/

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

/

Transcendental leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: the mediating effect of spirituality in the workplace

(USC Thesis Other)

Transcendental leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: the mediating effect of spirituality in the workplace

PDF

Transcript (if available)

Content

TRANSCENDENTAL LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP
BEHAVIOR: THE MEDIATING EFFECT OF SPIRITUALITY IN THE
WORKPLACE

by
Hui-O Liu

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF POLICY, PLANNING,
AND DEVELOPMENT
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Hui-O Liu

Table of Contents

List of Tables............................................................................................................iv

List of Figures ...........................................................................................................v

Abstract ....................................................................................................................vi

Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................1

Chapter 2: Theory and Hypotheses .................................................................…….6
Spirituality as a Continuum Comprising Different Self Identity Levels………....6
Spirituality and Organizational Citizenship Behavior……………….………......11
Transcendental Leadership, Spirituality, and Organizational Citizenship
Behavior………………………………………………………………...………13

Chapter 3: Methods .………………………………………………………………17
Sample and Procedure…………………………………………………………..17
Measures…………….…………………………………………………………..18
Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………19

Chapter 4: Results .......................................................................…………………30
Confirmatory Factor Analysis…………………………………………………...30
Structural Model Assessment…………………………………………………...34
Hypothesis Test and Individual Paramer Estimates………...…………………..35
Common Method Variance………………………..………...…………………..36

Chapter 5: Discussion. ............................................................................................38
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research……………………………….38
Implications for Practice………………………...……………………………….40

References. ..............................................................................................................42
ii

Appendices..............................................................................................................57
Appendix A………………………………………...…………………………….57
Appendix B……………………………………...……………………………….62

iii

List of Tables

Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations……………………………22

Table 2: Exploratory Factor Analysis for Transcendental Leadership Scale……….23

Table 3: Exploratory Factor Analysis for Spirituality in the Workplace Scale……..24

Table 4: Exploratory Factor Analysis for Organizational Citizenship Behavior…...26
Scale

Table 5: Measurement properties…………………...………………………………31

Table 6: Nested Models Assessing Discriminant Validity………………………….33

Table 7: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Zero-Order Correlations among...………...33
Constructs

Table 8: Comparison of Structural Equation Models……………………………….35

Table 9: Individual Parameter Estimates……………………………………………36

iv

List of Figures

Figure 1: Conceptualization of Spirituality………..…………………………………8

Figure 2: Hypothesized Conceptual Model…………………………………………16

Figure 3: Full Structural Equation Model………...…………………………………28

v

Abstract

This study addresses three questions: 1) What is spirituality in the workplace? 2)
How does spirituality relate to organizational citizenship behavior? 3) What is the
underlying mechanism through which a leader motivates followers? I answer these
questions by: 1) creating and cross-validating a new scale of spirituality in the
workplace; 2) providing theoretical underpinnings of spirituality in the workplace as
a new dispositional antecedent to organizational citizenship behavior and empirically
testing the relationship; and 3) suggesting that transcendental leadership is both
directly related to organizational citizenship behavior and indirectly through the
mediator of spirituality in the workplace, an underlying mechanism through which a
leader motivates followers. Using structural equation modeling to analyze survey
data collected from 2232 individuals, I find a partial mediation model exists among
three constructs: transcendental leadership, spirituality in the workplace, and
organizational citizenship behavior.

vi

1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is positively related to organizational
effectiveness (Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff & MacKenzie,
1994, 1997). To increase organizational effectiveness, researchers have suggested
many dispositional and situational antecedents to OCB. With regard to dispositional
antecedents, although researchers have suggested fixed traits, e.g., the Big Five
personality traits, and flexible states, e.g., job satisfaction (Borman, Penner, Allen, &
Motowidlo, 2001; Morgeson, Reider, & Campion, 2005; Organ & Konovsky, 1989;
Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996; Williams & Anderson, 1991), whether
“disposition” means a trait or a state and the motives behind performing OCB remain
unclear (Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989; House, Shane, & Herold, 1996; Schnake,
1991).
With regard to situational antecedents, it has been suggested that transactional
leadership, transformational leadership, servant leadership, authentic leadership, and
leader-member exchange relationships are related to OCB (Avolio, Gardner,
Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004; Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Ehrhart, 2004;
Koh, Steers, & Terborg, 1995; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996; Settoon,
Bennett, & Liden, 1996; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). However, transactional and
transformational leadership have been criticized as being leader-centered and
ignoring the importance of followers in the leadership process (Yukl, 1999).
Although leader-member exchange theory, servant leadership, and authentic
leadership recognize the importance of followers, the underlying leadership process

2
and mechanisms through which a leader influences followers and the motives behind
a leader’s practices remain unclear (Lord & Brown, 2004). In addition, these
leadership theories only focus on the cognitive and emotional elements in the
leadership process, ignoring the spiritual component of human consciousness.
The concept of spirituality has been studied in different disciplines. Spirituality
can be regarded as prescriptive human science standing at the interface of
psychology and theology (Helminiak, 1996, 1998). Spirituality is a topic within the
psychology of religion (Helminiak, 2006; Pargament, 1999) and is closely related to
the Five-Factor model of personality (Piedmont, 1999; MacDonald, 2000).
Spirituality corresponds to the stages of consciousness in transpersonal psychology
(Walsh, & Vaughan, 1980; Wilber, 1993; Wilber, 2006; Wilber, Engler, & Brown,
1986). In nursing literature, spirituality is an important aspect of holistic patient care
(Buck, 2006; Dyson, Cobb, & Forman, 1997; Emblen, 1992; Martsolf & Mickley,
1998; McSherry, Cash, & Ross, 2004). Sociology of religion literature suggests that
due to the secularization, the decline of religiousness, and religious individualism,
spirituality becomes to play an important role in the post-modern society (Wuthnow,
1998; Hill et al., 2000; Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swindler, & Tipton, 1985;
Zinnbauer et al., 1997). Roof (1999) found that baby boomers in the United States
are likely to see themselves as spiritual rather than religious.
The concept of spirituality has often been defined indirectly through its similarity
with or dissimilarity from religiousness. With regard to the similarity, spirituality has
been used interchangeably with religiousness (Slater, Hall, & Edwards, 2001) and

3
suggested to be either one component of religiousness, i.e., religiousness is a broader
construct than spirituality (Hill & Pargament, 2003, Pargament, 1999; Zinnbauer,
Pargament, & Scott, 1997) or incorporates and transcends religiousness, i.e.,
spirituality is a broader construct than religiousness (Berry, 2005; Kolodinsky,
Bowen, & Ferris, 2003; Piedmont, 1999). With regard to the dissimilarity,
spirituality has been defined through differentiating itself from religiousness (Tanyi,
2002; Zinnbauer et al., 1997; Zinnbauer, Pargament, & Scott, 1997). For example,
religiousness is formal, organized, dogmatic, institutional, intolerant, negative,
community focused, more observable, measurable, objective, behavior-oriented with
an emphasis on outward practices, more authoritarian, more oriented toward doctrine
(especially that which distinguishes good from evil), and inappropriate to be
expressed in the workplace. Spirituality is the privatization of religion, informal,
personal, universal, nondenominational, inclusive, tolerant, positive, individualistic,
less visible and quantifiable, subjective, emotionally oriented and inwardly directed,
less authoritarian, little external accountability, and appropriate to be expressed in
the workplace (Hyman & Handal, 2006; Koenig, McCullough, & Larson, 2001;
Mitroff, & Denton, 1999). However, despite a plethora of studies on spirituality in
different disciplines, no consensus has been reached over the definition of spirituality.
The relationship between spirituality and religiousness is highly debated and remains
fuzzy.
The importance of spirituality in the management context has been recognized.
Numerous conceptual definitions and several measurements of spirituality that can

4
be applied in the management context have been proposed (e.g., Ashmos & Duchon,
2000; Conger, 1994; Benefiel, 2003; Freshman, 1999; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003;
Heaton, Schmidt-Wilk, & Travis, 2004; Kinjerski & Skrypnek, 2006; Krishnakumar
& Neck, 2002; Marques, 2006; Milliman, Czaplewski, & Ferguson, 2003; Mitroff &
Denton, 1999; Sheep, 2004). Although not without merit, research on spirituality in
the management context to date has several limitations. First, existing studies about
spirituality in the management context are mainly descriptive, not explanatory, and
lack a solid theoretical foundation, based on which a clear definition of spirituality
can be derived from. Dehler and Welsh (2003) criticized that existing spirituality
research focuses on what is expected to occur, not why it is expected to occur and
called for a more rigorous approach to theoretical development of the concept of
spirituality. Second, confusions and disagreements remain over the theoretical
definitions of spirituality that can be applied in the management context. Third,
although numerous spirituality scales exist in other disciplines, measurement of
spirituality in the management context is sparse. Existing measurements of
spirituality in the management context are mainly exploratory without testing
construct validity or confirmatory without cross-validating the measurement on new
independent samples.
To tackle the above weaknesses in the literature, this study 1) conceptually
integrates existing spirituality literature in social psychology, transpersonal
psychology, psychology of religion, sociology of religion, management, and
theology to propose a new theoretical definition of spirituality; 2) provides

5
theoretical underpinnings that spirituality serves as a dispositional antecedent to
OCB and empirically tests the relationship; and 3) proposes that transcendental
leadership, reflecting motives based on altruistic love, the search for meaning, a
desire for community, and an emphasis on the spiritual development of both the
leader and the follower, is a situational antecedent that takes the cognition, emotion,
and spirit of human consciousness into consideration and motivates followers by
activating their different spirituality levels, an underlying mechanism through which
a leader influences followers.
Using structural equation modeling to analyze survey data collected from 2232
individuals, I find that a partial mediation model exists among transcendental
leadership, spirituality in the workplace, and organizational citizenship behavior.
Spirituality in the workplace is positively related to OCB. Transcendental leadership
is directly related to OCB as well as indirectly related to OCB through the
spirituality mediator.

6
Chapter 2 Theory and Hypotheses
Spirituality as a Continuum Comprising Different Self-Identity Levels
Existing self-identity literature has suggested that a person has three self-identity
levels, the level of inclusiveness at which the self is defined, including individual,
relational, and collective levels (Ashforth & Johnson, 2001; Brewer & Gardner, 1996;
Sedikides & Brewer, 2001). To make the collective self-identity level more inclusive,
some researchers have defined the collective in the broadest terms, i.e., species
(human beings) (Onorato & Turner, 2001; Pratt, 2001; Van Dick, 2001). The
collective self-identity induces an individual, as a member in a group, to evaluate
self-esteem through favorable inter-group competitions and comparisons and view
in-group members in a positive view and out-group members in a negative view in
order to maintain positive self-regard, therefore resulting in inter-group bias or
discrimination (Brewer & Kramer, 1985; Messick & Mackie, 1989; Tajfel, 1982). To
solve inter-group bias, some approaches have been suggested in the literature,
including: 1) recategorization, invoking a superordinate group identity on the
assumption that subgroup distinctions will be replaced by a common ingroup
collective identity; 2) decategorization (individuation), thinking of the outgroup not
as a social category but rather in terms of individual group members; and 3) cross-
categorization, invoking multiple social identities that are at least partially
nonoverlapping and salient, cross-cutting categories reduce ingroup/outgroup
differentiation along any particular category distinction (Brickson & Brewer, 2001;
Crisp & Hewstone,1999; Dovidio, Gaertner, Validzic, Matoka, Johnson, & Frazier,

7
1997; Dovidio, Gaertner, & Validzic, 1998; Hewstone, Martin, Hammer-Hewstone,
Crisp, & Voci, 2001). For collective self-identity on the nation level, invoking the
human species level identity can solve the inter-group bias problem. However, for
the highest collective self-identity that has been suggested so far, i.e., the human
species level, what is the category that can be used to solve inter-species bias, such
as human vs. environment, or human vs. animal? If inter-group competition is true as
suggested in the literature, why do human beings try to protect environment and
animals at the expense of their industrial development? I suggest the collective self-
identity extended to the species level in existing literature is still not comprehensive
enough and ignores the self-identity that transcends different species, e.g., human
beings, nature, all living things, and a higher power.
To integrate existing literature and move it forward, I propose that transcendental
self-identity constitutes a fourth self-identity level. A spirituality continuum is thus
composed of different self-identity levels; from low to high spirituality these are
individual self-identity, relational self-identity, collective self-identity, and
transcendental self-identity. Lower spirituality indicates a more independent self-
construal, i.e., separateness between the self and others, whereas higher spirituality
indicates a more interdependent self-construal, i.e., interconnection between self and
others. The conceptualization of spirituality is shown in Figure 1.

