. One additional construct of interest is workplace deviance, where employees voluntarily violate normative expectations in the social context of employment (Kaplan, 1975). We use the Bennett and Robinson (2000) description of the workplace deviance construct as “violations of the norms that threaten the well-being of an organization”. Bennett also suggests that employees engage in workplace deviance due to various reasons, such as dissatisfaction, modeling, perceived injustice and thrill seeking. Other associated behaviors are absenteeism, withholding effort, and time theft. As we are examining spirituality in relation to personnel selection, establishing the relationship between the aforementioned variables and workplace deviant behavior would facilitate a broader approach to understanding the relationship between the construct and concurrent workplace behaviors. Current Study The study aims to establish the construct validity of spirituality with common personnel selection tools and predictors of workplace deviance. The validation is critical in the circumstance that they provide objective tools to evaluate relationships between spirituality; integrity based job-related selection criteria, and potentially unethical workplace behavior. Drawing from the research, our aim is to clarify the impact of individual differences (specifically integrity, responsibility, stability, self-control, and sex) on measures of spirituality. Further, we seek to better understand the impact spirituality in
relationship to workplace deviance. Hypotheses Based on the hypothesized relationships found in the literature, the following hypotheses were developed: H1. H2. H3. H4. H5. Spirituality will load on integrity Spirituality will load on responsibility Spirituality will load on stability Spirituality will load on self control Strong negative relationships will be established between spirituality, interpersonal workplace deviance, and organizational workplace deviance H6. Significant differences in spirituality scale responses will be established between male and female participants
Method Participants Research has argued that university students are viable surrogates for practicing business people (Yavas, 1994). Participants were students from a medium-sized western university in the United States. The sample consisted of 280 participants from both graduate and undergraduate classes in business administration courses. Data collection was part of an opportunity for extra credit in classes during the years 2007 through 2009. Participation was voluntary and the instruments were administered via an online survey package at three different points during the quarter to ensure students did not suffer fatigue (see table 2). Descriptive statistics for participants are presented in Table 1.
Participant ages ranged from 21 to 50, the majority being between 21 and 25 (70%). Importantly, a 2006 University-wide survey found 62.8% of the students worked 16 or more hours per week; 29% worked 35 or more hours, and 18.8% reported that they did not work. . TABLE 2 about here Instruments Much of research literature regarding integrity and workplace deviance measures have been conducted by test publishers (Camara and Schneider, 1994), generally for the purpose of validating and publishing commercial tests. This makes the use of these tests for academic research prohibitively expensive. In the current studies, we have used public domain individual differences instruments available from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP, 2006) for this study. The psychometric properties of the IPIP scales have been assessed and validated by Goldberg and colleagues (Goldberg. L, 1999; Goldberg, Johnson, Eber, Hogan, Ashton, Cloninger, and Gough, 2006) The IPIP proxies for the Personality Attributes Scale (PAS), the Hogan Personnel Inventory (HPI), the California Psychological Inventory (CPI), and the Values in Action (VIA) scale were used for the current study. All IPIP scales are five point Likert scales, with one signifying “very inaccurate” and five signifying “very accurate.” Spirituality Values in Action Spirituality Scale: The instrument uses 5-point Likert-style items to measure endorsement of 24 character strengths that make up the VIA Classification (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) system. The VIA-IS Spirituality scale (religiousness, faith, purpose) measures one’s beliefs regarding cosmological purpose, understanding the
individuals place in the cosmology, and how beliefs about life’s meaning impacts behaviors and providing psychological comfort. From the IPIP VIA, the Spirituality/Religiousness scale yielded an alpha of 0.91. Integrity Related Individual Difference Measures To assess integrity we used the IPIP Integrity proxy from the Hogan Personnel Inventory, as well as two related scales from the IPIP CPI proxy, the Responsibility scale and the Stability scale. These two additional scales evaluate an individual’s level of “conscientiousness, honesty, dependability, and practicality” and “alertness to ethical and moral issues” (Kaplan and Saccuzzo, 2001). An additional, third scale used from the IPIP CPI proxy was Self-Control, which measures of an individual’s perceived control over life events (Derlega, Winstead, and Jones, 2005). Workplace Deviance We used workplace deviance measures along two dimensions : Interpersonal Deviance and Organizational Deviance. Interpersonal deviance is negative behavior directed specifically at individuals within the organization, while organizational deviance is negative behavior targeted at the organization as a whole. (Bennett and Robinson, 2000)
Administration of Tests To reduce fatigue and respondent errors, we administered the assessments over a five week time frame. Specifically, in week one we administered spirituality, integrity and impression management; week three: responsibility, stability, self-control scales; week five: workplace deviance measures and demographics.
Basic descriptive statistics and reliability estimates (Cronbach’s alphas) for all scales were established for the sample and are reported in Table 3. All yielded acceptable alpha levels (see Table 3).
TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE Results Principal components factor analyses established four viable factors, accounting for 68% of the variance (see table 4 below). Interestingly, the constructs are construed as unitary, but some consideration should be given in the future to the development of multidimensional scales to add appropriate complexity to the constructs. The first factor accounted for 28% of the variance and consisted of items that dealt with areas of either positively phrased spiritual beliefs or actions. The second factor accounted for 18% of the variance and consisted of integrity items that were negatively phrased. This was followed by the third factor which accounted for 15% of the variance and consisted of positively phrased integrity items. Finally, the fourth factor accounted for 6% of the variance and consisted of negatively phrase items regarding spirituality (see table 5 below).
TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE
TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE
The most important component of the first factor analysis is the lack of common loading on either of the constructs or in any of the factors. This suggests that spirituality and integrity are two wholly different constructs, unrelated to each other in any manner that could be construed as being meaningful for the purposes of psychometric evaluation or employment purposes, whether for recruitment, selection purposes, promotion, or training opportunities. Again it is interesting to note the extraction of four factors, though those factors clearly load in regards to the original construct (either spirituality or integrity) without having any cross loading items. Principal components factor analyses established five viable factors, accounting for 65% of the variance. As with the integrity analysis, while the constructs are construed as unitary, the five factor solution suggests consideration should be given to the development of multidimensional scales to add appropriate complexity to the constructs (see table 6 below). The first factor accounted for 29% of the variance and consisted of items that dealt with areas of either positively phrased spiritual beliefs or actions. The second factor accounted for 15% of the variance and consisted of responsibility items that were negatively phrased. This was followed by the third factor which accounted for 10% of the variance and consisted of two negatively worded items regarding behavioral aspects from both the spirituality and responsibility scales. The fourth factor accounted for 6% of the variance and consisted of responsibility items that dealt with forgiveness and appreciation, and the fifth factor accounted for 5% of the variance consisting of one responsibility item regarding making returning extra change (see table 7 below).
TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE
TABLE 7 ABOUT HERE Again, the most important component of the second factor analysis is preponderance of items that do not load on common factors. This suggests that spirituality and responsibility are two different constructs, unrelated to each other in any manner that could be construed as being meaningful or useful for the purposes of psychometric evaluation, or human resources decision making. Again it is interesting to note the extraction of four factors, though those factors clearly load in regards to the original construct (either spirituality or responsibility) without having any cross loading items. Principal components factor analyses established four viable factors, accounting for 62% of the variance. Again, while the constructs are construed as unitary, the four factor solution suggests consideration should be given to the development of multidimensional scales to add appropriate complexity to the constructs (see table 8 below). The first factor accounted for 24% of the variance and consisted of items that dealt with areas of either positively phrased spiritual beliefs or actions. The second factor accounted for 22% of the variance and consisted of stability items that were related to interpersonal negativity. This was followed by the third factor which accounted for 10% of the variance and consisted of predominantly intrapersonal negativity items. The fourth factor accounted for 6% of the variance and consisted of spirituality items that were worded negatively and one stability item that dealt with trust (see table 9 below).