8
Figure 1
Conceptualization of Spirituality

Spirituality Continuum
Low High

The lowest end on the spirituality continuum indicates the narrowest self-
construal where a person defines the self as an independent individual who is
separate from others. Self-worth in this self-identity level comes from interpersonal
comparisons on the basis of an autonomous individual’s traits, abilities, and other
characteristics. The next spirituality level, relational self-identity, emphasizes
personalized bonds with significant others. Self-worth is derived from the adeptness
with which an individual performs the interpersonal role, as conveyed through
reflective appraisals from significant others. These reflective appraisals about the
individual serve as indicators of belongingness and proxies for access to social
resources. The next higher spirituality level, collective self-identity, doesn’t require
personal relationships among group members but rather emphasizes impersonal
bonds derived from common identification with a group through depersonalization in
which the deindividualized self is defined in terms of the in-group prototype and
perceives the self to be an interchangeable representative of a given social category.
Self-worth arises from favorable intergroup comparisons and group prototypicality
(Andersen & Chen, 2002; Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Haslam, van Knippenberg,
Platow, & Ellemers, 2003; Hogg & Terry, 2001; Sedikides & Brewer; 2001; Tajfel,
1981).
Individual
self-identity
Relational
self-identity
Collective
self-identity
Transcendental
self-identity

9
At the highest end of the spirituality continuum is transcendental self-identity
which is characterized by self-expansiveness that transcends the boundary
demarcating the self from non-self, expands self-boundaries intrapersonally,
interpersonally, transpersonally, and demonstrates a sense of interconnection with
human beings, nature, all living things, and a higher power. The interconnection with
human beings is characterized not only by connecting with oneself through
introspection and a deep awareness of one’s inner self and integrating various
aspects of self into a coherent wholeness, but also by horizontally expanding the
personal boundary, the individual self, to encompass other individuals into the self
and transcend the categories between “us” and “them” to achieve harmony.
Moreover, interconnecting with nature and all living things transcends the
fragmentation and compartmentalization of daily life to achieve holism. An
individual expands the self-boundary to incorporate other species into the self. Self-
worth comes from the degree of self-awareness, compassion, love, kindness, caring,
and forgiveness one shows in interacting with others. In addition, interconnecting
with a higher power vertically elevates the self defined in the secular level to a
sacred level in which the self is constructed within a broader ontological context and
a higher realm of consciousness beyond the ego.
At this highest level of spirituality, an individual has the widest and the most
inclusive self-identity and defines the self and others in a “God’s eye view”, which
transcends the human species self-identity level suggested in existing self-identity
literature. The calling from the divine is the ultimate source of meaning and purpose

10
in one’s life. Self-worth arises from the achievement of one’s optimal being in the
process of searching for existential meaning and life purpose (Ashforth & Pratt, 2003;
Cloninger, Svrakic, & Przybeck, 1993; Elkins, Hedstrom, Hughes, Leaf, &
Saunders ,1988; Ellermann & Reed, 2001; Emmons, 1999; Emmons, Cheung, &
Tehrani, 1998; Frankl, 2006; Friedman, 1983; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003;
MacDonald, 2000; MacDonald, Friedman, & Kuentzel, 1999; MacDonald, Kuentzel,
& Friedman, 1999; Piedmont, 1999, 2001; Wilber, 2006).
Self-identity level is fluid, dynamic, and context-dependent, and it strongly
informs and regulates an individual’s feelings, beliefs, attitudes, goals, and behavior.
All possible selves coexist within the same individual available to be activated, but
they are not simultaneously active and only one of them tends to be salient or
activated in any specific time or context, due to humans’ limited attention capacity.
When one level is highly salient as the working self-concept (Markus & Nurius,
1986; Markus & Wurf, 1987), other levels are relatively less important in
determining individual behaviors (Ashforth & Johnson, 2001; Leary & Tangney,
2003; Onorato & Turner, 2004; Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 1994). That is,
the same person may be self-interested when the individual self is salient yet
cooperative when the collective self is salient (Lord & Brown, 2004). Therefore,
spirituality composed of the different self-identity levels is both a trait, when a
specific self-identity level is not activated or primed by the context, and a state, when
a specific self-identity level is activated or primed by the context.

11
Spirituality and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
When a person is of low spirituality, i.e., individual self-identity is activated, the
person is motivated to actualize the independent self through personal advancement
to increase his self-worth, which comes from favorable interpersonal comparisons
with other individuals, such as receiving more rewards for his/her performance
(Haslam, Powell, & Turner, 2000). However, in contrast to task performance, OCB
as contextual performance includes subtle non-task behaviors not readily measured
by productivity standards of quantity and not directly or explicitly recognized by the
formal performance appraisal and reward systems (Organ, Poddsakoff, &
MacKenzie, 2006). Engaging in OCB can not guarantee a one-to-one
correspondence between contributions and near-term payoffs that increase a person’s
rewards and help enhance his/her self-esteem. Thus, a person with low spirituality is
unlikely to perform OCB. Moreover, for a person with salient individual self-
identity, the basic motive behind OCB is self-interest (Brewer & Gardner, 1996).
The person would perform OCB only if it contributes to impression management so
as to increase one’s likeability among coworkers and supervisors and lead them to
see the person as a good soldier and thus give the person high performance ratings
and the resulting rewards (Bolino, 1999; Bolino, Varela, Bande, & Turnley, 2006).
In other words, the person is externally and instrumentally motivated to perform
OCB. Chun, Lam, and Law (2000) found employees who perceived OCB as
instrumental to their promotion were more likely to decrease their level of OCB after
they received a promotion.

12
When a person is of the next level of spirituality, i.e., relational self-identity is
activated, the self-worth comes from reflective appraisals of significant others. OCB is
limited to the other person in the dyadic relationship. When a person is of higher
spirituality, i.e., collective self-identity is activated, the person defines the self by
including the organization in the self-construal, psychologically merging the self and
the organization, thus resulting in a cognitive perception of “oneness” with the
organization, i.e., organizational identification (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Mael &
Ashforth, 1992; Rousseau, 1998; Tropp & Wright, 2001; van Knippenberg & Sleebos,
2006). Organizational identification is positively related to OCB (Dukerich, Golden,
& Shortell, 2002; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Feather & Rauter, 2004;
Riketta, 2005; Tyler & Blader, 2001). An individual tends to perform more OCB when
the collective self-identity is activated than when the individual self-identity is
activated. Johnson and Chang (2006) found that individual self-concept is not related
to OCB, but that collective self-concept is positively related to OCB. However, when
collective self-identity is activated, an individual’s self-worth arises from favorable
intergroup comparisons and the person tends to view in-group members positively and
out-group members negatively so as to maintain positive self-regard, resulting in inter-
group bias or discrimination (Brewer & Kramer, 1985; Messick & Mackie, 1989;
Tajfel, 1982). Under these circumstances, the OCB performed is limited toward
members of the same collective.
When a person is of high spirituality, i.e., transcendental self-identity is activated,
the person perceives no distinction between self and others and includes others in his

13
or her definition of self, resulting in self-expansion or self-other merging (Aron et al.,
1991, 1992). At this highest spirituality level, others are recognized as wanting to
pursue happiness and overcome suffering. Through these shared hopes and fears,
pleasures and pains, a deep interconnectedness with others is recognized (Dalai
Lama, 2002; Chodron, 2001). This interconnected oneness causes empathic concern
for others’ welfare and thus leads to empathy-induced helping, with altruistic love
and compassion as the motives behind helping (Batson, 1991, 1997; Batson et al.,
1988; Batson & Shaw, 1991; Cialdini, Brown, Lewis, Luce, & Neuberg, 1997;
Dovidio, Allen, & Schroeder, 1990; Eisenberg & Miller 1987). The perceived
interconnectedness which causes one to feel a sense of relatedness to others
motivates an individual to help those in need. When an individual’s transcendental
self is activated, the OCB performed is not limited to in-group members, but includes
out-group members as well. Therefore, an individual tends to perform more OCB
when s/he is of high spirituality than when s/he is of low spirituality.
Hypothesis 1. Level of spirituality is positively related to organizational
citizenship behavior, with low spirituality demonstrating low OCB
and high spirituality demonstrating high OCB.
Transcendental Leadership, Spirituality, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Transcendental leadership reflects a style of leadership that emphasizes the
motives behind a leader’s practices as well as the spiritual development of both the
leader and the follower. Fry (2003) and Fry et al. (2005) suggested that spiritual
leaders use values, attitudes, and behaviors (altruistic love, hope/faith, vision) to

14
intrinsically motivate followers, thus increasing followers’ sense of calling (life has
meaning, make a difference) and membership (interconnection, be understood, be
appreciated). Transcendental leadership taps into the fundamental needs of both
followers and leaders for spiritual development by developing followers' intrinsic
and transcendent motivation (i.e., the motivation to do things for others, the
motivation to contribute); invigorating followers’ lives with a sense of purpose and a
feeling of belonging to a community; developing the leader’s spirituality, e.g.,
humanity, authentic concern for people, care, service, egolessness, consciousness,
moral character, faith; and increasing the capacity for leaders to experience meaning
and transcendental fulfillment (Cardona, 2000, Fairholm, 1996,1997; Korac-
Kakabadse, Louzmin, & Kakabadse, 2002; Sanders, Hopkins, & Geroy, 2003).
Transactional, transformational, and transcendental leadership can be viewed as
comprising a nested hierarchy, with transcendental leadership incorporating and
transcending the other leadership theories. This nested hierarchy reflects various
dimensions of leadership orientation, ranging from managerial control to spiritual
holism, from low internal locus of control to high internal locus of control, and from
the leader’s low spirituality to the leader’s high spirituality (Fairholm, 1998, 2004;
Sanders et al., 2003). Fry (2003) suggested that spiritual leadership is concerned
about the whole person and thus is a more holistic approach to leadership that
integrates the four essences of human existence, i.e., the body (physical), mind
(logical/rational thought), heart (emotions, feelings), and spirit.

15
A “low transcendental” leader with low spirituality and low internal locus of
control perceives himself or herself as an individual separate from followers and
provides economic incentives in exchange for followers’ compliance. Economic
exchanges based on followers’ individual performance tend to activate followers’
individual self-identity (low spirituality). When followers’ individual self-identity is
activated, they are less likely to perform OCB. In contrast, a “high transcendental”
leader with high spirituality and high internal locus of control perceives himself or
herself as interconnected with followers. Based on the motives of altruistic love, the
search for meaning, a desire for community and an emphasis on the spiritual
development of both the leader and the follower, transcendental leadership activates
followers’ transcendental self-identity (high spirituality). When followers’
transcendental self-identity is activated, they are more likely to perform OCB.
Hypothesis 2: Level of spirituality positively mediates the relationship between
transcendental leadership and organizational citizenship behavior.

Existing literature has suggested a direct relationship between leadership and
OCB, without explaining the underlying process or mechanism through which a
leader motivates followers. Hypothesis 3 corresponds to the existing literature and is
used to examine whether transcendental leadership is directly related to OCB and to
compare the direct versus indirect relationship between transcendental leadership and
OCB.
Hypothesis 3: Transcendental leadership is positively related to organizational
citizenship behavior directly.

16

The hypothesized conceptual model is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2
Hypothesized Conceptual Model

Spirituality

γ
1
β

Transcendental Organizational
Leadership γ
2
Citizenship
Behavior

17
Chapter 3 Methods
Sample and Procedure
Because the goal of this study is theoretical validation through the testing of a
new conceptual model that can be replicated by future researchers to provide
additional evidence regarding the validity of the model, rather than statistical
generalization which relies on probability theory and random probability sampling to
infer information from a sample to a population (de Vaus, 2002), I used non-
probability sampling methods, i.e., convenience sampling and snowball sampling, to
obtain a sufficient sample size that includes a diverse set of respondents and can
afford to be divided into subsamples for cross-validation.
Using an online survey, data were collected from employees who are at least 18
years old and currently working either full-time or part-time in an organization.
Individualized survey solicitation emails were sent to: a) all executive members of
all the divisions in the Academy of Management; b) the participants on several AOM
listservs, including Organization Behavior, Careers, Leadership, Human Resources,
Management Spirituality and Religion; c) the Executive MBA listserv of a university
in the southwestern United States; and d) the EMHA/MHA alumni listservs of the
same university in the southwestern United States. Moreover, to increase the
diversity of the survey sample, survey solicitation emails were sent to a convenience
sample composed of people from various ethnic and religious backgrounds. All
recipients of the survey solicitation email were invited to answer the online survey
themselves and to forward the survey solicitation email to other people who are at

18
least 18 years old and currently working either full-time or part-time in an
organization.
Measures
Transcendental leadership was measured by Fry’s (2005) 17-item spiritual
leadership scale, with six additional items created especially for this study, based on
theories. I used 16 items selected from four different scales (Cloninger et al., 1993;
Elkins et al., 1988; Hatch, Burg, Naberhaus, & Hellmich, 1998; Piedmont, 1999) to
measure spirituality in the workplace. Some items from these four scales were not
included in the survey because they do not reflect the theoretical definition of
spirituality used in this study. The 21-item shortened version of the OCB scale
developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990) was used to measure organizational citizenship
behavior.
1
Reflective measures which represent reflections or manifestations of the
constructs were used in this study. Constructs are viewed as the causes of measures;
variation in a construct leads to variation in its measures (Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000).
The 60 items were answered using a five-point Likert scale, with response options
ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”
Because all survey questions were combined in one questionnaire to be answered
during the same period of time, ad hoc remedies were used to minimize problems
related to self-report measures and common method variances, such as consistency

1
I deleted three items from the original 24-item OCB scale developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990). The
item “X is one of my most conscientious employees,” originally designed for supervisors to evaluate
employees’ OCB, was removed because I used self-reported OCB instead of evaluations from
supervisors. The item “I take steps to try to prevent problems with other workers,” originally designed
by Podsakoff et al. (1990) to measure courtesy, loaded instead on the altruism factor in the
exploratory factor analysis. Because deleting this item didn’t change the overall factor structure, I
removed it from statistical analysis. The item “I don’t abuse the rights of others” was removed
because deleting this item increased the value of Cronbach alpha for this scale.

19
motif, social desirability, leniency biases, acquiescence biases, and mood state.
These ad hoc remedies included negatively worded items, putting behavioral items
before psychological items, intermixing items measuring different constructs,
starting the measurement scale with the choice that is the least socially desirable, and
assuring respondents that their responses would remain confidential and that there
are no right or wrong answers. In addition, after the data were collected, post hoc
statistical remedies were used to test for common method variance (Bradburn,
Sudman & Wansink, 2004; Brewerton & Millward, 2001; Podsakoff et al., 2003;
Podsakoff & Organ, 1986).
Once the initial 60-item pool had been determined, the items were reviewed by
subject matter experts to ensure content validity. Moreover, to ensure face validity,
pretests were conducted on a convenience sample, consisting of 18 individuals with
similar characteristics of the main study sample but have no knowledge about the
research subjects, to iron out inconsistencies of terminology, ambiguous items,
jargons, etc. and to make sure that the items clearly tap the three constructs. The
survey questionnaire is shown in Appendix A.
Data Analysis
Based on the Mahalandobis d
2
and Mardia’s (1970) coefficient of multivariate
kurtosis, I removed outliers from further analysis and checked whether the data were
of multivariate normality (Henson, 1999; Kline, 2005). Assuming that data were
missing at random, I used EM (Expectation-Maximization) algorithm to impute
missing values (Allison, 2003; Enders, 2001, 2003, 2004; Enders & Peugh, 2004).

20
Ultimately, a total of 2232 valid cases were included in the statistical analysis. To
avoid capitalizing on chance, I randomly split the 2232 cases into two independent
subsamples with 1097 and 1135 cases, respectively. The 1097 cases were used to
develop and test the measurement model, using exploratory and confirmatory factor
analysis. The 1135 cases were then used to test the structural model (Bollen, 1989;
Raykov & Widaman, 1995). The demographic description of the two subsamples is
shown in Appendix B.
I used a four-step approach to structural equation modeling (Mulaik & Millsap,
2000), and Amos 6.0 was employed to analyze the data. First, based on exploratory
factor analysis of the 1097 cases, items of unidimensionality were averaged to create
item parcels (Bandalos, 2002; Bandalos & Finney, 2001; Landis, Beal, & Tesluk,
2000; Little, Cunningham, & Shahar, 2002; Yuan, Bentler, & Kano, 1997). In the
full structural model, three constructs – transcendental leadership, spirituality in the
workplace, and OCB – were represented through the partial aggregation approach
(Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998; Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994). Transcendental
leadership is measured by three indicators: vision/hope/faith (L1), altruistic love (L2),
and spiritual development of both leader and follower (L3). Spirituality in the
workplace is measured by three indicators: interconnection with a higher power (S1),
interconnection with nature and all living things (S2), and interconnection with
human beings (S3). Organizational citizenship behavior is measured by five
indicators: altruism (O1), sportsmanship (O2), courtesy (O3), civic virtue (O4), and
conscientiousness (O5). The 11 indicators hypothesized to measure the three

21
constructs formed an 11×11 covariance matrix used as input for further statistical
analysis. The correlations, means, standard deviations, and multivariate kurtosis for
subsample 1 (n=1097) and subsample 2 (n=1135) are shown in Table 1. The results
of exploratory factor analysis for the three scales are shown in Table 2, Table 3, and
Table 4, respectively. The full structural equation model is shown in Figure 3.

22
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
a
Mean s.d. L1 L2 L3 S1 S2 S3 O1 O2 O3 O4 O5
L1 3.52
b

3.45
c

.78
b

.83
c

.76** .66** .31** .21** .28** .22** .28** .24** .43** .34**
L2 3.37
3.33
.91
.95
.74** .76** .15** .08** .16** .07* .27** .14** .26** .16**
L3 2.94
2.89
.87
.91
.64** .72** .24** .16** .22** .08* .19** .12** .25** .14**
S1 4.08
4.10
.84
.82
.25** .10** .21** .54** .55** .18** .09** .17** .19** .16**
S2 3.67
3.67
.82
.81
.20** .06* .14** .49** .55** .22** .08* .15** .16** .08**
S3 4.24
4.24
.54
.56
.22** .10** .20** .53** .54** .27** .11** .27** .21** .17**
O1 4.00
3.98
.56
.56
.24** .12** .07* .17** .23** .31** .16** .38** .37** .30**
O2 3.90
3.91
.55
.52
.34** .32** .21** .13** .04 .04 .18** .29** .17** .22**
O3 4.34
4.36
.57
.55
.19** .15** .11** .14** .18** .26** .35** .30** .25** .29**
O4 3.93
3.89
.59
.62
.34** .17** .13** .12** .14** .21** .41** .19** .27** .38**
O5 4.31
4.29
.51
.49
.37** .20** .20** .16** .15** .19** .30** .29** .28** .33**
Multivariate kurtosis 21.45 (c.r.= 21.00)
b
19.41 (c.r. = 19.33)
c

a
Subsample 1 (n= 1097, lower triangle); Subsample 2 (n=1135, upper triangle); L1= vision, hope/faith,
L2= altruistic love, L3= spiritual development of both leader and follower, S1= interconnection with a higher
power, S2= interconnection with nature and all living things, S3= interconnection with human beings, O1=
altruism, O2= sportsmanship, O3= courtesy, O4= civic virtue, O5= conscientiousness.
b
Mean, standard deviation, multivariate kurtosis for subsample 1 (n=1097).
c
Mean, standard deviation, multivariate kurtosis for subsample 2 (n=1135).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

23
Table 2
Exploratory Factor Analysis for Transcendental Leadership Scale
a

Items L1 L2 L3 Item
source
v42. I preserve and exert extra effort to help
my organization succeed because I have
faith in what it stands for.
.88
b

(.88

)
c

.62
(-.02)

.53
(.03)

Fry

v40. My organization's vision inspires my best
performance.
.85
(.73)
.68
(.12)
.58
(.07)
Fry
v43. I demonstrate my faith in my organization
and its mission by doing everything I can
to help us succeed.
.85
(.94)

.53
(-.13)

.46
(.01)

Fry
v41. My organization's vision is clear and
compelling to me.
.84
(.71)
.68
(.15)
.57
(.06)
Fry
v28. I have faith in my organization and I am
willing to do whatever it takes to insure
that it accomplish its mission.
.83
(.82)

59
(.06)
.46
(-.07)

Fry
v54. I have faith in my organization's vision for
its employees.
.81
(.47)
.81
(.40)
.66
( .10)
Fry
v55. I always do my best in my work because I
have faith in my organization and its
leaders.
.81
(.55)
.75
(.30)
.62
(.09)
Fry
v27. I understand and am committed to my
organization's vision.
.81
(.90)
.51
(-.07)
.40
(-.08)
Fry
v29. I set challenging goals for my work
because I have faith in my organization
and want us to succeed.
.80
(.95)

.47
(-.14)

.37
(-.09)