TABLE 8 ABOUT HERE
TABLE 9 ABOUT HERE
Similar to the first two factor analyses, the most important component of the third factor analysis is preponderance of items that do not load on common factors. This suggests that spirituality and stability are not the same constructs, and of no utility for the purposes of psychometric evaluation in legal (based on the Uniform Guidelines) human resources decision making. Again it is interesting to note the extraction of four factors, though those factors clearly load in regards to the original construct (either spirituality or stability) sharing one item in one factor (which is an interesting loading, see below). Principal components factor analyses established five viable factors, accounting for 67% of the variance. Again, while the constructs are construed as unitary, the five factor solution suggests consideration should be given to the development of multidimensional scales to add appropriate complexity to the constructs (see table 10 below). The first factor accounted for 25% of the variance and consisted of items that dealt with areas of negatively phrased self control items. The second factor accounted for 22% of the variance and consisted of positively phrased spirituality items. This was followed by the third factor which accounted for 8% of the variance and consisted of interpersonal items regarding swear words and the use of credit. The fourth factor accounted for 6% of the variance and consisted of self control items regarding affect.
Finally the fifth factor accounted for 6% of the variance and consisted of negatively worded spirituality items (see table 11 below). TABLE 10 ABOUT HERE
TABLE 11 ABOUT HERE
Similar to the first three factor analyses, the most important component of the fourth factor analysis is the lack of loading on common factors. This suggests that spirituality and self control are not the same constructs, and of no utility for the purposes of psychometric evaluation in legal (based on the Uniform Guidelines) human resources decision making. Again it is interesting to note the extraction of four factors, though those factors clearly load in regards to the original construct (either spirituality or self control). To establish the relationship between spirituality and workplace deviance measures, we performed bivariate correlations between spirituality and the workplace deviance variables (interpersonal deviance and organizational deviance). Interestingly, no significant correlations were found between spirituality and either of the two workplace deviance variables, Consistent with the factor analyses (but contrary to our hypotheses based on the literature), spirituality does not seem to relate to any of the integrity or ethics based constructs we evaluated. The two workplace deviance variables did relate strongly to each other (as expected in a multidimensional assessment) suggesting that participants were cognizant of their choices and that our results reflect an attentive population of working business students. (see table 12 below).
TABLE 12 ABOUT HERE
Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the hypotheses that sex differences would be manifest in spirituality scores (see Table 13). In the ANOVA, sex was the fixed factor. Significant differences were found between male and female participants in the spirituality scale. These results do support hypothesis six, which stated directionally uniform significant differences would be found between male and female participants on the in all measures. As hypothesized, significant differences were found between male and female participants, with men scoring lower than women on the spirituality scale. The ramifications are discussed below.
TABLE 13ABOUT HERE
Discussion In this study, we investigated the construct validity of spirituality in relation to pre-employment measures of integrity and workplace deviance. None of the integrity related measures used to predict ethical workplace behavior (integrity, responsibility, stability or self-control) factored in a manner that would suggest any significant commonality between the constructs. Accordingly the construct does not meet conventional criteria for use as proxies in personnel decision making. Accordingly, spirituality should not be used to establish the ethical capacity of any individual or group in any workplace capacity. Measures of spirituality are not psychometrically acceptable
proxies for well established personnel selection instruments. When considering personnel selection tools to facilitate the potentiality of unethical work related behavior, managers, human resources managers and supervisors should use well established, defensible measures with the support of job analysis. We also established the relationship between spirituality and workplace deviance in our study. Our findings suggest that personnel selection tools of integrity, responsibility, stability and self control are not related to measures of spirituality. Supporting this finding is the correlational analyses between spirituality and both measures of workplace deviance. Accordingly, the spirituality scale used in the current study should not be used to establish the ethical capacity of any individual or group in any workplace capacity. We have established that spirituality measures are not psychometrically acceptable proxies for well established personnel selection instruments. The literature was supported in the significant differences between women and men in spirituality, but as the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (1991) prohibits the use of different cutoff scores for different groups, the finding that there are group differences on the spirituality scale signifies a potentially discriminatory tool if used for human resources decision-making. Importantly, Ones and Viswesvaran (1998) performed research using a database that represented 724,806 employees and concluded that integrity based tests for pre-employment selection did not produce significant differences between males and females, thus not suffering from adverse impact. The results reported here confirm that the uses of measures of spirituality are likely to be potential causes of adverse impact in employment decision-making.
The Utility of Spirituality in Human Resources Decision Making What are the ramifications for use of spirituality for the purposes of human resources decision-making? Managers, practitioners, consultants and selecting human resources managers need to consider the impact of any tool in every human resources context from a legal perspective. While organizations seek to integrate spirituality based on a reading of this growing domain organization, managerial, and behavioral literature, the integration of measurement tools for the purposes of reading on the perceived utility of spirituality should be tempered by an understanding of the 1978 Uniform Guidelines as well as an understanding of reducing the individual differences that make up the construct of spirituality. Until the above are considered the likely ramifications are workplace litigation and discrimination suits based on Title VII protections. Conclusion While a great deal of popular literature, philosophical and theoretical work has been put into the establishment of spirituality in the workplace, the current research found no support for the assertion that spirituality should be construed as relevant to workplace human resources decision making (outside of either serving social identification needs or more manipulative (?) managerial goals-see Lips-Wiesma, Dean & Fornaciari, 2009), in particular when predicting ethical behavior. While there are other measures of spirituality, based on thorough reviews of content such as the aptly titled “Spirituality and Ethical Behavior in the Workplace: Wishful Thinking or Authentic Reality” (McGhee & Grant, 2008), further investigations will be required to establish any potential utility of the constructs of spirituality for human resources decision-making due to the lack of commonality in conceptualization across spirituality in the workplace literature.
A limitation of this study was that only one measure of spirituality was used. Future research is needed to examine whether the results obtained here generalize to other measures (specifically developed for workplace use) of spirituality. To the extent that different overt tools measure similar most constructs, future researchers are likely to find similar results. Future research should examine different (race, ethnicity, age) demographic group differences on spirituality measures as well. While the current study contribute to the literature in relation to the Uniform Guidelines and spirituality, an important consideration for future empirical research on religiosity and spirituality rests on the willingness of scholars to evaluate the relationship between both constructs and other well established individual differences. Our literature review was unable to find any previous studies examining the uniform guidelines, validity and spirituality in psychometric human resources decision making context. Based on McKee’s (2006) observations, another more provocative question that can be asked is: given the seeming downturn of moral and morality in organizations based on the current economic conditions, what type of palliative effects can spirituality in the workplace have?
References Benefiel, M. (2005a). The second half of the journey: Spiritual leadership for organizational transformation. Leadership Quarterly,16, 723-747. Bennett, R. J., and Robinson, S. L. (2000) Development of a Measure of Workplace Deviance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (3). Camara, W. & Schneider, D. (1995) Questions of construct breadth and openness of research in integrity testing. American Psychologist. Vol 50(6), Jun 1995, 459-460. Civil Rights Act of 1991 - Pub. L. 102-166 Collins, J. M., and Schmidt, F. L. (1993) Personality, Integrity, and White-Collar Crime: a Construct, Personnel Psychology, 46 (2). Davis, J., & Smith, T. (1991) The general social survey cumulative codebook. Chicago: NORC. Derlega, V. J., Winstead, B. A., and Jones, W. H. (2005) Personality: Contemporary Theory and Research (3rd ed.), Thomson. Elkins, D. (2001) Beyond religion: toward a humanistic spirituality. The Handbook of Humanistic Psychology: Leading Edges in Theory, Research, and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 201–12 Fry, L. W. (2005). Toward a theory of ethical and spiritual well-being, and corporate social responsibility through spiritual leadership. In R. A. Giacalone (Ed.), Positive Psychology in Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility (pp. 47-83). New York: Information Age Publishing. Garcia-Zamor, J. C. (2003). Workplace spirituality and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 63, 355-363.
Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003a). Toward a science of workplace spirituality. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of Workplace Spirituality (pp. 3-28). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Giacalone, R. Jurkiewicz C., Fry L. (2005). From Advocacy to Science: The next steps in Workplace Spirituality Research. Retrieved November 11, 2007, from http://www.tarleton.edu/~fry/SLTPaloutzianFinal.rtf Gockel, A. (2004) The trend toward spirituality in the workplace: Overview and implications for career counseling. Journal of Employment Counseling. Vol. 41, Iss. 4; p. 156 Goldberg, L. (1999) A Broad-Bandwidth, Public-Domain, Personality Inventory Measuring the Lower-Level Facets of Several Five-Factor Models” In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, and F. Ostendorf (Eds.) Personality Psychology in Europe, Vol. 7. (pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. Goldberg, L., Johnson, J., Eber, H., Hogan, R., Ashton, M., Cloninger, C., and Gough, H. (2006) The International Personality Item Pool and the Future of Public-Domain Personality Measures, Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96. International Personality Item Pool Contributors (2006) Individual Differences Scales, Administration Instructions Retrieved September, 2004 from http://ipip.ori.org/ipip/ Hill P.C., Pargament K.I., Wood R.W., McCullough M.E, & Swyers J.P.(2000) Conceptualizing religion and spirituality: points of commonality, points of departure. Journal of Theory of Social Behavior. 30:51–77 Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A values framework for measuring the impact of workplace spirituality on organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 129-142.
Jackson, K. T. (1999). Spirituality as a foundation for freedom and creative imagination in international business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(1), 61-70. Kaplan, H. B. (1975) Self Attitudes and Deviant Behavior, Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear. Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2001) Psychological Testing: Principles, Applications and Issues (5th ed.), Belmont, California: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Kriger, M. P., & Hanson, B. J. (1999). A value-based paradigm for creating truly healthy organizations. Journal of organizational Change Management, 12(4), 302-317. Lips-Wiersma, M., Lund Dean, K., & Fornaciari, C (2009) Theorizing the dark side of the workplace spirituality movement Journal of Management Inquiry. Volume 18 Number 4 December 2009 288-300 Lorber, L. (1992) The Civil Rights Act of 1991. Legal Report, Society for Human Resources Management, Spring 1992. 1-4 Marques, J., Dhiman, S., King, R. (2005) Spirituality in the workplace: Developing an integral model and a comprehensive definition. The Journal of American Academy of Business. vol:7 iss:1 pg:81 Marques, J. F. (2005). Spirituality in the workplace: Developing an integral model and a comprehensive definition. The Journal of the American Academy of Business, 7(1), 8191. McGhee, P. & Grant, P. (2008) Spirituality and Ethical Behaviour in the Workplace: Wishful Thinking or Authentic Reality. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies Vol. 13, No. 2 McKee, M.C. (2006) Workplace Spirituality: The Workplace Review. November 2006 19,2.
Miner, J. Capps, M. (1996) How Honesty Testing Works, Westport, CT, Quorum Books. Mitroff, I. 1999. A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America, Jossey Bass: NY. Ones, D. & Viswesvaran, C. (1998) Gender, age, and race differences on overt integrity tests: Results across four large-scale job applicant datasets. Journal of Applied Psychology, 0021-9010, 1998, Vol. 83, Issue 1 Pargament, K. (1999) The psychology of religion and spirituality? Yes and no. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. 9, 1. 3-16 Park, N., Peterson, C. & Seligman, M. E. (2003) Strengths of Character and Well-Being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 5, 2004, pp. 603-619 Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004) Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press, USA Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 655-687. Sackett, P. R., Burris, L. R., and Callahan, C. (1989) Integrity Testing for Personal Selection: An Update, Personnel Psychology, 42 (3). Spilka, B., & McIntosh, D.N. (1996) Religion and Spirituality: The known and unknown. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario. Uniform Guidelines, Sec. 60-3.2 Scope. B, 2000 Wanek, J. E. (1999) Integrity and Honesty Testing: What do we know? How do we use it?, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7 (4). Weaver, G. R., & Agle, B. R. (2002). Religiosity and ethical behavior in organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 17, 77-97.
Yavas, U. (1994) Research note: Students as subjects in advertising and marketing research. International Marketing Review. 11, 4; pg. 35 Zinnbauer, B.J. and Pargament, K.I. and Scott, A.B. (1999) The emerging meanings of religiousness and spirituality: Problems and prospects. Journal of Personality. 67, 6 889919 Zinnbauer, B.J., Pargament, K.I., Cole, B., Rye, M.S., Butter, E.M., Belavich, T.G., Hipp, K.M., Scott, A.B., & Kadar, J.L. (1997) Religion and spirituality: Unfuzzying the fuzzy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 549-564
Tables Table 1: Spiritual Values and Related Traits Summary AUTHOR(S) SPIRITUAL VALUES Jackson , (1999, pp. 65-66) & Kriger & Hanson, Honesty, Duty Trustworthiness (1999, p. 304) Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, (2003a, p. 14) Integrity, Truth, Justice Fry (2003, p. 695) Integrity, Honesty, Trust Jurkiewicz & Giacalone, (2004, p. 131) Integrity, Justice, Responsibility, Trust Fry, (2005, p. 56) Honesty, Integrity Marques (2005, p. 86) Honesty, Trust, Reave (2005, p. 658) Integrity, Honesty
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Participants
Frequency Percent Sex Male Female Total Ethnicity N/A Asian African-American Caucasian Middle Eastern African Latina/o Other Total 104 176 280 29 81 27 65 42 5 26 5 280 37.1 62.9 100.0 10.4 28.9 9.6 23.2 15.0 1.8 9.3 1.8 100.0
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics and Cronbach’s Alpha for Individual Differences and Workplace Deviance Measures Spirituality Integrity Responsibility Stability Self control Interpersonal Workplace Deviance Organizational Workplace Deviance N 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 Mean 3.37 3.91 4.01 3.17 3.03 1.66 1.66 SD .88 .61 .49 .76 .73 .78 .65 Alpha .82 .74 .74 .80 .78 .92 .94
Table 4: Total Variance Explained for Spirituality and Integrity factor analysis
Initial Eigenvalues Factor 1 2 3 4 Total 5.082 3.232 2.792 1.152 % of Variance 28.231 17.957 15.514 6.400 Cumulative % 28.231 46.188 61.701 68.101
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Table 5: Rotated Component Matrix for Spirituality and Integrity
Factor Item SR2 Am a spiritual person. SR3 Keep my faith even during hard times SR5 Am who I am because of my faith SR1 Believe in a universal power or God SR7 Know that my beliefs make my life important SR6 Believe that each person has a purpose in life SR4 Have spent at least 30 minutes in the last 24 hours in prayer or meditation I8 Feel like an imposter I9 Like to exaggerate my troubles I6 Lie to get myself out of trouble I7 Am hard to understand I4 Can be trusted to keep my promises I2 Keep my promises I3 Believe that honesty is the basis for trust I1 Am trusted to keep secrets I5 Am true to my own values SR8 Do not practice any religion SR9 Do not believe in a universal power or a God Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. 1 .855 .849 .835 .796 .764 .713 .686 .862 .831 .794 .790 .883 .860 .794 .777 .774 .874 .862 2 3 4
Table 6: Total Variance Explained for Spirituality and Responsibility factor analysis
Initial Eigenvalues Factor 1 2 3 4 5 Total 5.571 2.765 1.907 1.052 1.022 % of Variance 29.321 14.552 10.035 5.538 5.378 Cumulative % 29.321 43.873 53.908 59.446 64.824 Total 5.571 2.765 1.907 1.052 1.022
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Table 7: Rotated Component Matrix for Spirituality and Responsibility
Factor Item SR2 Am a spiritual person. SR3 Keep my faith even during hard times SR5 Am who I am because of my faith SR1 Believe in a universal power or God SR7 Know that my beliefs make my life important SR4 Have spent at least 30 minutes in the last 24 hours in prayer or meditation SR6 Believe that each person has a purpose in life R6 Take others' interests into account R8 Am able to cooperate with others R5 Anticipate the needs of others R7 Am polite to strangers R4 Act according to my conscience R3 Like to be of service to others SR9 Do not believe in a universal power or a God SR8 Do not practice any religion R10 Try not to think about the needy R2 Try to forgive and forget R9 Appreciate people who wait on me R1 Return extra change when a cashier makes a mistake Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. .686 .794 .793 .773 .718 .662 .523 .858 .814 .700 .815 .611 -.726 1 .863 .853 .834 .807 .747 .691 2 3 4 5
Table 8: Total Variance Explained for Spirituality and Stability factor analysis
Initial Eigenvalues Factor 1 2 3 4 Total 4.608 4.123 1.849 1.117 % of Variance 24.254 21.700 9.730 5.879 Cumulative % 24.254 45.954 55.685 61.563
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Table 9: Rotated Component Matrix for Spirituality and Stability
Factor Item SR2 Am a spiritual person. SR3 Keep my faith even during hard times SR5 Am who I am because of my faith SR1 Believe in a universal power or God SR7 Know that my beliefs make my life important SR6 Believe that each person has a purpose in life SR4 Have spent at least 30 minutes in the last 24 hours in prayer or meditation S6 Make enemies S7 Snap at people S8 Go on binges S10 Get back at others S4 Do unexpected things S3 Live in a world of my own S2 Do things that others find strange S5 Am hard to understand S9 Get bored easily SR8 Do not practice any religion SR9 Do not believe in a universal power or a God S1 Trust others Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. 1 .855 .851 .836 .796 .768 .713 .676 .876 .866 .838 .771 .805 .796 .789 .692 .283 .867 .708 .512 2 3 4
Table 10: Total Variance Explained for Spirituality and Self Control factor analysis
Initial Eigenvalues Factor 1 2 3 4 5 Total 4.716 4.185 1.609 1.195 1.067 % of Variance 24.819 22.028 8.470 6.291 5.615 Cumulative % 24.819 46.847 55.317 61.608 67.223
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Table 11: Rotated Component Matrix for Spirituality and Self Control Factor Item SC6 Do crazy things SC4 Act wild and crazy SC10 Make a lot of noise SC8 Make rash decisions SC7 Use flattery to get ahead SC5 Demand attention SR2 Am a spiritual person. SR3 Keep my faith even during hard times SR5 Am who I am because of my faith SR1 Believe in a universal power or God SR7 Know that my beliefs make my life important SR6 Believe that each person has a purpose in life SR4 Have spent at least 30 minutes in the last 24 hours in prayer or meditation SC9 Use swear words SC2 Never spend more than I can afford SC1 Am not easily affected by my emotions SC3 Experience very few emotional highs and lows SR8 Do not practice any religion SR9 Do not believe in a universal power or a God Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. .841 .623 .762 .736 .912 .824 1 .896 .882 .821 .815 .784 .722 .854 .853 .834 .795 .771 .717 .675 2 3 4 5