Fry
v53. My work group has a vision statement
that brings out the best in me.
.73
(.61)
.58
(.02)
.56
(.19)
Fry
v31. My organization is trustworthy and loyal
to its employees.
.67
(.10)
.89
( .92)
.57
(-.13)
Fry
v45. The leaders in my organization 'walk the
walk' as well as 'talk the talk'.
.61
(-.04)
.89
(.85)
.66
( .08)
Fry
v30. My organization really cares about its
people.
.67
(.13)
.87
(.84)
.58
(-.09)
Fry
v57. The leaders in my organization have the
courage to stand up for their people.
.57
(-.09)
.87
(.87)
.65
(.08)
Fry
v44. My organization is kind and considerate
toward its workers, and when they are
suffering, wants to do something about it.
.64
(.06)

.86
(.77)

.65
(.06)

Fry
v32. The leaders in my organization are honest
and without false pride.
.58
(-.04)
.86
(.88)
.61
(.01)
Fry

24
Table 2, Continued

Items L1 L2 L3 Item
source
v56. My organization does not punish honest
mistakes.
.44
(-.13)
.72
(.85)
.47
(-.05)
Fry
v47. The leaders in my organization care about
employees' spiritual life.
.52
(-.02)
.63
(-.00)
.905
(.92)
Liu
v46. The leaders in my organization try to
improve their own spiritual development.
.49
(-.01)
.58
(-.11)
.90
( .98)
Liu
v58. The leaders in my organization try to
improve employees' spiritual
development.
.508
(-.00)
.61
(-.03)
.89
(.91)
Liu
v33. The leaders in my organization care about
their own spiritual life.
.48
(.01)
.56
(-.07)
.84
(.88)
Liu
v60. The leaders in my organization are willing
to sacrifice themselves in the service of a
higher purpose.
.56
(-.05)

.74
(.34)

.84
(.62)

Liu
v59. The leaders in my organization motivate
employees to transcend their self-interest
to do things for others.
.57
(.03)

.73
(.33)

.79
(.54)

Liu
a
n= 1097; Principal Component Extraction and Promax Rotation; Bold-faced factor
loadings are used to delineate the factor. L1= vision, hope/faith, L2= altruistic
love, L3= spiritual development of both leader and follower

b
Structural

coefficient
c
Pattern coefficients are in parentheses.

Table 3
Exploratory Factor Analysis for Spirituality in the Workplace Scale
a

Items S1 S2 S3 Item
d
source
v37. I believe there is a larger meaning to life. .86
b

(.83)
c

.41
(-.01)
.50
(05)
2
v35. I believe that death is a doorway to
another plane of existence.
.84
(.93)
.32
(-.05)
.36
(-.12)
2
v22. There is a power greater than myself. .81
(.92)
.28
(-.08)
.32
(-.14)
1
v34. There is an order to the universe that
transcends human thinking.
.81
(.80)
.39
(.01)
.45
(.02)
2
v36. I feel that I have a calling to fulfill in life. .80
(.75)
.39
(-.02)
.51
(.12)
3

25
Table 3, Continued

Items S1 S2 S3 Item
d
source
v48. There is a higher plane of consciousness
or spirituality that binds all people.
.75
(.55)
.64
(.35)
.55
(.06)
2
v24. I sometimes feel so connected to nature
that everything seems to be part of one
living organism.
.30
(-.13)
.85
(.91)

.40
(-.01)

4
v25. I have had moments of great joy in which
I suddenly had a clear, deep feeling of
oneness with all that exists.
.40
(.06)

.81
(.83)

38
(-.09)

4
v38. All life is interconnected. .50
(.13)
.76
(.62)
.55
(.15)
2
v52. I believe that on some level my life is
intimately tied to all of humankind.
.53
(.10)
.71
(.46)
.69
(.39)
2
v26. I love the blooming of flowers in the
spring as much as seeing an old friend
again.
.22
(-.08)
.67
(.78)
.24
(-.13)
4
v50. It is important for me to give something
back to my community.
.42
(.03)
.30
(-.17)
.79
(.86)
2
v51. I am concerned about those who will
come after me in life.
.34
(-.10)
.33
(-.09)
.77
(.87)
2
v49. Life is most worthwhile when it is lived in
service to an important cause.
.56
(.28)
.33
(-.13)
.71
(.63)
3
v23. Humans are mutually responsible to and
for one another.
.26
(-.16)
.41
(.14)
.64
(.66)
3
v39. I am easily and deeply touched when I see
human misery and suffering.
.31
(-.06)
.44
(.21)
.57
(.49)
3

a
n= 1097; Principal Component Extraction and Promax Rotation; Bold-faced
factor loadings are used to delineate the factor. S1= interconnection with a higher
power, S2= interconnection with nature and all living things, S3= interconnection
with human beings,

b
Structural

coefficient
c
Pattern coefficients are in parentheses.
d
1 = Hatch et al., (1998), 2 = Piedmont (1999), 3 = Elkins et al. (1988),
4 = Cloninger et al. (1993)

26
Table 4
Exploratory Factor Analysis for Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale
a

Items O1 O2 O3 O4 O5
v13. I help others who have heavy work loads.

.78
b

(.79)
c

.13
(-.02)
.22
(-.07)
.30
(.01)
.25
(.06)
v16. I willingly help others who have work
related problems.
.77
(.77)
.13
(-.01)
.30
(.05)
.27
(-.00)
.18
(-.04)
v12. I help others who have been absent. .75
(.76)
.10
(-.03)
.18
(-.09)
.30
(.03)
.23
(.05)
v17. I am always ready to lend a helping hand
to those around me.
.72
(.65)
.22
(.04)
.43
(.19)
.23
(-.08)
.29
(.08)
v15. I help orient new people even though it is
not required.
.70
(.69)
.12
(-.01)
.22
(-.02)
.31
(.08)
.17
(-.04)
v11. I tend to make 'mountains out of
molehills' (makes problems bigger than
they are). (R)
.16
(.04)

.77
(.78)

.20
(-.03)

.08
(-.07)

.21
(.02)

v7. I focus on what is wrong, rather than the
positive side. (R)
.21
(.11)
.72
(.74)
.14
(-.09)
.15
(.04)
.12
(-.09)
v5. I consume a lot of time complaining about
trivial matters. (R)
.05
(-.08)
.72
(.73)
.16
(-.03)
.08
(-.03)
.20
(.04)
v14. I find fault with what the organization is
doing. (R)
.08
(-.08)
.63
(.63)
.15
(-.04)
.20
(.11)
.23
(.06)
v18. I am the classic 'squeaky wheel' that
always needs greasing. (R)
.09
(-.05)
.57
(.55)
.29
(.17)
.08
(-.03)
.14
(-.03)
v21. I consider the impact of my actions on
coworkers.
.32
(.04)
.27
(.04)
.80
(.78)
.25
(.06)
.21
(-.05)
v20. I try to avoid creating problems for
coworkers.
.24
(.01)
.22
(.01)
.75
(.76)
.10
(-.11)
.23
(.04)
v19. I am mindful of how my behavior affects
other people's jobs.
.33
(.07)
.29
(.09)
.66
(.59)
.29
(.11)
.25
(-.01)
v9. I keep abreast of changes in the
organization.
.25
(-.08)
.19
(.02)
.22
(.00)
.78
(.73)
.46
(.21)
v10. I read and keep up with organization
announcements, memos, and so on.
.25
(-.05)
.13
(-.04)
.21
(.02)
.73
(.67)
.44
(.22)
v8. I attend functions that are not required, but
that help the organization's image.
.28
(.07)
.10
(.00)
.12
(-.03)
.71
(.75)
.12
(-.16)
v6. I attend meetings that are not mandatory,
but are considered important.
.29
(.09)
.12
(.03)
.17
(.02)
.66
(.69)
.10
(-.18)
v4. I believe in giving an honest day’s work
for an honest day's pay.
.19
(-.01)
.18
(-.02)
.25
(.06)
.25
(-.02)
.72
(.72)
v2. I take extra breaks. (R) .18
(.07)
.21
(.07)
.09
(-.12)
.13
(-.14)
.68
(.73)
v3. I obey organization rules and regulations
even when no one is watching.
.20
(-.04)
.24
(.04)
.39
(.23)
.26
(.02)
.61
(.53)
v1. My attendance at work is above the norm. .20
(.06)
.08
(-.08
.08
(-.12)
.29
(.08)
.60
(.60)

27

a
n=1097; Principal Component Extraction and Promax Rotation; Bold-faced factor
loadings are used to delineate the factor. All items come from Podsakoff et al.
(1990). O1= altruism, O2= sportsmanship, O3= courtesy, O4= civic virtue, O5=
conscientiousness.

b
Structural

coefficient
c
Pattern coefficients are in parentheses.
Note. Items followed by (R) were reverse-scored before exploratory factor analysis.
The higher scores mean higher organizational citizenship behavior.

28

Figure 3
Full Structural Equation Model

* * *

e4 e5 e6

1 1 1

S1 S2 S3

* (1) λ4 λ
5
* λ
6
*
d1
1 spirituality

γ
1
* β* *

d2
* 1

transcendental OCB
leadership
γ
2
*
λ
1
* λ
2
* λ
3
(1) (1) λ7 λ
8
* λ
9
* λ
10
* λ
11
*

L1 L2 L3 O1 O2 O3 O4 O5

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
e1 e2 e3 e7 e8 e9 e10 e11

* * * * * * * *

Note.
Indirect effect= γ
1
×β. Direct effect= γ
2
. Total effect= γ
1
×β + γ
2
.
Factor loading: λ
1,
λ
2,
λ
3,
λ
4,
λ
5
, λ
6
, λ
7
, λ
8
, λ
9,
λ
10,
λ
11

e in the circle denotes measurement errors.
d in the circle denotes residuals of latent endogenous variables
Two-headed curved arrows that exit and enter the same variable represent the
variance of an exogenous variable, var (transcendental leadership) var (e1), var (e2),
var (e3), var (e4), var (e5), var (e6), var (e7), var (e8), var (e9), var (e10), var (e11),
var (d1), var (d2)

29
I next conducted three separate confirmatory factor analyses on the 1097 cases to
test the measurement models of the three constructs, including convergent validity,
discriminant validity, and psychometric properties, prior to testing the structural
model and the hypotheses on the 1135 cases (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Bagozzi &
Phillips, 1982). To take degrees of freedom into account and test the three
measurement models more precisely, the measurement model of each construct was
represented through a total disaggregation approach (Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994;
Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998). Because the data did not reflect a multivariate normal
distribution, the Bollen-Stine bootstrap method was used to assess overall model fit
of different SEM models (Ichikawa & Konishi, 1997; Thompson, 2004; West, Finch,
& Curran, 1995; Yung & Bentler, 1996). A series of nested model comparisons via
sequential chi-square differences tests were used to evaluate the relative fit of
different SEM models (Gionta, Harlow, Loitman, & Leeman, 2005; Holmbeck,
1997).
Finally, I tested the structural model on the 1135 cases through nested SEM
model chi-square difference test. I tested the hypotheses on 1135 cases using the
bias-corrected bootstrap method to establish confidence intervals to directly test the
significance of the direct effects and indirect effect (Bollen & Stine, 1990; Cheung,
2007; MacKinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007; MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams,
2004; Shrout & Bolger, 2002).

30
Chapter 4 Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Convergent validity. I conducted three confirmatory factor analyses on the 1097
cases to test the measurement models for the three constructs. Table 5 shows the
measurement properties of the three constructs. Transcendental leadership is
measured by three indicators: vision, hope/faith (L1, ten items, α = .95), altruistic
love (L2, seven items, α = .94), and spiritual development of both leader and
follower (L3, six items, α = .93). The fit indices for the transcendental leadership
measurement model fell within an acceptable range, χ
2
(227, N= 1097) =2881.20,
p= .00; CFI= .89; TLI= .87. Spirituality in the workplace is measured by three
indicators: interconnection with a higher power (S1, six items, α = .90),
interconnection with nature and all living things (S2, five items, α = .83), and
interconnection with human beings (S3, five items, α = .73). The fit indices for the
measurement model fell within an acceptable range, χ
2
(101, N= 1097) =1160.55,
p= .00; CFI=.88; TLI= .85. Organizational citizenship behavior is measured by five
indicators: altruism (O1, five items, α = .81), sportsmanship (O2, five items, α = .73),
courtesy (O3, three items, α = .72), civic virtue (O4, four items, α = .68), and
conscientiousness (O5, four items, α = .58). The fit indices for the measurement
model fell within an acceptable range, χ
2
(179, N= 1097) = 836.54, p= .00; CFI= .89;
TLI= .87. All indicators loaded significantly on their respective latent constructs,
with each path coefficient greater than twice its standard error. Cronbach’s alpha
internal consistency reliability estimates were all above Nunnally’s (1978)

31
recommended level of .70, except for civic virtue (O4) and conscientiousness (O5).
The composite reliability values for the constructs were above Fornell and Larcker’s
(1981) recommended level of 0.7 and the average variance extracted from the
constructs was above the recommended level of 0.5, except for OCB. Therefore, the
measurement model of each construct demonstrates convergent validity.

Table 5
Measurement Properties
a

Construct and
indicator
Path coefficient
b
Estimates of
standard errors
c

Composite
Reliability
Average
variance
extracted
Transcendental
leadership
0.87 0.70
L1 .83 (.96) .02 (.04)
L2 .88 (1.18) .02 (.04)
L3 .79 (1.00)
d
.02 (−)
Spirituality 0.77 0.53
S1 .68 (1.00)
d
.03 (−)
S2 .70 (.99) .03 (.06)
S3 .79 (.74) .03 (.05)
OCB 0.67 0.29
O1 .59 (1.00)
d
.03 (−)
O2 .43 (.72) .04 (.09)
O3 .54 (.92) .03 (.07)
O4 .57 (1.01) .03 (.08)
O5 .56 (.86) .03 (.08)
a
n = 1097; L1= vision, hope/faith, L2= altruistic love, L3= spiritual development of
both leader and follower, S1= interconnection with a higher power, S2=
interconnection with nature and all living things, S3= interconnection with human
beings, O1= altruism, O2= sportsmanship, O3= courtesy, O4= civic virtue, O5=
conscientiousness
b
All paths are significant at the 0.001 level (two-tailed). Unstandardized
coefficients are in parentheses.
c
Bootstrap standard error. Estimates of standard error for unstandardized path
coefficients are in parentheses.
d
Loading fixed to 1.0 to establish the scale for the latent variable.

32
Discriminant validity. Table 6 shows the results of the nested SEM model chi-
square difference test conducted on the 1097 cases to assess discriminant validity.
The comparison of M1 and M2 reveals a significant difference, χ
2

difference
(1, N=
1097) = 427.87, p < .001. The comparison of M1 and M3 reveals a significant
difference, χ
2
difference
(1, N = 1097) = 434.52, p < .001. The comparison of M1 and
M4 reveals a significant difference, χ
2
difference
(1, N = 1097) = 771.35, p < .001.
Moreover, as the fit indices shown in Table 6, M1, χ
2
(41, N = 1097) = 444.41,
p= .00, GFI= .93, CFI= .90, TLI= .86, SRMR= .06, has better fit than M2, M3, and
M4. Therefore, M1 with three distinct factors is preferred over the other three two-
factor models, M2, M3, M4, providing evidence of discriminant validity, that is, the
three constructs are distinct from each other. In addition, as shown in Table 7, the
zero-order intercorrelations among the three constructs, after taking measurement
errors into account, are moderately positive and significantly less than 1.00, further
suggesting that the three constructs are distinct (Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998).
Therefore, the measurement models of the three constructs demonstrate construct
validity, including convergent validity and discriminant validity.

33
Table 6
Nested Models Assessing Discriminant Validity
a

Model χ
2
p
b
df GFI CFI TLI SRMR Model
compared
∆χ
2

M1.Three-factor model
(L vs. S vs. O)
444.41 .00 41 .93 .90 .86 .06 − −
M2. Two-factor model
(S=O vs. L)
872.28 .00 42 .85 .79 .72 .10 M
1
427.87

M3. Two-factor model
(L=O vs. S)
878.93 .00 42 .85 .78 .72 .10 M
1
434.52
M4. Two-factor model
(L=S vs. O)
1215.76 .00 42 .82 .70 .60 .12 M
1
771.35
a
n = 1097; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-
Lewis index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; L = transcendental
leadership; S = spirituality in the workplace; O = organizational citizenship
behavior
b
Bollen-Stine bootstrap p-value of χ
2
∆χ
2
are all significant at .001 level (two-tailed).

Table 7
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Zero-Order Correlations among Constructs
a

Transcendental
leadership
Spirituality in the
workplace
Organizational
citizenship
behavior
Transcendental
leadership

Spirituality in the
workplace
.25
(.17, .33)
b

Organizational
citizenship
behavior
.44
(.35, .53)

.45
(.37, .52)

a
n = 1097; All correlations have been corrected for attenuation due to measurement
errors and all are significant at .001 level (two-tailed).
b
95 % confidence intervals obtained through bias-corrected percentile method are in
parentheses.

34
Structural Model Assessment
The full structural model composed of three distinct constructs and their
respective indicators was tested on the 1135 cases through a series of nested SEM
model chi-square difference tests. Table 8 shows the results of nested SEM model
comparisons. The comparison of M
1
(direct effect only model) and M
3
(partial
mediation model) reveals a significant difference, χ
2
difference
(2, N= 1135) =144.20, p
<.001, indicating the partial mediation model (M
3
) is preferred over the direct effect
only model (M
1
). The comparison of M
2
(complete mediation model) and M
3
(partial
mediation model) reveals a significant difference, χ
2
difference
(1, N= 1135) = 70.08, p
<.001, indicating the partial mediation model (M
3
) is preferred over the complete
mediation model (M
2
). Moreover, as the fit indices in Table 8 show, the partial
mediation model (M3), χ
2
(41, N = 1135) = 478.51, p= .00, GFI= .93, CFI= .90,
TLI= .87, SRMR= .06, has better fit than M1 and M2. Therefore, based on chi-
square difference tests and fit indices, the partial mediation model (M3) fits the data
better than M1 and M2, and thus M3 is preferred over the other two. A partially
mediated relationship exists among transcendental leadership, spirituality, and
organizational citizenship behavior.

35
Table 8
Comparison of Structural Equation Models
a

Model χ
2
p
b
df GFI CFI TLI SRMR Model
compared
∆χ
2

M
1
Direct effect only
L→ O
622.71 .00 43 .91 .87 .83 .13 M
3
144.20
M
2

Complete mediation,
indirect effect only
L→S → O
548.59 .00 42 .93 .88 .85 .09 M
3
70.08
M
3
Partial Mediation,
direct and indirect effect
L→ O & L→S → O
478.51 .00 41 .93 .90 .87 .06 − −
a
n = 1135; L = transcendental leadership; S = spirituality in the workplace; O =
organizational citizenship behavior. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; CFI =
comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker- Lewis index; SRMR = standardized root
mean square residual
b
Bollen-Stine bootstrap p-value of χ
2
∆χ
2
are all significant at .001 level (two-tailed).

Hypothesis Test and Individual Parameter Estimates
I tested the hypotheses on 1135 cases through the bias-corrected bootstrap method
to establish confidence intervals to directly test the significance of the direct effects
and indirect effect in the structural model. Table 9 shows the results of the parameter
estimates. These results indicate that the 95% confidence intervals of all paths do not
include zero, thus all the paths are statistically significant. Hypotheses 1, 2, 3 are all
supported. Spirituality in the workplace is positively related to organizational
citizenship behavior (β = .34), supporting H
1
.

The indirect effect of transcendental
leadership on OCB through spirituality is significantly positive (γ
1
×β= .10),
supporting H
2
. The direct relationship between transcendental leadership and
organizational citizenship behavior is significantly positive (γ
2
= .33), supporting H
3
.

36
The total effect of transcendental leadership on OCB, the sum of the direct and
indirect effects, is significantly positive (γ
3
= .43).
Table 9
Individual Parameter Estimates
a

Effect
Standardized
estimate
b

Standard error
c
Bias-corrected
bootstrap
95 % confidence
interval
γ
1
(L→S) .29 .04 (0.22 , 0.36)
β (S→O) .34 .05 (0.25 , 0.43)
γ
2
(L→O)
Direct effect
.33 .05 (0.24 , 0.42)
γ
1
× β
(L→S→O)
Indirect effect
.10 .02 (0.07 , 0.14)
γ
2
+ γ
1
× β
Total effect
.43 .04 (0.34 , 0.51)
a
n = 1135, L = transcendental leadership; S = spirituality in the workplace; O =
organizational citizenship behavior.
b
All paths are significant at the 0.001 level (two-tailed).
c
Bootstrap standard error.

Common Method Variance
Because all data were self-reported and collected through the same questionnaire
during the same period of time, common method variance might bias the estimates of
the true relationships among theoretical constructs. I conducted Harman’s one-factor
test and confirmatory factor analysis on the 1135 cases to test whether the common
method effect is present (Korsgaard & Roberson, 1995; Mossholder, Bennett,
Kemery, & Wesolowski, 1998; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003;
Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, & Huber, 1984). Principal
components analysis revealed the presence of three distinct factors with eigenvalues
greater than 1.0, rather than a single factor. The three factors together accounted for

37
62 percent of the total variance; the first (largest) factor did not account for a
majority of the variance (22%). Thus, no general factor is apparent. Moreover, the
confirmatory factor analysis showed that the single-factor model did not fit the data
well, χ
2
(44, N= 1135) = 1787.10, p=.00, GFI = .73; CFI =.60; TLI = .50;
SRMR= .14. The results of these analyses suggest that common method variance is
not of great concern and thus is unlikely to confound the interpretation of results.