Table 12: Spirituality and Workplace Deviance Correlations
Spirituality Spirituality Interpersonal Deviance Organizational Deviance -.042 .760** 1 1 -.062 Interpersonal Deviance -.062 1 Organizational Deviance -.042 .760**
Table 13: Spirituality and Gender ANOVA Dependent Variable Spirituality Gender Type III Sum of Squares df 5.108 1 Male Mean Partial Mean Square F p. ?2 5.108 6.651 .010 .023 3.20 Female Mean 3.48
doc_664215991.doc
The workplace is the physical location where someone works. Such a place can range from a home office to a large office building or factory. The workplace is one of the most important social spaces other than the home, constituting "a central concept for several entities: the worker and his/her family, the employing organisation, the customers of the organisation, and the society as a whole".
Case Study for Ethical Workplace Behaviors
Abstract Spirituality provides descriptions that represent relevant psychological phenomena which can be discretely measured. Because of the requirements of the 1978 Federal Uniform Guidelines, the relationship between spirituality and job-related traits and characteristics need to be well understood in the event they are used for decisions affecting personnel . The merit of any metric associated with performance must be established through a validity study (Uniform Guidelines, Sec. 60-3.2 Scope. B, 2000). Accordingly, we consider the construct validity of the aforementioned measures in the context of the uniform guidelines. As hypothesized, religiosity and spirituality instruments are independent of measures commonly used for personnel selection purposes or measures of workplace deviance. We also establish the impact of gender on the measures and provide implications for recruitment and selection.
Forthcoming in the Journal of Law, Business and Ethics Running Head: Uniform Guidelines Keywords: Management, Selection, Spirituality, Human Resources, Uniform Guidelines Title: Uniform Guidelines, Spirituality, and Predictors of Ethical Workplace Behaviors Spirituality is an often controversial topic in the American business landscape, especially when paired with individual employee behavior. Definitions of the concept of spirituality continues to evolve, based on research among disciplines such as Social
Psychology, Sociology and Organizational Behavior (Giacalone, Jurkiewicz, & Fry, 2005). Despite ambiguity in its definition, spirituality has become sufficiently visible to merit at least one journal in the business academic environment (The Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion), and a new American Psychological Association Journal (Psychology of Religion and Spirituality). Despite apprehension associated with the topics, the past 10 years has seen a growing willingness to incorporate spirituality in the study of the workplace (Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Weaver & Agle, 2002). Definition of Spirituality and Its Differentiation from Religiosity Marques, Dhiman, and King (2005) summarized definitions of spirituality and concluded that it is “a very personal awareness or experience, based on sensitivity towards other living beings”. Elkins (2001) offers several expectations of spirituality: it is universal, phenomenological, characterized by the “mysterious” and ultimately compassionate. Park, Peterson, and Seligman (2004) define spirituality as follows: “… having coherent beliefs about the higher purpose and meaning of the universe, and the meaning of life to shape conduct, and knowing where one fits within the larger scheme. Spirituality may be reflected in social context, but given current conceptions of individual spirituality, may not.” There is a considerable amount of ambiguity in definitions that attempt to differentiate spirituality from religiosity. Some propose that the difference between religion and spirituality is that religion is based on established, unyielding beliefs (Dogma), while spirituality is personal, tolerant, and based on connectedness. However, once researchers propose time-relationships between spirituality and religiosity, the issue becomes muddled. Some researchers see spirituality as a movement away from religion
(Elkins 2001), others as an increased respect for extant practices of traditional religiosity (Hill et al. 2000). Because of this ambiguity it is important to note that in the business literature specifically, spirituality is viewed as more pan-religious, generalized moral beliefs guiding behavior, whereas religiosity refers to more specific ethical codes determined by organized religion (Mitroff, 1999). Interest in Spirituality in the Workplace There are many reasons why American corporations are seemingly more interested in spirituality at work than previously. First, downsizing, reengineering, and current layoffs (as well as those of past decades) have demoralized employees. Second, the workplace has been perceived more as a primary source of community due to a lack of communal activity in America. Third, increased access and curiosity about other cultures and philosophies have promoted a kind of spiritual revival across North America. Fourth, as Baby Boomers retire (or move into another career as dictated by finances) a reconsideration of life's meaning as they move closer to the end of their lives (Marques et. al., 2005). In practice, spirituality in the workplace refers to the policies and practices that focus on the recognition of the “soul” of a person at the organizational level. Gockel (2004) sees a focus on interpersonal caring, relationship building, participatory management, employee empowerment, employee wellness, work-life balance initiatives, and training development or potential ways of revitalizing the “soul” at work. The aforementioned foci are not metaphysical elements, but instead represent relevant and topical issues in the work domains of human resources management and organizational development. While there has been no clear operationalization of “Soul”, the foci
mentioned above that comprise spirituality has merited a wide range of psychometric operationalization. As researchers have summarized evidence of positive individual employee outcomes and organizational outcomes (Benefiel, 2005a), a continued interest of managers, stakeholders, and consultants in spirituality in the workplace is virtually guaranteed. Distinguishing concepts of Religiosity and Spirituality The traditional perspective of research involving religiosity saw religion as encompassing spirituality, focused on personal religiousness with substantive and functional elements that could be construed as either positive or negative (Zinnbauer, Pargament & Scott, 1999). Zinnbauer et al. (1997) found religion associated with “higher levels of authoritarianism, religious orthodoxy, intrinsic religiousness, parental religious attendance, self-righteousness, and church attendance” (p. 561). Religion or religiousness tends to be defined in more organizational terms. References are made not only to a belief in or relationship with God, but also organizational practices like church membership, church attendance, and a commitment to the doctrine of a particular church or religion (Spilka & McIntosh, 1996). Spirituality, on the other hand, is associated with “mystical experiences, New Age beliefs and practices, higher income, and the experience of being hurt by clergy” (Zinnbauer et al., p. 561). While there are references made to a belief in or relationship with God or a higher power, most definitions of spirituality tend to use language that is personal and experiential in nature. Clearly the literature represents an array of constructs that purport to measure spirituality in different contexts from situational/environmental (workplace, functional) to the individual (intrinsic, substantive). Comparing these methods requires care when
selecting the appropriate tools for the study of spirituality. For the purposes of the current study we wanted to avoid performing ungrounded research (Pargament, 1999) and theoretically and empirically driven tools to measure the construct. Spirituality and Personnel Assessment The literature on both religiosity and spirituality in the workplace has been predominantly theoretical and philosophical. Giacalone, Jurkiewicz, and Fry (2005) caution against this approach: “Legitimizing workplace spirituality, therefore, requires a demonstrable positive impact of spiritual values on work place related functioning. Without this demonstration, the topic of workplace spirituality would be marginalized as a philosophical and impractical pursuit”. Advancing the research by using more quantitative methodologies, McGhee and Grant (2008) summarize the finding of eight articles that offer “spiritual values” related to nominative traits (as opposed to psychological constructs, psychometrically measured) that contribute to a “regulative ideal” in a table that is partially reproduced below. Those terms that are relevant to this study are noted in the “Spiritual Values Column”. TABLE 1 about here
The psychological traits in the spiritual values column represent discrete psychometric variables that have been used successfully in pre-employment testing for several decades (Wanek, 1999), and as such are considered below in relation to spirituality. Spirituality and the Uniform Guidelines