38
Chapter 5 Discussion

This study proposes and validates a new conceptual model composed of three
constructs, transcendental leadership, spirituality in the workplace, and
organizational citizenship behavior. The results suggest that the relationship between
transcendental leadership and OCB can be both direct and indirect; transcendental
leadership is both directly related to OCB and indirectly related to OCB through
spirituality in the workplace.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
I identified a mediator between transcendental leadership and OCB; that is,
spirituality appears to be an underlying mechanism through which a leader motivates
followers. However, the indirect effect of transcendental leadership on OCB through
spirituality (γ
1
× β= .10) is smaller than the direct effect of transcendental leadership
on OCB (γ
2
= .33). Future research can identify other possible mediators between
leadership and OCB and investigate the relative impact of their direct and indirect
effects on OCB.
I created and cross-validated a new scale of spirituality in the workplace. To build
up a theoretical model of spirituality in the workplace, future research can study
antecedents, outcomes, mediators, moderators, and contextual variables relevant to
this issue, for example, the relationship between spirituality and other variables
associated with positive organizational scholarship, sustainability, network theory,
and social capital. I also created and cross-validated a new scale of transcendental
leadership in order to move forward the existing leadership literature, suggesting that

39
transcendental leadership incorporates and transcends existing leadership theories.
More research about the relationships among transcendental leadership and other
leadership theories is needed.
Due to the non-probability sampling method used in this study, sampling error
might limit the generalizability of the findings (Brewerton & Millward, 2001). Since
every sample contains some idiosyncratic and nonreproducible variance as a function
of sampling error (Thompson, 2004), to test the validity of the proposed theoretical
model and whether the empirical results were due to a sampling fluke, replications
through cross-validation need to be conducted on new independent samples. If the
findings are replicated under a wide variety of conditions and with a wide variety of
non-probability samples, then our confidence in the more general applicability of the
model grows. By replicating the study, we might also discover the conditions and
groups to which the model does not apply. Replications provide further evidence in
favor of the theory. The value of a given model is greatly enhanced if it can be
replicated in new samples (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006).
I used a survey to collect self-report data. Although I found that common method
bias is not a concern in our study, the problem of common method variance still
exists. Future research may collect data from multiple sources, including self,
supervisors, and co-worker ratings of different variables. Finally, cross-sectional
data in this study preclude causal inferences. Future research can use longitudinal
data to test the proposed model in order to more clearly assess the direction of
causation.

40
Implications for Practice
The social bonds that help individuals define their meaning of existence by
uniting them into civic communities beyond the immediate family have weakened,
reflecting the broader decrease in participation in civic organizations, neighborhood
groups, labor organizations, and religious institutions (Putnam, 2001). This decline
of civic engagement leads people who spend most of their lifetime working in
industrial organizations to turn to their workplace, which provides the only
consistent link to other people, to search for social bonds and meaning (Ashmos &
Duchon, 2000; Conger, 1994; Hicks, 2003; Mirvis, 1997). However, outsourcing,
mergers, takeovers, and layoffs in the private sector as well as downsizing,
reengineering, and privatization in the public sector leave employees feeling insecure
about their jobs and uncertain about their careers, further inducing a sense of
meaningless. A crisis of meaning in the postmodern and post-industrial society needs
to be addressed in order to effectively motivate employees.
However, existing leadership and motivation theories, based on the assumptions
of a stable environment, certainty, and cognitive rationality, are unable to solve the
existential vacuum, i.e., a feeling of emptiness and meaninglessness (Frankl, 2006),
As Einstein (1945) cautioned,“ No problem can be solved from the same level of
consciousness that created it” (cf. Parameshwar, 2005). To address the above
problems, this study suggests that transcendental leadership and spirituality, based on
the transcendental epistemology and influenced by the spiritual paradigm of

41
motivation, can motivate employees more effectively in a quickly changing
environment.
Spirituality in the workplace is identified as an antecedent to OCB, which is
positively related to organizational effectiveness. While various approaches have
been adopted to motivate employees to engage in OCB to increase organizational
performance, recognizing the significance of spirituality in the workplace can be a
new approach to motivate employees effectively to help organizations compete and
cooperate successfully in the global economy. As suggested by Mitroff and Denton
(1999), “Spirituality is the ultimate competitive advantage of organizations”.

42
References

Allison, P. D. 2003. Missing data techniques for structural equation modeling.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(4): 545-557.

Andersen, S. M. & Chen, S. 2002. The relational self: An interpersonal social–
cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109(4): 619–645.

Anderson, J. C. & Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 411-423.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. 1992. Inclusion of other in the self scale and
the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
63 (4): 596-612.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. 1991. Close relationships as
including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2):
241-253.

Ashforth, B. E. & Johnson, S. A. 2001. Which hat to wear? The relative salience of
multiple identities in organizational contexts. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.),
Social identity processes in organizational contexts: 31-48. Philadelphia, PA:
Psychology Press.

Ashforth, B. E. & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization.
Academy of Management Review, 14: 20-39.

Ashforth, B. E. & Pratt, M. G. 2003. Institutionalized spirituality: An oxymoron? In
R.A.Giacalone & C.L.Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and
organizational performance: 93-107. New York: M.E. Sharper, Inc.

Ashmos, D. P. & Duchon, D. 2000. Spirituality at work: A conceptualization and
measure. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(2): 134-145.

Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. 2004.
Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact
follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6): 801-823

Bandalos, D. 2002. The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter
estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(1):
78-102.

43
Bandalos, D. & Finney, J. S. 2001. Item parceling issues in structural equation
modeling. In A. G. Marcoulides & E. R. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and
techniques in structural equation modeling: 269-295. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Batson, C. D. 1991. The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Batson, C. D. 1997. Self-other merging and the empathy-altruism hypothesis: Reply
to Neuberg et al. (1997). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73: 517-522.

Batson, C. D., Dyck, J. L., Brandt, J. R., Batson, J. G., Powell, A. L., McMaster, M.
R., & Griffitt, C. 1988. Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the
empathy - altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(1):
52-77.

Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson, K. 1997.
Is empathy- induced helping due to self-other merging? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73 (3): 495-509.

Batson, C. D. & Shaw, L. L. 1991. Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of
prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2): 107-122

Bagozzi, R. P. & Edwards, J. R. 1998. A general approach for representing
constructs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1): 45-87.

Bagozzi, R. P. & Heatherton, T. F. 1994. A general approach to representing
multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self-esteem. Structural
Equation Modeling, 1(1): 35-67.

Bagozzi, R. P. & Phillips, L. W. 1982. Representing and testing organizational
theories: A holistic construal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 459-489.

Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swindler, A., & Tipton, S. M. 1985.
Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: CA:
University of California Press.

Benefiel, M. 2003. Mapping the terrain of spirituality in organizations research.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(4): 367-377.

Berry, D. 2005. Methodological pitfalls in the study of religiosity and spirituality.
Western Journal of Nursing Research, 27(5): 628-647

44
Bolino, M. C. 1999. Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good
actors? Academy of Management Review, 24: 82-98.

Bolino, M. C., Varela, J. A., Bande, B., & Turnley, W. H. 2006. The impact of
impression-management tactics on supervisor ratings of organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 281-297.

Bollen, K. A. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bollen, K. A. & Stine, R. 1990. Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap
estimates of variability. Sociological Methodology, 20: 115- 140.

Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. 2001. Personality
perdictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 9(1/2): 52-69.

Bradburn, N., Sudman, S., and Wansink, B. 2004. Asking questions: the definitive
guide to questionnaire design-for market research, political polls, and social and
health questionnaires. San Franciscon, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brewer, M. B. & Gardner, W. 1996. Who is this "we"? Levels of collective identity
and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1): 83-93.

Brewer, M. B. & Kramer, R. M. 1985. The psychology of intergroup attitudes and
behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 36: 219-243.

Brewerton, P. & Millward, L. 2001. Organizational research methods: A guide for
students and researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brickson, S. & Brewer, M. 2001. Identity orientation and intergroup relations in
organizations. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in
organizational contexts: 49-65. Philadelphia: PA: Psychology Press.

Buck, H. G. 2006. Spirituality: Concept analysis and model development. Holistic
nursing practice, 20(6): 288-292.

Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. 1995. Further assessments of Bass's (1985)
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80(4): 468-478.

Cardona, P. 2000. Transcendental leadership. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 21(4): 201-206.

45
Chodron, P. 2001. The places that scare you: A guide to fearlessness in difficult
times. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Chun, H., Lam, S. S. K., & Law, K. K. S. 2000. Instrumental values of
organizational citizenship behavior for promotion: A field quasi-experiment. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 85(5): 822-828.

Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. 1997.
Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3): 481-494.

Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. 1993. A psychobiological model
of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50(12): 975-990.

Cohen, J. 1992. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1): 155-159.

Conger, J. A. 1994. Spirit at work: Discovering the spirituality in leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Crisp, R. J. & Hewstone, M. 1999. Differential evaluation of crossed category
groups: patterns, processes, and reducing intergroup bias. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 2(4): 307-333.

Dalai Lama, 2002. The Dalai Lama's book of love and compassion. Thorsons.

Davis-Blake, A. & Pfeffer, J. 1989. Just a mirage: The search for dispositional
effects in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 14(3): 385-400.

De Vaus, D. 2002. Analyzing social science data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dehler, G. E. & Welsh, M. A. 2003. The experience of work: Spirituality and the
new workplace. In R.A.Giacalone & C.L.Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace
spirituality and organizational performance: 108-122. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

Dovidio, J. F., Allen, J. L., & Schroeder, D. A. 1990. Specificity of empathy-induced
helping: Evidence for altruistic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59(2): 249-260.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Validzic, A., Matoka, K., Johnson, B., & Frazier, S.
1997. Extending the benefits of recategorization: Evaluations, self-disclosure, and
helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33: 401–420.

46
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Validzic, A. 1998. Intergroup bias: Status,
differentiation, and a common in-group identity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75(1): 109-120.

Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. 2002. Beauty is in the eye of the
beholder: The impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on the
cooperative behaviors of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(3): 507-
533.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. 1994. Organizational images and
member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2): 239-263.

Dyson, J., Cobb, M., & Forman, D. 1997. The meaning of spirituality: A literature
review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26: 1183-1188.

Edwards, J. R. & Bagozzi, R. P. 2000. On the nature and direction of relationships
between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5(2): 155-174.

Ehrhart, M. G. 2004. Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of
unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1): 61-94.

Eisenberg, N. & Miller, P. A. 1987. The relation of empathy to prosocial and related
behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1): 91-119.

Elkins, D. N., Hedstrom, L. J., Hughes, L. L., Leaf, J. A., & Saunders, C. 1988.
Toward a humanistic-phenomenological spirituality: Definition, description, and
measurement. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 28(4): 5-18.

Ellermann, C. R. & Reed, P. G. 2001. Self-transcendence and depression in middle-
age adults. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 23(7): 698-713.

Emblen, J. D. 1992. Religion and spirituality defined according to current using in
nursing literature. Journal of Professional Nursing, 8 (1): 41-47.

Emmons, R. A. 1999. The psychology of ultimate concerns: Motivation and
spirituality in personality. New York: Guilford Press.

Emmons, R. A., Cheung, C., & Tehrani, K. 1998. Assessing spirituality through
personal goals: Implications for research on religion and subjective well-being.
Social Indicators Research, 45: 391-422.

Enders, C. K. 2001. A primer on maximum likelihood algorithms available for use
with missing data. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(1): 128-141.

47
Enders, C. K. 2003. Using the Expectation Maximization Algorithm to estimate
coefficient alpha for scales with item-level missing data. Psychological Methods,
8(3): 322-337.

Enders, C. K. 2004. The impact of missing data on sample reliability estimates:
Implications for reliability reporting. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
64(3): 419-436.

Enders, C. K. & Peugh, J. L. 2004. Using an EM covariance matrix to estimate
structural equation models with missing data: Choosing an adjusted sample size to
improve the accuracy of inferences. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(1): 1-19.

Fairholm, G. W. 1996. Spiritual leadership: Fulfilling whole-self needs at work.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17(5): 11-17.

Fairholm, G. W. 1997. Capturing the heart of Leadership: Spirituality and
community in the New American workplace. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Fairholm, G. W. 1998. Perspectives on leadership: From the science of management
to its spiritual heart. Westport, CT: Quorum.

Fairholm, M. R. 2004. Different perspectives on the practice of leadership. Public
Administration Review, 64(5): 577- 590.

Feather, N. T. & Rauter, K. A. 2004. Organizational citizenship behaviors in relation
to job status, job insecurity, organizational commitment and identification, job
satisfaction and work values. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 77: 81-94.

Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1):
39-50.

Frankl, V. E. 2006. Man’s search for meaning. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Freshman, B.1999. An exploratory analysis of definitions and applications of
spirituality in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12 (4):
318-327.

Friedman, H. L. 1983. The self-expansiveness level form: A conceptualization and
measurement of a transpersonal construct. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology,
15(1): 37-50.

48
Fry, L. W. 2003. Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,
14: 693- 727.

Fry, L. W., Vitucci, S., & Cedillo, M. 2005. Spiritual leadership and army
transformation: Theory, measurement, and establishing a baseline. The Leadership
Quarterly, 16: 835- 862.

Giacalone, R. A. & L., J. C. (Eds.). 2003. Handbook of workplace spirituality and
organizational performance. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Gionta, D. A., Harlow, L. L., Loitman, J. E., & Leeman, J. M. 2005. Testing a
mediational model of communication among medical staff and families of cancer
patients. Structural Equation Modeling, 12 (3): 454-470.

Haslam, S. A., Powell, C., & Turner, J. C. 2000. Social identity, self-categorization,
and work motivation: Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and
sustainable organizational outcomes. Applied Psychology: An international review,
49 (3): 319-339.

Haslam, S. A., Van Knippenberg, D., Platow, M. J., & Ellemers, N. (Eds.). 2003.
Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice. New York:
Psychology Press.

Hatch, R. L., Burg, M. A., Naberhaus, D. S., & Hellmich, L. K. 1998. The spiritual
involvement and beliefs scale: Development and testing of a new instrument. Journal
of Family Practice, 46(6): 476-486.

Heaton, D. P., Schmidt-Wilk, J., & Travis, F. 2004. Constructs, methods, and
measures for researching spirituality in organizations. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 17 (1): 62-82.

Helminiak, D. A. 1996. A scientific spirituality: The interface of psychology and
theology. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 6(1): 1-19.

Helminiak, D. A. 1998. Religion and the human sciences: An approach via
spirituality. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Helminiak, D. A. 2006. The role of spirituality in formulating a theory of the
psychology of religion. Zygon, 41(1): 197-224.

Henson, R. K. 1999. Multivariate normality: What is it and how is it assessed?
Advances in Social Science Methodology, 5: 193-211.

49
Hewstone, M., Martin, R., Hammer-Hewstone, C., Crisp, R. J., & Voci, A. 2001.
Majority- minority relations in organizations: Challenges and opportunities. In M. A.
Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts: 67-
86. Philadelphia, P.A.: Psychology Press.

Hicks, D. A. 2003. Religion and the workplace: Pluralism, spirituality, leadership.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hill, P. C. & Pargament, K. I. 2003. Advances in the conceptualization and
measurement of religion and spirituality: Implications for physical and mental health
research. American Psychologist, 58(1): 664-674.

Hill, P. C., Pargament, K. I., Hood, R. W., McCullough, M. E., Swyers, J. P., Larson,
D. B., & Zinnbauer, B. J. 2000. Conceptualizing religion and spirituality: Points of
commonality, points of departure. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 30(1):
51–77.

Hogg, M. A. & Terry, D. J. (Eds.). 2001. Social identity processes in organizational
contexts. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Holmbeck, G. N. 1997. Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in
the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and
pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
65(4): 599- 610.

House, R. J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D. M. 1996. Rumors of the death of
dispositional research are vastly exaggerated. Academy of Management Review,
21(1): 203-224.

Hyman, C. & Handal, P. J. 2006. Definitions and evaluation of religion and
spirituality items by religious professionals: A pilot study. Journal of Religion and
Health, 45(2): 264-282.

Ichikawa, M. & Konish, S. 1997. Bootstrap tests for the goodness of fit in factor
analysis. Behaviormetrika, 24(1): 27-38.

Johnson, R. E. & Chang, C. H. 2006. ‘I’’ is to continuance as ‘‘We’’ is to affective:
The relevance of the self-concept for organizational commitment. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 27: 549-570.

Kinjerski, V. & Skrypnek, B. J. 2006. Measuring the intangible: Development of the
spirit a work scale. Academy of Management Proceedings.

50
Kline, R. B. 2005. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford Press.

Koenig, H. G., McCullough, M. E., & Larson, D. B. 2001. Handbook of religion and
health. New York: Oxford University Press.

Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. 1995. The effects of transformational
leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 16(4): 319-333.

Kolodinsky, R. W., Bowen, M. G., & Ferris, G. R. 2003. Embracing workplace
spirituality and managing organizational politics: Servant leadership and political
skill for volatile times. In R.A.Giacalone & C.L.Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of
workplace spirituality and organizational performance: 164-180. New York: M.E.
Sharpe, Inc.

Korac-Kakabadse, N., Kouzmin, A., & Kakabadse, A. 2002. Spirituality and
leadership praxis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(3): 165-182.

Korsgaard, M. A. & Roberson, L. 1995. Procedural justice in performance evaluation:
The role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal
discussions. Journal of Management, 21 (4): 657-669.

Krishnakumar, S. & Neck, C. P. 2002. The what, why and how of spirituality in the
workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(3): 153-164.

Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. 2000. A comparison of approaches to
forming composite measures in structural equation models. Organizational Research
Methods, 3(2): 186-206.

Leary, M. R. & Tangney, J. P. (Eds.). 2003. Handbook of self and identity. New
York: Guilford Press.

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., & Shahar, G. 2002. To parcel or not to parcel:
Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2):
151-173.

Lord, R. G. & Brown, D. J. 2004. Leadership processes and follower self-identity.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

MacDonald, D. A. 2000. Spirituality: Description, measurement, and relation to the
five factor model of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1):
153-197.

51
MacDonald, D. A., Friedman, H. L., & Kuentzel, F. G. 1999. A survey of measures
of spiritual and transpersonal constructs: Part one - research update. The Journal of
Transpersonal Psychology, 31(2): 137-154.

MacDonald, D. A., Kuentzel, F. G., & Friedman, H. L. 1999. A survey of measures
of spiritual and transcendental constructs: Part two-additional instruments. The
Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 31(2): 155-177.

MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. 2007. Mediation analysis. Annual
Review of Psychology, 58: 593-614.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. 2004. Confidence interval for
the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 39(1): 99-128.

McSherry, W., Cash, K., & Ross, L. 2004. Meaning of spirituality: Implications for
nursing practice. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 13(8): 934–941.

Mael, F. & Ashforth, B. E. 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the
reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13: 103-123.

Markus, H. & Nurius, P. 1986. Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9): 954-
969.

Markus, H. & Wurf, E. 1987. The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological
perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38: 299-337.

Marques, J. F. 2006. Removing the blinders: A phenomenological study of U.S.
based MBA students' perception of spirituality in the workplace. Journal of
American Academy of Business, 8(1): 55-61.

Martsolf, D. S. & Mickley, J. R. 1998. The concept of spirituality in nursing theories:
Differing world-views and extent of focus. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27(2): 294-
303.

Messick, D. M. & Mackie, D. M. 1989. Intergroup relations. Annual Review of
Psychology, 40: 45-81.

Milliman, J., Czaplewski, A. J., & Ferguson, J. 2003. An exploratory empirical
assessment of the relationship between spirituality and employee work attitudes.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(4): 426-447.

52
Mirvis, P. H. 1997. Souls work in organizations. Organization Science, 8(2): 193-
206.

Mitroff, I. & Denton, E. A. 1999. A spiritual audit of corporate America: A hard look
at spirituality, religion, and values in the workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H., & Campion, M. A. 2005. Selecting individuals in
team settings: The importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and
teamwork knowledge. Personnel Psychology, 58(3): 583-611.

Mossholder, K. W., Bennett, N., Kemery, E. R., & Wesolowski, M. A. 1998.
Relationships between bases of power and work reactions: The mediational role of
procedural justice. Journal of Management, 24(4): 533-552.

Mulaik, S. A. & Millsap, R. E. 2000. Doing the four-step right. Structural Equation
Modeling, 7(1): 36-73.

Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Onorato, R. S. & Turner, J. C. 2001. The “I”, the “Me”, and the “US”: The
psychological group and self-concept maintenance and change. In C. Sedikides & M.
B. Brewer (Eds.), Individual self, relational self, collective self: 147-170.
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Onorato, R. S. & Turner, J. C. 2004. Fluidity in the self-concept: The shift from
personal to social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34: 257-278.

Organ, D. W. & Konovsky, M. 1989. Cognitive versus affective determinants of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1): 157-164.

Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. O. 2006. Organizational
citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Parameshwar, S. 2005. Spiritual leadership through ego-transcendence: Exceptional
responses to challenging circumstances. The Leadership Quarterly, 16: 689-722.

Pargament, K. I. 1999. The psychology of religion and spirituality? Yes and No.
International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 9(1): 3–16.

Piedmont, R. L. 1999. Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality?
Spiritual transcendence and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 67: 985-
1014.

53
Piedmont, R. L. 2001. Spiritual transcendence and the scientific study of spirituality.
Journal of Rehabilitation, 67(1): 4-14.

Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 1997. Organizational citizenship
behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82(2): 262-270.

Podsakoff, P. M. & MacKenzie, S. B. 1994. Organizational citizenship behavior and
sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(3): 351-363.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. 1996. Transformational
leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee
satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of
Management, 22: 259-298.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common
method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879-903.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990.
Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader,
satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107–
142.

Podsakoff, P. M. & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research:
Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(2): 531-544.

Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., Grover, R. A., & Huber, V. L. 1984. Situational
moderators of leader reward and punishment behaviors: Fact or fiction?
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34: 21-63.

Pratt, M. G. 2001. Social identity dynamics in modern organizations: An
organizational psychology/organizational behavior perspective. In M. A. Hogg & D.
J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts: 13-30.
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Putnam, R. D. 2001. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American
community: Simon & Schuster.

Raykov, T. & Marcoulides, G. A. 2006. A first course in structural equation
modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Raykov, T. & Widaman, K. F. 1995. Issues in applied structural equation modeling
research. Structural Equation Modeling, 2(4): 289-318.

54
Riketta, M. 2005. Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 66: 358-384.

Roof, W. C. 1999. Spiritual marketplace: Baby boomers and the remaking of
American religion. Princeton: Princeton University Press

Rousseau, D. M. 1998. Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19: 217-233.

Sanders, J. E., Hopkins, W. E., & Geroy, G. D. 2003. From transactional to
transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 9(4): 21- 31.

Schnake, M. 1991. Organizational citizenship: A review, proposed model, and
research agenda. Human Relations, 44: 735-759.

Sedikides, C. & Brewer, M. B. (Eds.). 2001. Individual self, relational self, collective
self. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. 1996. Social exchange in organizations:
Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee
reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3): 219-227.

Sheep, M. L. 2004. Nailing down gossamer: A valid measure of the person-
organization fit of workplace spirituality. Academy of Management Proceedings.

Shrout, P. E. & Bolger, N. 2002. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental
studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4): 422-
445.

Slater, W., Hall, T. W., & Edwards, K. J. 2001. Measuring religion and spirituality:
Where are we and where are we going? Journal of Psychology and Theology, 29(1):
4-21.