Based on the growing interest in the use of spirituality in the workplace, the relationship between spirituality and job-related traits and characteristics become critical should they ever be utilized for any personnel decision-making (based on the requirements of the 1978 Federal Uniform Guidelines). Accordingly a reasonable employment question is whether or not spirituality is associated with job-related traits. Spirituality is a construct that represents psychological phenomenon which can be discretely measured. Importantly, this suggests that what might be construed as “spiritual” attitudes, characteristics or behavior is a collection of psychological phenomena that exists with or without acknowledgement of any standard associated with supernatural or metaphysical dimensions generally associated with spirituality. This sets the stage for employers’ awareness of any potential for legal challenges to selection procedures involving group differences in any selection tool, including any use of measures of spirituality. The Uniform Guidelines uphold the goal of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in human resources decision making that is consistent with legal and validation standards which are accepted by psychologists and employment testing professionals. Specifically, the EEOC aims to prevent adverse impact in any employment decision covered by the uniform guidelines which include the hiring, promotion, demotion, membership (e.g., union), referral, retention, or licensing and certification of an employee, and, in addition, potentially includes the selection for training or transfer providing they lead to any of the above decisions. The guidelines require organizations to demonstrate that administered tests have a valid relationship to the job before any metric is used for personnel decision making. This validity is
established by a validity study (Uniform Guidelines, Sec. 60-3.2 Scope. B, 2000). Preemployment selection variables which are related to the job by accurately reflecting the position (content validity), demonstrate empirical correlations to important aspects of the job (criterion related validity), or reflect central psychological constructs important to the job (construct validity). The current research establishes the construct validity of spirituality in the context of other integrity based personnel selection tools. Section 5 of the Uniform Guidelines (General standards for validity studies) describes acceptable types of validly studies are established. Section B specifies criterion related, content and construct studies as being acceptable. Section C relates the guidelines as being consistent with the professional standards of the American Psychological Association (APA), the American Educational Research Association (AERA), and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). Section 9.D.3 (Accuracy and completeness, construct validity studies, construct definition) states: “A clear definition of the construct(s) which are believed to underlie successful performance of the critical or important work behavior(s) should be provided (essential). This definition should include the levels of construct performance relevant to the job(s) for which the selection procedure is to be used (essential). There should be a summary of the position of the construct in the psychological literature, or in the absence of such a position, a description of the way in which the definition and measurement of the construct was developed and the psychological theory underlying it (essential). Any quantitative data which identify or define the job constructs, such as factor analyses, should be provided (essential).”
Based on the requirements of the Uniform Guidelines and our review of spirituality, we consider the relationship between spirituality and associated psychometric preemployment measures. Sex, Spirituality, and Human Resources Decision Making The Civil Rights Act of 1991 prohibits norming based on protected class membership (Lorber, 1992).Inclusion of sex differentiation is therefore an important element of a construct validity study in order to establish potential differential (adverse impact) scores between males and females. Data suggests that men and women differ in their religious behaviors and expressions, women being more religious and spiritual. For example, the 1990 US General Social Survey showed that more women than men pray, and that women study religious texts more than men (Davis & Smith, 1991). Integrity Related Measures and Human Resources Selection Integrity tests have been used for pre-employment selection measures of occupational behaviors such as honesty, violent tendencies, turnover, theft likelihood, white-collar crime and other counterproductive employment behaviors (Wanek, 1999). Psychological integrity tests were developed because of the lack of validity associated with polygraph tests in the measurement of honesty (Miner & Capps, 1996). Integrity tests take two forms, overt (factually) and personality based (Sackett, Burris, and Callahan, 1989). The measures used in the current study are personality based. In a meta-analysis, Ones and Viswesvaran (2001) used 665 validity coefficients to investigate integrity test validities across three different categories: job performance, general counterproductive work behavior, and theft. They found that after correcting for range restriction and unreliability in the criterion, validity coefficients of 0.29 were found
for broad counterproductive behaviors, and 0.41 between supervisory ratings of overall job performance and personality based measures of integrity. This meta-analysis has implications for our study because it meets the uniform guideline requirement that require that agencies only accept a claim of construct validity when the selection procedure (in this case, integrity related measures) have been used elsewhere in a situation in which a criterion-related study have been conducted. Because it meets the uniform guideline requirements, this enables us to establish the relationship between integrity related measures and psychometric measures of religiosity and spirituality for the purposes of a construct validation. Given our business student participants’ desire to enter the white collar workforce, we were acutely interested in a wide range of integrity related measures used to predict the propensity to commit white collar crime. Collins and Schmidt (1993) compared federal prison inmates convicted for white-collar crimes to white-collar managers that had not been accused of any crime. In their study they tested correlation between integrity and subscales of the California Personality Inventory (specifically the responsibility, stability, and self-control scales), a biodata scale, and a PDI Employment Inventory (a personality measure predictive of productive or counterproductive employee behavior). They found strong to moderate correlations between the 365 criminals and 344 managers on measures of stability (0.57), responsibility (0.40), and self-control (0.23). In the current study, we establish the factorial relationship between measures of integrity, responsibility, stability, self-control, and spirituality. Deviant Behavior in the Workplace
Given the assumed breadth of impact that individual spirituality has been purported to exert on ethics related employee behavior, it becomes important to establish the relationship between spirituality and work behaviors other than integrity. One additional construct of interest is workplace deviance, where employees voluntarily violate normative expectations in the social context of employment (Kaplan, 1975). We use the Bennett and Robinson (2000) description of the workplace deviance construct as “violations of the norms that threaten the well-being of an organization”. Bennett also suggests that employees engage in workplace deviance due to various reasons, such as dissatisfaction, modeling, perceived injustice and thrill seeking. Other associated behaviors are absenteeism, withholding effort, and time theft. As we are examining spirituality in relation to personnel selection, establishing the relationship between the aforementioned variables and workplace deviant behavior would facilitate a broader approach to understanding the relationship between the construct and concurrent workplace behaviors. Current Study The study aims to establish the construct validity of spirituality with common personnel selection tools and predictors of workplace deviance. The validation is critical in the circumstance that they provide objective tools to evaluate relationships between spirituality; integrity based job-related selection criteria, and potentially unethical workplace behavior. Drawing from the research, our aim is to clarify the impact of individual differences (specifically integrity, responsibility, stability, self-control, and sex) on measures of spirituality. Further, we seek to better understand the impact spirituality in
relationship to workplace deviance. Hypotheses Based on the hypothesized relationships found in the literature, the following hypotheses were developed: H1. H2. H3. H4. H5. Spirituality will load on integrity Spirituality will load on responsibility Spirituality will load on stability Spirituality will load on self control Strong negative relationships will be established between spirituality, interpersonal workplace deviance, and organizational workplace deviance H6. Significant differences in spirituality scale responses will be established between male and female participants
Method Participants Research has argued that university students are viable surrogates for practicing business people (Yavas, 1994). Participants were students from a medium-sized western university in the United States. The sample consisted of 280 participants from both graduate and undergraduate classes in business administration courses. Data collection was part of an opportunity for extra credit in classes during the years 2007 through 2009. Participation was voluntary and the instruments were administered via an online survey package at three different points during the quarter to ensure students did not suffer fatigue (see table 2). Descriptive statistics for participants are presented in Table 1.
Participant ages ranged from 21 to 50, the majority being between 21 and 25 (70%). Importantly, a 2006 University-wide survey found 62.8% of the students worked 16 or more hours per week; 29% worked 35 or more hours, and 18.8% reported that they did not work. . TABLE 2 about here Instruments Much of research literature regarding integrity and workplace deviance measures have been conducted by test publishers (Camara and Schneider, 1994), generally for the purpose of validating and publishing commercial tests. This makes the use of these tests for academic research prohibitively expensive. In the current studies, we have used public domain individual differences instruments available from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP, 2006) for this study. The psychometric properties of the IPIP scales have been assessed and validated by Goldberg and colleagues (Goldberg. L, 1999; Goldberg, Johnson, Eber, Hogan, Ashton, Cloninger, and Gough, 2006) The IPIP proxies for the Personality Attributes Scale (PAS), the Hogan Personnel Inventory (HPI), the California Psychological Inventory (CPI), and the Values in Action (VIA) scale were used for the current study. All IPIP scales are five point Likert scales, with one signifying “very inaccurate” and five signifying “very accurate.” Spirituality Values in Action Spirituality Scale: The instrument uses 5-point Likert-style items to measure endorsement of 24 character strengths that make up the VIA Classification (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) system. The VIA-IS Spirituality scale (religiousness, faith, purpose) measures one’s beliefs regarding cosmological purpose, understanding the
individuals place in the cosmology, and how beliefs about life’s meaning impacts behaviors and providing psychological comfort. From the IPIP VIA, the Spirituality/Religiousness scale yielded an alpha of 0.91. Integrity Related Individual Difference Measures To assess integrity we used the IPIP Integrity proxy from the Hogan Personnel Inventory, as well as two related scales from the IPIP CPI proxy, the Responsibility scale and the Stability scale. These two additional scales evaluate an individual’s level of “conscientiousness, honesty, dependability, and practicality” and “alertness to ethical and moral issues” (Kaplan and Saccuzzo, 2001). An additional, third scale used from the IPIP CPI proxy was Self-Control, which measures of an individual’s perceived control over life events (Derlega, Winstead, and Jones, 2005). Workplace Deviance We used workplace deviance measures along two dimensions : Interpersonal Deviance and Organizational Deviance. Interpersonal deviance is negative behavior directed specifically at individuals within the organization, while organizational deviance is negative behavior targeted at the organization as a whole. (Bennett and Robinson, 2000)
Administration of Tests To reduce fatigue and respondent errors, we administered the assessments over a five week time frame. Specifically, in week one we administered spirituality, integrity and impression management; week three: responsibility, stability, self-control scales; week five: workplace deviance measures and demographics.
Basic descriptive statistics and reliability estimates (Cronbach’s alphas) for all scales were established for the sample and are reported in Table 3. All yielded acceptable alpha levels (see Table 3).
TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE Results Principal components factor analyses established four viable factors, accounting for 68% of the variance (see table 4 below). Interestingly, the constructs are construed as unitary, but some consideration should be given in the future to the development of multidimensional scales to add appropriate complexity to the constructs. The first factor accounted for 28% of the variance and consisted of items that dealt with areas of either positively phrased spiritual beliefs or actions. The second factor accounted for 18% of the variance and consisted of integrity items that were negatively phrased. This was followed by the third factor which accounted for 15% of the variance and consisted of positively phrased integrity items. Finally, the fourth factor accounted for 6% of the variance and consisted of negatively phrase items regarding spirituality (see table 5 below).
TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE
TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE
The most important component of the first factor analysis is the lack of common loading on either of the constructs or in any of the factors. This suggests that spirituality and integrity are two wholly different constructs, unrelated to each other in any manner that could be construed as being meaningful for the purposes of psychometric evaluation or employment purposes, whether for recruitment, selection purposes, promotion, or training opportunities. Again it is interesting to note the extraction of four factors, though those factors clearly load in regards to the original construct (either spirituality or integrity) without having any cross loading items. Principal components factor analyses established five viable factors, accounting for 65% of the variance. As with the integrity analysis, while the constructs are construed as unitary, the five factor solution suggests consideration should be given to the development of multidimensional scales to add appropriate complexity to the constructs (see table 6 below). The first factor accounted for 29% of the variance and consisted of items that dealt with areas of either positively phrased spiritual beliefs or actions. The second factor accounted for 15% of the variance and consisted of responsibility items that were negatively phrased. This was followed by the third factor which accounted for 10% of the variance and consisted of two negatively worded items regarding behavioral aspects from both the spirituality and responsibility scales. The fourth factor accounted for 6% of the variance and consisted of responsibility items that dealt with forgiveness and appreciation, and the fifth factor accounted for 5% of the variance consisting of one responsibility item regarding making returning extra change (see table 7 below).
TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE
TABLE 7 ABOUT HERE Again, the most important component of the second factor analysis is preponderance of items that do not load on common factors. This suggests that spirituality and responsibility are two different constructs, unrelated to each other in any manner that could be construed as being meaningful or useful for the purposes of psychometric evaluation, or human resources decision making. Again it is interesting to note the extraction of four factors, though those factors clearly load in regards to the original construct (either spirituality or responsibility) without having any cross loading items. Principal components factor analyses established four viable factors, accounting for 62% of the variance. Again, while the constructs are construed as unitary, the four factor solution suggests consideration should be given to the development of multidimensional scales to add appropriate complexity to the constructs (see table 8 below). The first factor accounted for 24% of the variance and consisted of items that dealt with areas of either positively phrased spiritual beliefs or actions. The second factor accounted for 22% of the variance and consisted of stability items that were related to interpersonal negativity. This was followed by the third factor which accounted for 10% of the variance and consisted of predominantly intrapersonal negativity items. The fourth factor accounted for 6% of the variance and consisted of spirituality items that were worded negatively and one stability item that dealt with trust (see table 9 below).
TABLE 8 ABOUT HERE
TABLE 9 ABOUT HERE
Similar to the first two factor analyses, the most important component of the third factor analysis is preponderance of items that do not load on common factors. This suggests that spirituality and stability are not the same constructs, and of no utility for the purposes of psychometric evaluation in legal (based on the Uniform Guidelines) human resources decision making. Again it is interesting to note the extraction of four factors, though those factors clearly load in regards to the original construct (either spirituality or stability) sharing one item in one factor (which is an interesting loading, see below). Principal components factor analyses established five viable factors, accounting for 67% of the variance. Again, while the constructs are construed as unitary, the five factor solution suggests consideration should be given to the development of multidimensional scales to add appropriate complexity to the constructs (see table 10 below). The first factor accounted for 25% of the variance and consisted of items that dealt with areas of negatively phrased self control items. The second factor accounted for 22% of the variance and consisted of positively phrased spirituality items. This was followed by the third factor which accounted for 8% of the variance and consisted of interpersonal items regarding swear words and the use of credit. The fourth factor accounted for 6% of the variance and consisted of self control items regarding affect.
Finally the fifth factor accounted for 6% of the variance and consisted of negatively worded spirituality items (see table 11 below). TABLE 10 ABOUT HERE
TABLE 11 ABOUT HERE
Similar to the first three factor analyses, the most important component of the fourth factor analysis is the lack of loading on common factors. This suggests that spirituality and self control are not the same constructs, and of no utility for the purposes of psychometric evaluation in legal (based on the Uniform Guidelines) human resources decision making. Again it is interesting to note the extraction of four factors, though those factors clearly load in regards to the original construct (either spirituality or self control). To establish the relationship between spirituality and workplace deviance measures, we performed bivariate correlations between spirituality and the workplace deviance variables (interpersonal deviance and organizational deviance). Interestingly, no significant correlations were found between spirituality and either of the two workplace deviance variables, Consistent with the factor analyses (but contrary to our hypotheses based on the literature), spirituality does not seem to relate to any of the integrity or ethics based constructs we evaluated. The two workplace deviance variables did relate strongly to each other (as expected in a multidimensional assessment) suggesting that participants were cognizant of their choices and that our results reflect an attentive population of working business students. (see table 12 below).
TABLE 12 ABOUT HERE
Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the hypotheses that sex differences would be manifest in spirituality scores (see Table 13). In the ANOVA, sex was the fixed factor. Significant differences were found between male and female participants in the spirituality scale. These results do support hypothesis six, which stated directionally uniform significant differences would be found between male and female participants on the in all measures. As hypothesized, significant differences were found between male and female participants, with men scoring lower than women on the spirituality scale. The ramifications are discussed below.
TABLE 13ABOUT HERE
Discussion In this study, we investigated the construct validity of spirituality in relation to pre-employment measures of integrity and workplace deviance. None of the integrity related measures used to predict ethical workplace behavior (integrity, responsibility, stability or self-control) factored in a manner that would suggest any significant commonality between the constructs. Accordingly the construct does not meet conventional criteria for use as proxies in personnel decision making. Accordingly, spirituality should not be used to establish the ethical capacity of any individual or group in any workplace capacity. Measures of spirituality are not psychometrically acceptable
proxies for well established personnel selection instruments. When considering personnel selection tools to facilitate the potentiality of unethical work related behavior, managers, human resources managers and supervisors should use well established, defensible measures with the support of job analysis. We also established the relationship between spirituality and workplace deviance in our study. Our findings suggest that personnel selection tools of integrity, responsibility, stability and self control are not related to measures of spirituality. Supporting this finding is the correlational analyses between spirituality and both measures of workplace deviance. Accordingly, the spirituality scale used in the current study should not be used to establish the ethical capacity of any individual or group in any workplace capacity. We have established that spirituality measures are not psychometrically acceptable proxies for well established personnel selection instruments. The literature was supported in the significant differences between women and men in spirituality, but as the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (1991) prohibits the use of different cutoff scores for different groups, the finding that there are group differences on the spirituality scale signifies a potentially discriminatory tool if used for human resources decision-making. Importantly, Ones and Viswesvaran (1998) performed research using a database that represented 724,806 employees and concluded that integrity based tests for pre-employment selection did not produce significant differences between males and females, thus not suffering from adverse impact. The results reported here confirm that the uses of measures of spirituality are likely to be potential causes of adverse impact in employment decision-making.
The Utility of Spirituality in Human Resources Decision Making What are the ramifications for use of spirituality for the purposes of human resources decision-making? Managers, practitioners, consultants and selecting human resources managers need to consider the impact of any tool in every human resources context from a legal perspective. While organizations seek to integrate spirituality based on a reading of this growing domain organization, managerial, and behavioral literature, the integration of measurement tools for the purposes of reading on the perceived utility of spirituality should be tempered by an understanding of the 1978 Uniform Guidelines as well as an understanding of reducing the individual differences that make up the construct of spirituality. Until the above are considered the likely ramifications are workplace litigation and discrimination suits based on Title VII protections. Conclusion While a great deal of popular literature, philosophical and theoretical work has been put into the establishment of spirituality in the workplace, the current research found no support for the assertion that spirituality should be construed as relevant to workplace human resources decision making (outside of either serving social identification needs or more manipulative (?) managerial goals-see Lips-Wiesma, Dean & Fornaciari, 2009), in particular when predicting ethical behavior. While there are other measures of spirituality, based on thorough reviews of content such as the aptly titled “Spirituality and Ethical Behavior in the Workplace: Wishful Thinking or Authentic Reality” (McGhee & Grant, 2008), further investigations will be required to establish any potential utility of the constructs of spirituality for human resources decision-making due to the lack of commonality in conceptualization across spirituality in the workplace literature.
A limitation of this study was that only one measure of spirituality was used. Future research is needed to examine whether the results obtained here generalize to other measures (specifically developed for workplace use) of spirituality. To the extent that different overt tools measure similar most constructs, future researchers are likely to find similar results. Future research should examine different (race, ethnicity, age) demographic group differences on spirituality measures as well. While the current study contribute to the literature in relation to the Uniform Guidelines and spirituality, an important consideration for future empirical research on religiosity and spirituality rests on the willingness of scholars to evaluate the relationship between both constructs and other well established individual differences. Our literature review was unable to find any previous studies examining the uniform guidelines, validity and spirituality in psychometric human resources decision making context. Based on McKee’s (2006) observations, another more provocative question that can be asked is: given the seeming downturn of moral and morality in organizations based on the current economic conditions, what type of palliative effects can spirituality in the workplace have?
References Benefiel, M. (2005a). The second half of the journey: Spiritual leadership for organizational transformation. Leadership Quarterly,16, 723-747. Bennett, R. J., and Robinson, S. L. (2000) Development of a Measure of Workplace Deviance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (3). Camara, W. & Schneider, D. (1995) Questions of construct breadth and openness of research in integrity testing. American Psychologist. Vol 50(6), Jun 1995, 459-460. Civil Rights Act of 1991 - Pub. L. 102-166 Collins, J. M., and Schmidt, F. L. (1993) Personality, Integrity, and White-Collar Crime: a Construct, Personnel Psychology, 46 (2). Davis, J., & Smith, T. (1991) The general social survey cumulative codebook. Chicago: NORC. Derlega, V. J., Winstead, B. A., and Jones, W. H. (2005) Personality: Contemporary Theory and Research (3rd ed.), Thomson. Elkins, D. (2001) Beyond religion: toward a humanistic spirituality. The Handbook of Humanistic Psychology: Leading Edges in Theory, Research, and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 201–12 Fry, L. W. (2005). Toward a theory of ethical and spiritual well-being, and corporate social responsibility through spiritual leadership. In R. A. Giacalone (Ed.), Positive Psychology in Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility (pp. 47-83). New York: Information Age Publishing. Garcia-Zamor, J. C. (2003). Workplace spirituality and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 63, 355-363.
Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003a). Toward a science of workplace spirituality. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of Workplace Spirituality (pp. 3-28). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Giacalone, R. Jurkiewicz C., Fry L. (2005). From Advocacy to Science: The next steps in Workplace Spirituality Research. Retrieved November 11, 2007, from http://www.tarleton.edu/~fry/SLTPaloutzianFinal.rtf Gockel, A. (2004) The trend toward spirituality in the workplace: Overview and implications for career counseling. Journal of Employment Counseling. Vol. 41, Iss. 4; p. 156 Goldberg, L. (1999) A Broad-Bandwidth, Public-Domain, Personality Inventory Measuring the Lower-Level Facets of Several Five-Factor Models” In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, and F. Ostendorf (Eds.) Personality Psychology in Europe, Vol. 7. (pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. Goldberg, L., Johnson, J., Eber, H., Hogan, R., Ashton, M., Cloninger, C., and Gough, H. (2006) The International Personality Item Pool and the Future of Public-Domain Personality Measures, Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96. International Personality Item Pool Contributors (2006) Individual Differences Scales, Administration Instructions Retrieved September, 2004 from http://ipip.ori.org/ipip/ Hill P.C., Pargament K.I., Wood R.W., McCullough M.E, & Swyers J.P.(2000) Conceptualizing religion and spirituality: points of commonality, points of departure. Journal of Theory of Social Behavior. 30:51–77 Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A values framework for measuring the impact of workplace spirituality on organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 129-142.
Jackson, K. T. (1999). Spirituality as a foundation for freedom and creative imagination in international business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(1), 61-70. Kaplan, H. B. (1975) Self Attitudes and Deviant Behavior, Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear. Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2001) Psychological Testing: Principles, Applications and Issues (5th ed.), Belmont, California: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Kriger, M. P., & Hanson, B. J. (1999). A value-based paradigm for creating truly healthy organizations. Journal of organizational Change Management, 12(4), 302-317. Lips-Wiersma, M., Lund Dean, K., & Fornaciari, C (2009) Theorizing the dark side of the workplace spirituality movement Journal of Management Inquiry. Volume 18 Number 4 December 2009 288-300 Lorber, L. (1992) The Civil Rights Act of 1991. Legal Report, Society for Human Resources Management, Spring 1992. 1-4 Marques, J., Dhiman, S., King, R. (2005) Spirituality in the workplace: Developing an integral model and a comprehensive definition. The Journal of American Academy of Business. vol:7 iss:1 pg:81 Marques, J. F. (2005). Spirituality in the workplace: Developing an integral model and a comprehensive definition. The Journal of the American Academy of Business, 7(1), 8191. McGhee, P. & Grant, P. (2008) Spirituality and Ethical Behaviour in the Workplace: Wishful Thinking or Authentic Reality. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies Vol. 13, No. 2 McKee, M.C. (2006) Workplace Spirituality: The Workplace Review. November 2006 19,2.
Miner, J. Capps, M. (1996) How Honesty Testing Works, Westport, CT, Quorum Books. Mitroff, I. 1999. A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America, Jossey Bass: NY. Ones, D. & Viswesvaran, C. (1998) Gender, age, and race differences on overt integrity tests: Results across four large-scale job applicant datasets. Journal of Applied Psychology, 0021-9010, 1998, Vol. 83, Issue 1 Pargament, K. (1999) The psychology of religion and spirituality? Yes and no. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. 9, 1. 3-16 Park, N., Peterson, C. & Seligman, M. E. (2003) Strengths of Character and Well-Being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 5, 2004, pp. 603-619 Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004) Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press, USA Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 655-687. Sackett, P. R., Burris, L. R., and Callahan, C. (1989) Integrity Testing for Personal Selection: An Update, Personnel Psychology, 42 (3). Spilka, B., & McIntosh, D.N. (1996) Religion and Spirituality: The known and unknown. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario. Uniform Guidelines, Sec. 60-3.2 Scope. B, 2000 Wanek, J. E. (1999) Integrity and Honesty Testing: What do we know? How do we use it?, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7 (4). Weaver, G. R., & Agle, B. R. (2002). Religiosity and ethical behavior in organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 17, 77-97.
Yavas, U. (1994) Research note: Students as subjects in advertising and marketing research. International Marketing Review. 11, 4; pg. 35 Zinnbauer, B.J. and Pargament, K.I. and Scott, A.B. (1999) The emerging meanings of religiousness and spirituality: Problems and prospects. Journal of Personality. 67, 6 889919 Zinnbauer, B.J., Pargament, K.I., Cole, B., Rye, M.S., Butter, E.M., Belavich, T.G., Hipp, K.M., Scott, A.B., & Kadar, J.L. (1997) Religion and spirituality: Unfuzzying the fuzzy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 549-564
Tables Table 1: Spiritual Values and Related Traits Summary AUTHOR(S) SPIRITUAL VALUES Jackson , (1999, pp. 65-66) & Kriger & Hanson, Honesty, Duty Trustworthiness (1999, p. 304) Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, (2003a, p. 14) Integrity, Truth, Justice Fry (2003, p. 695) Integrity, Honesty, Trust Jurkiewicz & Giacalone, (2004, p. 131) Integrity, Justice, Responsibility, Trust Fry, (2005, p. 56) Honesty, Integrity Marques (2005, p. 86) Honesty, Trust, Reave (2005, p. 658) Integrity, Honesty
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Participants
Frequency Percent Sex Male Female Total Ethnicity N/A Asian African-American Caucasian Middle Eastern African Latina/o Other Total 104 176 280 29 81 27 65 42 5 26 5 280 37.1 62.9 100.0 10.4 28.9 9.6 23.2 15.0 1.8 9.3 1.8 100.0
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics and Cronbach’s Alpha for Individual Differences and Workplace Deviance Measures Spirituality Integrity Responsibility Stability Self control Interpersonal Workplace Deviance Organizational Workplace Deviance N 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 Mean 3.37 3.91 4.01 3.17 3.03 1.66 1.66 SD .88 .61 .49 .76 .73 .78 .65 Alpha .82 .74 .74 .80 .78 .92 .94
Table 4: Total Variance Explained for Spirituality and Integrity factor analysis
Initial Eigenvalues Factor 1 2 3 4 Total 5.082 3.232 2.792 1.152 % of Variance 28.231 17.957 15.514 6.400 Cumulative % 28.231 46.188 61.701 68.101
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Table 5: Rotated Component Matrix for Spirituality and Integrity
Factor Item SR2 Am a spiritual person. SR3 Keep my faith even during hard times SR5 Am who I am because of my faith SR1 Believe in a universal power or God SR7 Know that my beliefs make my life important SR6 Believe that each person has a purpose in life SR4 Have spent at least 30 minutes in the last 24 hours in prayer or meditation I8 Feel like an imposter I9 Like to exaggerate my troubles I6 Lie to get myself out of trouble I7 Am hard to understand I4 Can be trusted to keep my promises I2 Keep my promises I3 Believe that honesty is the basis for trust I1 Am trusted to keep secrets I5 Am true to my own values SR8 Do not practice any religion SR9 Do not believe in a universal power or a God Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. 1 .855 .849 .835 .796 .764 .713 .686 .862 .831 .794 .790 .883 .860 .794 .777 .774 .874 .862 2 3 4
Table 6: Total Variance Explained for Spirituality and Responsibility factor analysis
Initial Eigenvalues Factor 1 2 3 4 5 Total 5.571 2.765 1.907 1.052 1.022 % of Variance 29.321 14.552 10.035 5.538 5.378 Cumulative % 29.321 43.873 53.908 59.446 64.824 Total 5.571 2.765 1.907 1.052 1.022
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Table 7: Rotated Component Matrix for Spirituality and Responsibility
Factor Item SR2 Am a spiritual person. SR3 Keep my faith even during hard times SR5 Am who I am because of my faith SR1 Believe in a universal power or God SR7 Know that my beliefs make my life important SR4 Have spent at least 30 minutes in the last 24 hours in prayer or meditation SR6 Believe that each person has a purpose in life R6 Take others' interests into account R8 Am able to cooperate with others R5 Anticipate the needs of others R7 Am polite to strangers R4 Act according to my conscience R3 Like to be of service to others SR9 Do not believe in a universal power or a God SR8 Do not practice any religion R10 Try not to think about the needy R2 Try to forgive and forget R9 Appreciate people who wait on me R1 Return extra change when a cashier makes a mistake Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. .686 .794 .793 .773 .718 .662 .523 .858 .814 .700 .815 .611 -.726 1 .863 .853 .834 .807 .747 .691 2 3 4 5
Table 8: Total Variance Explained for Spirituality and Stability factor analysis
Initial Eigenvalues Factor 1 2 3 4 Total 4.608 4.123 1.849 1.117 % of Variance 24.254 21.700 9.730 5.879 Cumulative % 24.254 45.954 55.685 61.563
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Table 9: Rotated Component Matrix for Spirituality and Stability
Factor Item SR2 Am a spiritual person. SR3 Keep my faith even during hard times SR5 Am who I am because of my faith SR1 Believe in a universal power or God SR7 Know that my beliefs make my life important SR6 Believe that each person has a purpose in life SR4 Have spent at least 30 minutes in the last 24 hours in prayer or meditation S6 Make enemies S7 Snap at people S8 Go on binges S10 Get back at others S4 Do unexpected things S3 Live in a world of my own S2 Do things that others find strange S5 Am hard to understand S9 Get bored easily SR8 Do not practice any religion SR9 Do not believe in a universal power or a God S1 Trust others Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. 1 .855 .851 .836 .796 .768 .713 .676 .876 .866 .838 .771 .805 .796 .789 .692 .283 .867 .708 .512 2 3 4
Table 10: Total Variance Explained for Spirituality and Self Control factor analysis
Initial Eigenvalues Factor 1 2 3 4 5 Total 4.716 4.185 1.609 1.195 1.067 % of Variance 24.819 22.028 8.470 6.291 5.615 Cumulative % 24.819 46.847 55.317 61.608 67.223
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Table 11: Rotated Component Matrix for Spirituality and Self Control Factor Item SC6 Do crazy things SC4 Act wild and crazy SC10 Make a lot of noise SC8 Make rash decisions SC7 Use flattery to get ahead SC5 Demand attention SR2 Am a spiritual person. SR3 Keep my faith even during hard times SR5 Am who I am because of my faith SR1 Believe in a universal power or God SR7 Know that my beliefs make my life important SR6 Believe that each person has a purpose in life SR4 Have spent at least 30 minutes in the last 24 hours in prayer or meditation SC9 Use swear words SC2 Never spend more than I can afford SC1 Am not easily affected by my emotions SC3 Experience very few emotional highs and lows SR8 Do not practice any religion SR9 Do not believe in a universal power or a God Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. .841 .623 .762 .736 .912 .824 1 .896 .882 .821 .815 .784 .722 .854 .853 .834 .795 .771 .717 .675 2 3 4 5
Table 12: Spirituality and Workplace Deviance Correlations
Spirituality Spirituality Interpersonal Deviance Organizational Deviance -.042 .760** 1 1 -.062 Interpersonal Deviance -.062 1 Organizational Deviance -.042 .760**
Table 13: Spirituality and Gender ANOVA Dependent Variable Spirituality Gender Type III Sum of Squares df 5.108 1 Male Mean Partial Mean Square F p. ?2 5.108 6.651 .010 .023 3.20 Female Mean 3.48
doc_664215991.doc