Tajfel, H. 1981. Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tajfel, H. 1982. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of
Psychology, 33: 1- 39.

Tanyi, R. A. 2002. Towards clarification of the meaning of spirituality. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 39(5): 500-509.

55
Thompson, B. 2004. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding
concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Tropp, L. R. & Wright, S. C. 2001. Ingroup identification as the inclusion of ingroup
in the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(5): 585-600.

Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. 1994. Self and collective:
Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20: 454-
463.

Tyler, T. R. & Blader, S. L. 2001. Identity and cooperative behavior. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4(3): 207-226.

Van Dick, R. 2001. Identification in organizational contexts: linking theory and
research from social and organizational psychology. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 3(4): 265-283.

Van Knippenberg, D. & Sleebos, E. 2006. Organizational identification versus
organizational commitment: Self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 571-584.

Van Scotter, J. R. & Motowidlo, S. J. 1996. Interpersonal facilitation and job
dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81(5): 525-531.

Walsh, R. N. & Vaughan, F. (Eds.). 1980. Beyond ego: Transpersonal dimensions in
Psychology. Los Angeles: Tarcher.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. 1997. Perceived organizational support
and leader- member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of
Management Journal, 40(1): 82-111.

West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. 1995. Structural equation models with
normal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation
modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications: 56-75. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wilber, K. 1993. The spectrum of consciousness. Quest Books.

Wilber, K. 2006. Integral spirituality: A starting new role for religion in the modern
and postmodern world. Boston, MA: Integral Books.

Wilber, K., Engler, J., & Brown, D. 1986. Transformations of consciousness:
Conventional and contemplative perspectives on development. Boston, MA:
Shambala.

56
Williams, L. J. & Anderson, S. E. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational
commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors.
Journal of Management, 17(3): 601-617.

Wuthnow, R. 1998. After heaven: Spirituality in America since the 1950s. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Yuan, K. H., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. 1997. On averaging variables in a
confirmatory factor analysis model. Behaviormetrika, 24(1): 71-83

Yung, Y. F. & Bentler, P. M. 1996. Bootstrapping techniques in analysis of mean
and covariance structures. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.),
Advanced structural equation modeling: Issue and techniques: 195-226. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Yukl, G. 1999. An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and
charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2): 285–305.

Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., Cole, B. C., 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, 36(4): 549–564.

Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., & Scott, A. B. 1997. The emerging meanings of
religiousness and spirituality: Problems and prospects. Journal of Personality, 67(6):
889–919.

57
APPENDIX A

Survey Questionnaire

Dear Sir or Madam,

The following survey has been developed to collect data required for the completion
of a dissertation at the University of Southern California’s School of Policy,
Planning, and Development. This research has been approved by IRB at USC. The
survey was designed to be completed by individuals who are at least 18 years old and
currently working either full-time or part-time – if you are under 18 or not currently
working, please do not fill out the survey.

Your participation is voluntary, and you will remain completely anonymous. The
information you provide will be used for academic research purposes only and will
be kept strictly confidential. Your willingness to complete the survey in its entirety is
greatly appreciated.

The survey items focus on a variety of personal beliefs, attitudes, and organizational
experiences, and it should take about 15 minutes to complete. There are no right and
wrong answers –instead, please provide the response for each item that best matches
your own perception or reaction.

To begin the survey, please click the button below to indicate that you have read and
understood the above information and that you are 18 years or older and agree to
participate in the survey.

Caroline Liu, PhD Candidate
School of Policy, Planning, and Development
University of Southern California

Dissertation Advisor
Peter J. Robertson
Associate Professor
School of Policy, Planning, and Development
University of Southern California

58
Question items Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
agree

v1. My attendance at work is above the
norm.

v2. I take extra breaks. (R)
v3. I obey organization rules and
regulations even when no one is
watching.

v4. I believe in giving an honest day’s
work for an honest day's pay.

v5. I consume a lot of time complaining
about trivial matters. (R)

v6. I attend meetings that are not
mandatory, but are considered
important.

v7. I focus on what is wrong, rather than
the positive side. (R)

v8. I attend functions that are not
required, but that help the
organization’s image.

v9. I keep abreast of changes in the
organization.

v10. I read and keep up with
organization announcements,
memos, and so on.

v11. I tend to make “mountains out of
molehills” (makes problems bigger
than they are). (R)

v12. I help others who have been absent.
v13. I help others who have heavy work
loads.

v14. I find fault with what the
organization is doing. (R)

v15. I help orient new people even
though it is not required.

v16. I willingly help others who have
work related problems.

v17. I am always ready to lend a helping
hand to those around me.

v18. I am the classic “squeaky wheel”
that always needs greasing. (R)

v19. I am mindful of how my behavior
affects other people's jobs.

v20. I try to avoid creating problems for
coworkers.

59
Question items Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
agree

v21. I consider the impact of my actions
on coworkers.

v22. There is a power greater than
myself.

v23. Humans are mutually responsible to
and for one another.

v24. I sometimes feel so connected to
nature that everything seems to be
part of one living organism

v25. I have had moments of great joy in
which I suddenly had a clear, deep
feeling of oneness with all that
exists.

v26. I love the blooming of flowers in
the spring as much as seeing an old
friend again.

v27. I understand and am committed to
my organization’s vision.

v28. I have faith in my organization and
I am willing to do whatever it takes
to insure that it accomplish its
mission.

v29. I set challenging goals for my work
because I have faith in my
organization and want us to
succeed.

v30. My organization really cares about
its people.

v31. My organization is trustworthy and
loyal to its employees.

v32. The leaders in my organization are
honest and without false pride.

v33. The leaders in my organization care
about their own spiritual life.

v34. There is an order to the universe
that transcends human thinking.

v35. I believe that death is a doorway to
another plane of existence.

v36. I feel that I have a calling to fulfill
in life.

v37. I believe there is a larger meaning
to life.

v38. All life is interconnected.

60
Question items Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
agree

v39. I am easily and deeply touched
when I see human misery and
suffering.

v40. My organization’s vision inspires
my best performance.

v41. My organization’s vision is clear
and compelling to me.

v42. I preserve and exert extra effort to
help my organization succeed
because I have faith in what it
stands for.

v43. I demonstrate my faith in my
organization and its mission by
doing everything I can to help us
succeed.

v44. My organization is kind and
considerate toward its workers, and
when they are suffering, wants to
do something about it.

v45. The leaders in my organization
“walk the walk’ as well as “talk the
talk”.

v46. The leaders in my organization try
to improve their own spiritual
development.

v47. The leaders in my organization care
about employees’ spiritual life.

v48. There is a higher plane of
consciousness or spirituality that
binds all people.

v49. Life is most worthwhile when it is
lived in service to an important
cause.

v50. It is important for me to give
something back to my community.

v51. I am concerned about those who
will come after me in life.

v52. I believe that on some level my life
is intimately tied to all of
humankind.

v53. My work group has a vision
statement that brings out the best in
me.

v54. I have faith in my organization’s
vision for its employees.

61
Question items Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
agree

v55. I always do my best in my work
because I have faith in my
organization and its leaders.

v56. My organization does not punish
honest mistakes.

v57. The leaders in my organization
have the courage to stand up for
their people.

v58. The leaders in my organization try
to improve employees’ spiritual
development.

v59. The leaders in my organization
motivate employees to transcend
their self-interest to do things for
others

v60. The leaders in my organization are
willing to sacrifice themselves in
the service of a higher purpose.

R= reverse-coded item

62
APPENDIX B
Demographic Description of the Two Subsamples

Variable Sample 1(n= 1097) Sample 2 (n= 1135)
Sex
Male 507(46.2 %) 528(46.5%)
Female 541(49.3 %) 557(49.1%)
Age
18-29 years 155(14.1%) 122(10.7%)
30-39 years 265(24.2%) 280(24.7%)
40-49 years 235(21.4%) 254(22.4%)
50-59 years 278(25.3%) 270(23.8%)
60-69 years 97(8.8%) 124(10.9%)
Over 70 years 9(0.8%) 13(1.1%)
Marital status
Never Married 265(24.2%) 255(22.5%)
Married 661(60.3%) 717(63.2%)
Divorced 103(9.4%) 99(8.7%)
Separated 10(0.9%) 8(0.7%)
Widowed 12(1.1%) 18(1.6%)
Types of organization
Public 452(41.2%) 490(43.2%)
Private 358(32.6%) 378(33.3%)
Non-profit 244(22.2%) 231(20.4%)
Work status
Part-time 137(12.5%) 134(11.8%)
Full-time 915(83.4%) 966(85.1%)
Education
Did not complete
high school
0 1(0.1%)
Completed high school 9(0.8%) 8(0.7%)
Some college 48(4.4%) 73(6.4%)
Bachelor 210(19.1%) 183(16.1%)
Master 438(39.9%) 440(38.8%)
Doctorate 352(32.1%) 400(35.2%)
Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 800(72.9%) 830(73.2%)
Hispanic or Latino 34(3.1%) 43(3.8%)
African-American 77(7.0%) 84(7.4%)
Middle-Eastern 5(0.5%) 5(0.4%)
Asian/Pacific Islander 100(9.1%) 100(8.8%)
Native American 4(0.4%) 7(0.6%)
Religious affiliation
Christian 338(30.8%) 357(31.5%)
Jewish 39(3.6%) 46(4.1%)
Muslim 210(19.1%) 244(21.5 %)
Hindu 8(0.7%) 6(0.5%)
Buddhist 13(1.2%) 18(1.6%)
Spiritual, but not affiliated
with a religious group
192(17.5%) 207(18.2%)
Neither religious nor spiritual 92(8.4%) 98(8.6%)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study addresses three questions: 1) What is spirituality in the workplace? 2) How does spirituality relate to organizational citizenship behavior? 3) What is the underlying mechanism through which a leader motivates followers? I answer these questions by: 1) creating and cross-validating a new scale of spirituality in the workplace

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Leadership and the impact on organizational citizenship behaviors: an evaluation study

PDF

Spirituality in the workplace: a gap analysis of Omega Marketing

PDF

Power, status, and organizational citizenship behavior

PDF

The role of organizational leaders in creating sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the workplace

PDF

Organizational spiritual maturity (OSM)

PDF

Municipal employee reactions to city council incivility: an exploratory data analysis

PDF

An exploration of principal self-efficacy beliefs about transformational leadership behaviors

PDF

A study of a university-based men-only prevention program (Men CARE): effect on attitudes and behaviors related to sexual violence

PDF

The influence of organizational ethics on job attitudes and government performance

PDF

The global citizenship initiative: a case study examining the leadership of Pacific Coast Community College implementing organizational change in response to globalization

PDF

Workplace conflict and employment retaliation in law enforcement; an examination of the causes, effects and viable solutions

PDF

Developing socially intelligent leaders through field education: an evaluation study of behavioral competency education methods

PDF

Increasing workplace civility in higher education: a field study

PDF

A tale of two principals: the complexity of fostering and achieving organizational improvement

PDF

Organizational leadership and institutional factors related to the implementation of online educational programming in California community colleges

PDF

"After a neutral and impartial investigation...": implicit bias in internal workplace investigations

PDF

An exploration of leadership capacity building and effective principal practices

PDF

The coevolution of multimodal, multiplex, and multilevel organizational networks in development communities

PDF

How far does leadership travel? A multidimensional understanding of relational distance in organizations

PDF

The effects of mentoring on building and sustaning effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator