J Bus Ethics (2015) 130:585599
DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2246-0
The Association of Individual Spirituality on Employee
Engagement: The Spirit at Work
Richard A. Roof
Received: 28 October 2013 / Accepted: 6 June 2014 / Published online: 26 June 2014
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract Employee engagement and spirituality have
both been the focus of increasing interest by researchers
and practitioners, and both are still early stage theories with
ill-defined constructs and definitions. Emergent empirical
work related to engagement and spirituality has supported
the promise of improving both organizational performance
and employee conditions. Responding to the call by theorists
to examine engagement antecedents and specifically, the
relationship between spirituality and employee engagement,
a cross-sectional study was performed to examine self-
reported individual spirituality as measured by the DSES and
employee engagement measured using the UWES-9
including the dimensions of vigor, dedication, and absorp-
tion. 124 usable surveys were collected from a snowballing
convenience sample and after confirming demographic
representativeness and identifying the individuals organi-
zational role as a potential influential variable, analyses of
the relationships between individual spirituality, overall
engagement, and three individual engagement dimensions
were performed using multiple regression controlling for
organizational role. Empirical support was found for rela-
tionships between individual spirituality and engagement,
vigor, and dedication but not for the engagement dimension
of absorption. The findings should encourage further future
exploration of the relationship between spirituality and
engagement and inquiry into why results differ across
engagements dimensions; specifically, why the relationship
was not supported for absorption. The empirical support for
spirituality as a predictor of engagement informs practical
decisions for addressing workplace spirituality and concerns
R. A. Roof (&)
School of Business and Leadership, Regent University,
Virginia Beach, VA 23464, USA
e-mail: richroo@mail.regent.edu
with the potential to assist in countering the declining
engagement trend.
Keywords Daily spirituality experience scale
DSES

Employee engagement
Individual spirituality

Spirituality
UWES-9
Introduction
Over the last 20 years, there has been increasing interest by
researchers and practitioners in both employee engagement
and spirituality within the workplace (Garcia-Zamor 2003;
Heaton et al. 2004; Saks 2011). While theories have
evolved independently, there is evidence of a connection
between spirituality and employee engagement (Saks
2011), and both of these complex, early stage constructs
still exhibit definitional issues common in such emergent
concepts. Employee engagement and spirituality are rela-
ted to the individuals emotions and spirit in the work
environment (Saks 2011), and how employees higher
order needs can be met (Quatro 2004). The increased
attention to spirituality and employee engagement has been
driven by a confluence of many cultural dynamics includ-
ing recent ethical concerns, contemporary enlightened
leadership theories, reaction to increasing materialism
(Crossman 2010), more humanistic organizational envi-
ronments (Daniel 2010; Brown 2003), a spiritual awaken-
ing in the workplace (Fernando and Jackson 2006; Garcia-
Zamor 2003), a search for personal values, the rejection of
greed (Garcia-Zamor 2003; Marques 2010), a shift toward
wholeness and empowerment (Bakker et al. 2008; Karakas
2010), a quest for employee meaning and purpose (Fry
2003), and the focus on positive psychology, meaningful-
ness, and wellness (Kahn 1990; Schaufeli et al. 2006).
123
586
Employee engagement has been viewed by both prac-
titioners and researchers as critical to global competitive-
ness (Saks 2006), and has been empirically connected to
positive organizational outcomes including increased pro-
ductivity, customer satisfaction, profitability (Luthans
2001), job satisfaction, and commitment (Saks 2011).
Striving to satisfy employees higher order needs through
elevated employee engagement is a core ethical calling of
leaders, and has been shown not only to enhance job sat-
isfaction, but also has been correlated with reduced stress,
improved employee health, decreased incidence of sub-
stance abuse, and enhanced mental health (Maslach et al.
2001). The rising interest in employee engagement reflects
not just productivity concerns, but increased leadership
attention toward promoting reciprocal employeremployee
trust, offering purposeful work (Saks 2006), and improving
the overall employee condition.
Despite the importance of engagement to organizational
needs, Shuck et al. (2011) suggested that less than 30 % of
the global workforce is engaged, and that the engaged
proportion is declining. Yet information on employee
engagement is still limited, with limited empirical evidence
and theoretical development (Saks 2006). To counter the
declining employee engagement trend, research is needed
on variables that may predict employee engagement (Saks
2006) including personality, spirituality, traits, or other
factors (Saks 2006; Shuck et al. 2011). Engagement ante-
cedents remain ripe for investigation (Shuck et al. 2011,
p. 303).
Spirituality is a variable of particular interest in terms of
how it may relate to employee engagement since a wide
range of researchers has posited that spirituality is posi-
tively related to factors which are also associated with
engagement including job satisfaction, connectedness,
attitudes (Pawar 2008), loyalty, commitment (Sheep and
Foreman 2012), and even directly to employee engagement
itself (Poole 2009; Quatro 2004; Sheep and Foreman 2012;
Tourish and Pinnington 2002). Despite the interest and
theoretical connections, the relationship between spiritu-
ality and employee engagement has not been empirically
investigated (Adawiyah et al. 2011). Mitroff and Denton
(1999) suggested that such research into spirituality has
been thwarted by the difficulties in defining the construct,
the cultural tendencies in the west to separate personal
beliefs from public endeavors, and some initial academic
work of poor quality including studies that lacked evidence
and relied on heart-felt opinions (p. 84).
The purpose of this research project was to develop
empirical data to better understand the relationship between
individual spirituality and employee engagement. Pertinent
literature was reviewed for both spirituality and employee
engagement constructs, working definitions drawn from the
literature were introduced for each construct, a research
123
R. A. Roof
question and hypotheses proposed, and using appropriate
instruments, spirituality-employee engagement relation-
ships as hypothesized were tested. This research adds to the
understanding of the two related constructs, individual
spirituality, and employee engagement, with their promise
of impacting the workplace positively. Advanced knowl-
edge of spirituality and engagement may offer insight for
countering the declining employee engagement trend, an
objective which is of widespread interest for organizations
and leaders in the increasingly competitive global business
environment (Saks 2006).
Employee Engagement
Employee engagement concepts were initially driven by
HR consulting firms with their practitioner focus, and
therefore much of the work lacked in theoretical foundation
and empirical evidence (Macey and Schneider 2008; Saks
2006). For example, the Gallup Workplace Audit or the
Q12 is one of the most recognized surveys of engagement,
but the instrument has been widely criticized for measuring
antecedents or outcomes of engagement rather than
employee engagement directly (Poole 2009; Luthans
2001). The particular questions in the Gallup Q12 were
selected not for their representation or measurement of the
engagement construct, but primarily for their simplicity
and the consultants ability to affect those particular
workplace conditions, reducing the complex concept of
employee engagement to, as Gerst (2013) described,
meaningless junk science (p. 33). Fortunately, there
have been other theoretical and empirical efforts to better
refine the construct (Macey and Schneider 2008).
Engagement theory was an outgrowth of the positive psy-
chology movements attempts to improve the workplace
(Schaufeli et al. 2006), and is defined not a momentary
condition but a persistent psychological state of work
experience (Schaufeli et al. 2006; Shuck et al. 2011)
reflecting how much of themselves an employee applies to
their work role (Kahn 1990). The condition can be affected
by the employees personality as well as environmental
factors including organizational climate, management
style, fit, culture, and other outside life pressures (Kahn
1990). Employee engagement involves physical, cognitive,
and emotional aspects of the work experience, and provides
meaningfulness as the employee connects with the work
role (Kahn 1990).
An engaged employee exerts significant effort toward
their work, but the effort reflects enjoyment not compulsion
such as occurs in a workaholic condition (Bakker et al.
2008). A work situation whereby an employee is doing
what they do best, with people they enjoy, resulting in
meaningful psychological rewards would reflect high
Individual Spirituality on Employee Engagement
employee engagement (Luthans 2001). While definitions of
employee engagement vary, most agree that there are both
energy and identification components to engagement
(Bakker et al. 2008). Engagement as a psychological state
was affected by the environment reflects feelings of
empowerment, job involvement, positive affectivity, com-
mitment, enthusiasm, (Macey and Schneider 2008),
absorption, and emotional connectedness (Shuck et al.
2011). While other constructs focus on external motiva-
tions, engagement is concerned with intrinsic motivations
driven by enjoyment, connection with a higher purpose
(Fry 2003), social identity (Saks 2006), and high levels of
personal energy directed at the work role (Schaufeli et al.
2006). Engagement is the opposite burnout, a well-studied
construct, and reflects the recent positive, strength-based
trend in psychology research (Schaufeli et al. 2006).
The motivational construct of employee engagement has
been demonstrated to reflect three unique but related
dimensions of
(1) Vigor or activation indicated by high energy,
resilience, persistence, and the willingness to exert
extra effort.
(2) Dedication or identification reflected in enthusiasm,
a sense of purpose, inspiration, and pride in the
employees work.
(3) Absorption indicated by concentration, a condition
of being engrossed by the work role, and a happiness
with the work condition (Salanova et al. 2005;
Schaufeli et al. 2006).
Those three dimensions of employee engagement, vigor,
dedication, and absorption reflect how employees are
connected with their work and were used for researching
the spirituality-engagement relationship.
Employee engagement has been correlated with organi-
zational commitment or reduced turnover, loyalty, customer
service climate (Salanova et al. 2005), emotional investment
(Saks 2011), pride in work, and job satisfaction (Macey and
Schneider 2008). Macey and Schneider (2008) suggested
that job satisfaction is actually in the same conceptual space
as employee engagement, but employee engagement
expands satisfaction from simply a feeling to a construct that
also encompassing energy and activation. The positive
organizational outcomes not only support the potential for
using engagement to improve organizational performance,
but also consistent with outcomes that have been shown to
relate to spirituality (Sheep and Foreman 2012).
Individual Spirituality
Lips-Wiersma and Mills (2002) suggested that spirituality
is always present in the workplace, and the only question is
587
whether employees feel safe to express it (p. 183). In many
cases, self-censure or the leaderships reluctance to wel-
come spirituality relegates it to an underground cultural
element (Lips-Wiersma and Mills 2002). All people are
spiritual beings (Neal 1997) and when integrated with work
life, spirituality offers one the hope of making a difference
not just a living (Hoppe 2005, p. 86). The desire to seek
fulfillment, integrate spirituality with work (Fry 2003),
focus away from material needs (Marques 2010), manage
distrust (Giacalone and Jurkiewicz 2003), develop a sense
of community, and find meaning and a connection with
something greater (Marques et al. 2005), have resulted in
an expanding interest in spirituality both within manage-
ment training (Phillips 2012) and through efforts toward
greater workplace spirituality integration (Gockel 2004;
Karakas 2010). Employees are searching for meaning in
spiritually empty organizations where the void results in
unhappiness (Karakas 2010), and where spirituality could
provide meaning and contribute to the quality of work life
(Lee et al. 2003). Unfortunately research into spirituality
has lagged (Gockel 2004), and as Sass (2000) concluded,
academic literature on spirituality in organizations
exhibits more breadth then depth (p. 195) leaving some
scholars to criticize spirituality studies as lacking in rigor
(Karakas 2010).
As with many early stage concepts, the diversity of
spirituality definitions has challenged the research com-
munity with seemingly each author proposing a new defi-
nition (Brown 2003). Karakas (2010) found more than 70
different definitions in the literature. A review of the
essential elements of the various definitions suggests that
the descriptions can be broadly classified into those that
incorporate existing organizational development concepts
such as connectivity, shared purpose or visions, and those
reflecting an interest in a higher purpose (Sass 2000).
Definitions that incorporate existing organizational con-
cepts often make spirituality so broad that it reflects
goodness, peace, harmony, altruism, and esthetics (Atlaf
and Awan 2011). Others grapple with defining a spirituality
of transcendence that reflects a power beyond the indi-
vidual, incorporating God or a divine, holiness or the
sacred, and which may also include prayer, meditation,
reading scripture, or religious practices (Atlaf and Awan
2011; Brown 2003; Butts 1999; Freeman 2011; Fry 2003;
Marques et al. 2005; Saks 2006). Defining spirituality is by
nature difficult since the constructs are multidimensional
(Klenke 2003). Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2003) argued,
however, that despite the challenges, spirituality as it
relates to the workplace is both definable and measurable.
Literature reflects an ongoing debate over whether
religion is or should be a component of workplace spiri-
tuality (Fernando and Jackson 2006), but there is growing
acceptance that spirituality and religion are different and
123
588
while some may view religion as divisive (Garcia-Zamor
2003), since over 70 % of the worlds population practice
one of the five major religions (Kriger and Seng 2005), the
overwhelming spiritual experience in the world is aligned
with religion (Quatro 2004). There is an overlap between
spirituality and religion (Reave 2005), spirituality being the
broader construct (Phillips 2012), and there is no support
for excluding religion and the faith-based connection with
God (Fernando and Jackson 2006). All major religions
promote selflessness and servant hood in honoring god,
which are values aligned with the spirituality constructs
(Quatro 2004).
For this research project, spirituality did not incorporate
the broad organizational development constructs such as
altruism, harmony, or peace but was defined in terms of
transcendence and the individuals relationship to a higher
power, the sacred, God, or the divine (Brown 2003; Mo-
hamed et al. 2004; Saks 2006). My research definition was
Spirituality is the personal relationship or experience
with God or the divine that informs an individuals exis-
tence and shapes their meaning, purpose, and mission in
daily life. It does not need to encompass religion nor does
it by nature exclude religion (Hodge 2001; Karakas 2010;
Tischler et al. 2002).
While much of the interest in spirituality has been dri-
ven by an interest in impacting financial, human produc-
tivity, and other desirable organizational outcomes (Quatro
2004), and research has supported those practical impacts
of spirituality on commitment (Freeman 2011; Pawar
2008), creativity, cooperation (Butts 1999), job satisfaction
(Atlaf and Awan 2011), attendance, retention (Fry 2003;
Sheep and Foreman 2012), productivity (Usman and
Danish 2010), and organizational learning (Fry 2003),
many are uncomfortable linking spirituality with profits
and performance directly (Karakas 2010; Marques 2007;
Poole 2009). That is, organizational performance may be a
second-order consequence of spirituality from its effect on
organizational culture (Sheep and Foreman 2012), morale
(Garcia-Zamor 2003), ethical clarity (Quatro 2004),
authenticity (Hoppe 2005), fulfillment, compassion (Korac-
Kakabadse et al. 2002), and employee affiliation (Usman
and Danish 2010). Klenke (2003) suggested that spiritual-
ity addresses the deepest needs of leaders and followers, so
as overall quality of life improves, the practical and
desirable organizational outcomes naturally improve (Ka-
rakas 2010; Marques 2007).
The Spirituality-Engagement Connection
Individual spirituality is an essential component of the
human experience and in the work arena, spirituality can
affect whether that work is viewed as mundane or engaging
123
R. A. Roof
(Sheep and Foreman 2012; Shuck et al. 2011) with spiritual
individuals displaying a higher propensity to find their
employment role significant (Tepper 2003). Employee
engagement is connected with concrete outcomes such as
job satisfaction and organizational citizen behavior, and
encompasses a more holistic connection with work, a
connection that reflects the need for greater fulfillment in
life (Saks 2011). Mohamed et al. (2004) posited that spir-
ituality was related to commitment to the organization, and
other researchers have connected spirituality with a strong
employee affiliation (Usman and Danish 2010), an increase
in the growth of values and hope (Murray and Evers 2011),
loyalty or attachment to the organization (Rego and Pina e
Cunha 2008), and an emotional and psychological con-
tract with the organization (Dehler and Welsh 1994).
Marques (2010) used Gallup case study companies to
illustrate how spirituality connects to employee engage-
ment, and other researchers have generated a growing
collection of theoretical arguments linking spirituality with
employee engagement related constructs including team-
work, emotional loyalty (Adawiyah et al. 2011), job
involvement, employee attitudes (Pawar 2008), and a
decrease in burnout which is the theoretical opposite of
engagement (Schaufeli et al. 2002). There are also a
number of researchers who have directly theorized that
spirituality affects employee engagement and have called
for further empirical work to explore the relationship
(Adawiyah et al. 2011; Pawar 2008; Poole 2009; Saks
2011; Tourish and Pinnington 2002).
Spirituality has also been related to employee engage-
ment as an inherent dimension of personality that affects
growth and change from the inside rather than behaviorally
(Heaton et al. 2004) affecting outlook, perceptions, and
coping styles (Maslach et al. 2001; Mohamed et al. 2004;
Shuck et al. 2011) in a manner similar to how personality
characteristics such as locus of control impact work
(Bakker et al. 2008; Maslach et al. 2001). Spirituality can
be viewed as a fundamental element of motivation needed
to fulfill higher order needs (Saks 2011) such as Maslows
self-actualization (Sledge et al. 2011; Tischler 1999). Such
fundamental motivators are far more effective in influ-
encing employees than attempts to fulfill practical needs
(Dehler and Welsh 1994). Employee engagement encom-
passes psychological constructs that are both emotional and
cognitive (Kahn 1990; Saks 2011; Salanova et al. 2005;
Shuck et al. 2011), and the spirituality-engagement con-
nection is based in how spirituality can meaningfully affect
those engagement related psychological conditions.
Contemporary employees can draw upon spirituality to
encourage discernment, acceptance, humility, enlighten-
ment, decreased conflict, trust, ethical choices, and respect
(Daniel 2010; Fernando and Jackson 2006; Korac-Kakab-
adse et al. 2002; Shuck et al. 2011). Spirituality at work
Individual Spirituality on Employee Engagement
Research Model
Employee Engagement
Vigor
Spirituality Dedication
Absorption
Fig. 1 Research model
supports employees becoming willing servants, rather
than conscripted slaves, of the organization (Quatro 2004,
p. 235), while workers in spiritually empty organizations
are unconnected, lost, and searching for meaning (Karakas
2010, p. 94), a condition essentially the opposite of being
engaged. The literature supports a relationship between
spirituality and employee engagement, and the research
question for this study was:
Is there a relationship between individual spirituality,
employee engagement, and the three employee engage-
ment constructs of vigor, dedication, and absorption?
While investigating the constructs of engagement and
spirituality, other variables could threaten internal validity
of the research by influencing the dependent variables and
thereby affecting the relationships of interest (Cabanda
et al. 2011; Creswell 2009). Participant characteristics that
may be related to the spirituality-engagement relationship
include age, gender, organizational role (executive, man-
agement, and non-management), organizational size, and
type organization (for-profit, non-profit, and government),
so those variables were incorporated into the research to be
controlled during the statistical analyses. The inclusion of
control variables was intended to minimize any conse-
quential causal pathways unrelated to the spirituality-
engagement relationship, so the true relationship between
spirituality and the dependent variables could be deter-
mined (Creswell 2009).
Model
The research model and hypotheses used to explore the
connections between spirituality and employee engage-
ment, including the three constructs of vigor, dedication,
and absorption were derived from the literature and prior
research. The resulting model for the research is shown in
Fig. 1.
Hypotheses
The related hypotheses that define the relationships
between spirituality and employee engagement constructs
589
and for which the study was designed to empirically test
were:
H1 Spirituality will be positively related to employee
engagement (engagement) after controlling for
organizational role, organizational size, type
organization, gender, and age
H2 Spirituality will be positively related to the employee
engagement dimension of vigor after controlling for
organizational role, organizational size, type
organization, gender, and age
H3 Spirituality will be positively related to the employee
engagement dimension of dedication after
controlling for organizational role, organizational
size, type organization, gender, and age
H4 Spirituality will be positively related to the employee
engagement dimension of absorption after
controlling for organizational role, organizational
size, type organization, gender, and age
Method
This research examined the spirituality-employee engage-
ment relationship, including the underlying dimensions of
vigor, dedication, and absorption, empirically through
hypotheses testing based on sampled survey data employ-
ing previously developed and validated instruments. Using
a survey to sample the population, the research was
designed to provide information from which to generalize
to the population (Creswell 2009). The survey methodol-
ogy used to research the complex spirituality and employee
engagement constructs offered economy, robust data, and a
practical method for evaluating the hypothesized relation-
ships (Creswell 2009). For relationship-exploration types
of research involving attitudes such as spirituality and
engagement, survey research has been recommended as the
most appropriate (Cabanda et al. 2011). The following
methodological details on sampling, instruments, and
analyses reflect both practical and empirical considerations
for the cross-sectional study of employed individuals
located primarily within the United States and Canadian
(Creswell 2009).
Sample
By definition, employee engagement requires employment
so the sampling collected survey data only from employed
adults, across industries, and locations primarily within
North America. Due chiefly to practical limitations, the
sampling approach was a convenience sample drawn from
the researchers social media LinkedIn connections, and
through the encouraged further distribution of the survey to
123
590
participants contacts resulting in a snowballing, multi-
stage sample. With broad support for the theoretical rela-
tionship between the variables, correlation effects in the
medium range for behavioral sciences, a range sug- absorption (Bakker et al. 2008; Salanova et al. 2005;
gested by Green and Salkind (2011) to be approximately
r = .30 (p. 259) was expected. To support regression
analysis for each of the 3 dependent variables with a single
independent variable and five control variables, a power of
.80 and a significance level (alpha) of .05, a required
minimum sample size of 92 participants was suggested
based on the GPower sample size calculator (Faul et al.
2009). Participation solicitations messages were sent to the
researchers 999 LinkedIn connections, and a general
request was posted on the Linked2Leadership and HR
LinkedIn Groups. 146 participant responses were received
yielding 124 usable surveys. 22 incomplete surveys sub-
mitted through the online survey system were caused by
participants who abandoned during various stages of
completion, and which upon examination, appeared com-
pletely random with no discernible patterns. The 22
incomplete surveys were, therefore, eliminated during the
initial data analyses. The participant population was
essentially from North America (93.5 %) with most serv-
ing in an executive (46.8 %) or managerial (26.6) role and
only 26.6 % in non-managerial or technical roles. The
survey participants were largely from small companies of
less than 100 employees (43.5 %) with 37.1 % in mid-size
firms of 1001,000 employees and a few (19.4 %) in very
large companies of over 1000 employees. Participants were
predominantly male (58.1 %) with 41.9 % female respon-
dents. The survey participant ages were well distributed
with the greater number in the 4554 age category
(41.5 %) and roughly equal numbers of participants in the
3544 (20.3 %) and 5564 (21.1 %) categories. 71 % of
the participants were married, and the responses were
received primarily from Caucasians (85.5 %).
Measurement Instruments
As is typical for early stage concepts with definitional
disputes such as employee engagement and spirituality,
there are a variety of scales that each measure constructs in
alignment with related theoretical definitions (King and
Crowther 2004; Maslach et al. 2001; Saks 2006; Schaufeli
et al. 2006). Instrumentation for this research was selected
to align with and measure the constructs defined within the
research model and the hypotheses to be tested. Selected
scales had been widely used and validated.
Engagement Scale
The most widely used scale to measure employee
engagement globally is the Utrecht Work Engagement
123
R. A. Roof
Scale (UWES) which had been previously shortened and
validated as a 9-item scale (UWES-9). The UWES-9
measures the constructs of interest: vigor, dedication, and
Schaufeli et al. 2006). Factor analysis has supported the
three dimension definition and corresponding scales within
the instrument, and Cronbach alpha values for the indi-
vidual scales have consistently exceeded .70 (Salanova
et al. 2005; Schaufeli et al. 2006). The combined second-
tier engagement construct resulted in a .92 alpha in the
previous Schaufeli et al. (2006) research. The instrument
has been tested for long-term stability, correlated with
lengthier employee engagement scales, and applied in
different cultures and countries with consistently positive
results (Schaufeli et al. 2006). Consistency between theory
and the survey items supports construct validity as well
(Cabanda et al. 2011). The UWES-9 uses a 7-point Likert
scale with responses from never to always represented by
scores from 1 to 7, respectively. The UWES-9 instrument
details are included in the appendix.
Individual Spirituality Scale
Like employee engagement, there are a wide variety of
spirituality scales reflecting the definitional variances
within the research community. The scale selected for the
proposed research was the Daily Spiritual Experience Scale
(DSES) which is a 16-item survey instrument designed to
measure individual experiences of transcendence in the
participants daily life (Underwood 2011). It neither
requires nor rejects religion and considers spirituality in the
context of the divine or holy (Underwood 2011). The items
within the scale reflect the theoretical constructs of interest
including the inclusion of the transcendent element of
spirituality, and the scale has sound psychometric properties
with Cronbach alpha values consistently above .89, good
item distribution and variability, reliable testretest corre-
lations of greater than .85, use across 20 languages, and
application in over 70 published studies (Underwood 2011).
The instrument is scored on a 6-point rating of frequency of
occurrences. Scores range from many times a day to never,
and since the lower scores reflect higher levels of Spiritu-
ality, ratings were reversed during initial data preparation to
correspond with the employee engagement scale rating
configuration where higher engagement resulted in higher
ratings. The resulting consistent rating relationship aligns
with the hypothesized relationships to be tested. The DSES
instrument items are depicted in the appendix.
Data Collection Procedure
Data collection was conducted utilizing the Fluidsurveys
online survey tool with a general access link sent to
Individual Spirituality on Employee Engagement
potential participants from the researchers LinkedIn con-
nections and a LinkedIn leadership group. The generic link
delivered to potential participants offered anonymity and
allowed participant snowballing through the ability to Age groups were scaled from 1 to 7 to represent age groups
forward the link to others. Responses were directly
imported from the Fluidsurveys system into SPSS for
analyses. The link provided to potential participants
accessed an online survey which included a Human Subject
Consent statement, the two scales of spirituality and
employee engagement, and the demographic items
including: gender, age, organizational size, work role
(executive, managerial, or non-managerial), state of resi-
dency, race, and marital status. The 25 total scale items, 9
from the UWES-9 Engagement instrument and 16 from the
DSES individual spirituality scale, were incorporated into
the survey in their previously validated forms including
instructions and introductions, with the engagement scales
shown first and the spirituality items second. The Human
Subject Consent statement appeared on the first page of the
survey, and participants were required to acknowledge and
opt to continue. The statement is shown in the appendix.
Results
Data analyses were conducted in 4 progressive phases: (1)
survey data preparation and examination for completeness,
sample population representativeness, dependent variables
normality, and identification and resolution of outliers, (2)
analysis of scales reliability and variable correlations, (3)
ANOVA to examine between group differences for the
variables of engagement, vigor, dedication, absorption, and
spirituality grouped using the control variables of organi-
zational role, gender, and type organization. (4) multiple
regression analyses for refining control variable inclusion
and final hypotheses testing. The data analyses also
revealed underlying relationships between the research
variables and the control variable characteristics for these
emergent constructs. Data analyses were performed using
SPSS 21.0.
Survey Data Analysis
Data preparation included reversing the scale on the DSES
so higher values indicated more frequent spiritual experi-
ences, to mirror the UWES-9 scales which all reflect higher
engagement associated with higher survey response values.
Also, the DSES item 16 used a 4-point scale as opposed to
the 6 point scale used for items 115, so the item was
rescaled as suggested by the developer (Underwood 2011).
Nominal and ordinal data were assigned numerical scores
during participant data entry as defined during the
591
Fluidsurveys systems design. Organizational size was
coded into a value of 1 through 5 representing organiza-
tional size from small to large by number of employees.
from younger to older. Organizational role was coded to
reflect the level of leadership with 1 representing a senior
role and influence, 2 moderate influence as a manager or
supervisor, and 3 equaling a non-manager. The lesser the
value of the organizational role variable, the higher the
leadership role and positional authority represented.
Initial representativeness and completeness analysis
resulted in exclusion of 22 incomplete surveys which
exhibited no discernible pattern or bias and appeared as
random abandonment events throughout the survey path.
Sample descriptives identified a mostly North American
sample with a good range of characteristics. Survey data
were examined to assess normality and outliers of the four
engagement variables which included the three engage-
ment scales of vigor, dedication and absorption, and the
overall second-tier engagement measure. The data were
inspection using descriptive statistics, skewness, and kur-
tosis values, and 5 % trimmed mean analyses (Pallant
2010). All dependent variable scales were negatively
skewed which is not uncommon in psychological survey
scales (Pallant 2010, p. 64) and suggested that for the four
dependent variable engagement scales, most respondents
submitted relatively high engagement responses indicating
that most were highly engaged. The independent variable
of individual spirituality was also negatively skewed after
the scale was reverse to align response directions with
engagement measures. The KolmogorovSmirnov tests of
normality indicated the distributions violated normality
assumptions, which is expectedly common in large samples
(Tabachnick and Fidell 2001). The sample size of 124 was
substantial but remained in the range where serious viola-
tions of the normality assumption could still have some
detrimental effect on the anticipated multivariate analysis
(Hair et al. 2010; Pallant 2010). Therefore, an initial
multivariate regression was performed with spirituality as
the independent variable and each of the engagement
variables as dependent variables so predicted actual resid-
uals could be examined for normality using expected nor-
mality plots as suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001).
No apparent serious departures from normality in the
residuals were observed for any of the predicted
relationships.
Outliers in the scale data were identified and examined
to determine if they represented errors, aberrations, or true
representations of the population. The few outliers, ranging
from 2 to 6 for each variable, all appeared to be valid and
generally were simply reflective of the expected sample
distribution with negative skewness. Since the outlier data
appeared to represent a meaningful population element, all
123
592 R. A. Roof

Table 1 Reliability, inter-scale, and inter-variable correlations

Variable Mean SD Alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Spirituality 4.311 1.094 .950 1

2. Vigor 5.516 1.202 .894 .229a 1
3. Dedication 5.812 1.132 .906 .201a .856b 1
b
4. Absorption 5.669 1.013 .746 .143 .804 .806b 1
a b
5. Engagement 5.666 1.048 .942 .206 .949 .947b .920b 1
6. Size org. 2.240 1.368 -.098 -.148 -.148 -.175 -.166 1
7. Age group 4.910 1.086 .180a .141 .070 .122 .119 -.110 1
8. Org. role 1.800 .836 -.002 -.491 -.441b -.502b -.508b .306b -.056 1
a
Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)
b
Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

outliers were retained as suggested by Hair et al. (2010,
p. 67).
Reliability and Correlations
Table 1 shows the interscale and control variable correla-
tions as well as the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients
for the five survey scales which included the independent
variable of spirituality and the four dependent variables of
engagement. All scales demonstrated good reliability with
values ranging from .75 to .95. The Schaufeli et al. (2006)
research found an UWES-9 overall reliability of .92 com-
pared to this samples Cronbach alpha of .94 with both
indicating very high scale reliability. Individual engage-
ment scales all exceeded the generally accepted minimum
.70 value (Hair et al. 2010) with absorption reliability of
.75, vigor at .89, and dedication at .91 all indicating good to
excellent reliability. The DSES spirituality scale has con-
sistently been found reliable with Cronbach alpha values of
.89 or better (Underwood 2011), and this sample resulted in
a value of .95 likewise indicating excellent reliability.
Correlation between the variables of interest suggested
preliminary support for the relationship between spiritual-
ity and engagement as hypothesized. Actual hypotheses
testing were conducted through multivariate analyses.
The five control variables of age, gender, type organi-
zation, organizational size, and organizational role were
examined using inter-variable correlations from Table 1
and a series of ANOVAs to analyze the relationship with
each independent and dependent variable: individual spir-
ituality, employee engagement, vigor, dedication, and
absorption, across each control variables categories. From
the correlation values in Table 1, the control variables for
age and organizational size were not found to have a
significant correlation with the engagement measures at the
.05 alpha level. Organizational role, however, was signifi-
cantly correlated at the p \ .01 level with the individual
elements of engagement; vigor dedication, and absorptions,
as well as the second-tier engagement construct. The
negatively signed correlation indicated that the higher
organizational leadership roles which were coded as lesser
values correspond to higher engagement values. Age group
was the only of the control variables significantly corre-
lated with spirituality with a mild relationship (r = .180,
p \ .05).
The small non-significant correlations between the
organizational size control variable and both the indepen-
dent and dependent research variables suggested that it was
not likely to have meaningful effects, and therefore would
not contribute to the regression analyses. To further eval-
uate the control variables for inclusion, six ANOVA
analyses were performed to determine if mean values for
the research variables of engagement, and spirituality
varied significantly across the groups within each of the
three control variables of organizational role, type organi-
zation, and gender. The results from the three ANOVAs are
summarized in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5, which depict the mean
and standard deviations of spirituality and engagement for
each of the three variables. The ANOVA analyses and
examination of the mean values revealed that only the
means of the organizational role control variable were
significantly different among groups, and the Bonferroni
post hoc test revealed significant variance between all three
groups within organizational role: executive, manager/
supervisor, and non-manager/technical.
The correlation data and ANOVA analyses suggested
that organizational role and age were the only two control
variables among those collected that may potentially have
confounding effects on the testing of the spirituality and

123
Individual Spirituality on Employee Engagement 593

Table 2 One-way ANOVAs summary for organizational role categories on engagement and spirituality
Engagement Spirituality
Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

Between groups 35.031 2 17.516 21.175 .000 .035 2 .017 .014 .986
Within groups 100.092 121 .827 147.168 121 1.216
Total 135.123 123 147.203 123
Depicts two ANOVA analyses, one for each of the major research variables

Table 3 One-way ANOVAs summary for type organization categories on engagement and spirituality
Engagement Spirituality
Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

Between groups .976 2 .488 .440 .645 .388 2 .194 .160 .853
Within groups 134.148 121 1.109 146.815 121 1.213
Total 135.123 123 147.203 123
Depicts two ANOVA analyses, one for each of the major research variables

Table 4 One-way ANOVAs summary for gender categories on engagement and spirituality
Engagement Spirituality
Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

Between groups .206 1 .206 .186 .667 2.750 1 2.750 2.322 .130
Within groups 134.918 122 1.106 144.453 122 1.184
Total 135.123 123 147.203 123
Depicts two ANOVA analyses, one for each of the major research variables

Table 5 Mean and standard deviationcontrol variables Multiple Regressions

Variable N Engagement Spirituality
Reverse stepwise backward elimination regression (Hair
Mean SD Mean SD
et al. 2010) was performed to investigate the effects of the
1. Org. role 124 5.666 1.048 4.311 1.094 five control variables: organizational role, type organiza-
Executive 58 6.188 .716 4.321 1.148 tional, size organization, age, and gender, on the relation-
Manager 33 5.492 .772 4.283 1.113 ship between spirituality and the four engagement
Non-mgr. 33 4.923 1.272 4.321 1.005 variables. For all multivariate regression relationships,
2. Type org. 124 5.666 1.048 4.311 1.094 non-significant control variables were removed sequen-
For profit 96 5.705 1.083 4.281 1.130 tially based on the smallest t-value, resulting in only
Not for profit 20 5.600 .813 4.412 .992 organizational role being found to be a significant con-
Government 8 5.361 1.210 4.421 .985 tributor (p \ .05) to the prediction equation, and therefore
3. Gender 124 5.666 1.048 4.311 1.094 remaining in the regression model. Of particular note, age
Female 52 5.714 1.112 4.486 1.162 was significantly related to spirituality in the correlation
Male 72 5.631 1.006 4.184 1.032 matrix, but did not contribute to the regression model at the
p \ .05 and was also removed from further regression
testing. The reverse stepwise regression analyses confirmed
engagement relationships. The control variables influence the findings of the correlation and ANOVA analyses, and
and significance were tested further during the initial supported the removal of the control variables from
multiple regression analyses. regression modeling for testing the research hypotheses.

123
594 R. A. Roof

Table 6 Hierarchical regression model for variables predicting engagement

Model 1a Model 2b
B Std. error b t of coef. Sig. B Std. error b t of coef. Sig.

Organizational role -.638 .098 -.508 -6.522 .000 -.637 .095 -.508 -6.681 .000
Spirituality .196 .073 .205 2.693 .008
Adjusted R2 .252 .289
DR2 .259 .042
F for DR2 42.54 7.25
Sig. F change .000 .008
a
Predictors: constant, organizational role
b
Predictors: constant, organizational role, spirituality

Table 7 Hierarchical regression model for variables predicting vigor

Model 1a Model 2b
B Std. error b t of coef. Sig. B Std. error b t of coef. Sig.

Organizational role -.707 .113 -.491 -6.233 .000 -.706 .110 -.491 -6.423 .000
Spirituality .250 .084 .228 2.977 .004
Adjusted R2 .235 .282
DR2 .242 .052
F for DR2 38.84 8.87
Sig. F change .000 .004
a
Predictors: constant, organizational role
b
Predictors: constant, organizational role, spirituality

Table 8 Hierarchical regression model for variables predicting dedication

Model 1a Model 2b
B Std. error b t of coef. Sig. B Std. error b t of coef. Sig.

Organizational role -.598 .110 -.441 -5.433 .000 -.597 .108 -.441 -5.545 .000
Spirituality .207 .082 .200 2.520 .013
Adjusted R2 .188 .222
DR2 .195 .040
2
F for DR 29.51 6.35
Sig. F change .000 .013
a
Predictors: constant, organizational role
b
Predictors: constant, organizational role, spirituality

Four separate hierarchical regression analyses, depicted
in Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9, were then performed to test the
research hypotheses H1, H2, H3, and H4 while controlling
for organizational role. The control variable organizational
role was entered as the sole independent variable for the
first model of each hierarchical regressions, with spiritu-
ality added as the independent variable in model 2.
Residuals estimating errors were examined using normal
probability plots and no violations of normality, linearity,
or homoscedasticity and were observed for any of the
models. Spirituality and the control variable organizational
role exhibited no collinearity indications, a finding which
was further supported by the -.002 correlation coefficient
value between spirituality and organizational role as
depicted in Table 1. Within the regression models, spiri-
tuality explained 4.2, 5.2, 4.0, and 2.0 % of the variation in
engagement, vigor, dedication, and absorption respectively,
and the contribution of spirituality was statistically

123
Individual Spirituality on Employee Engagement
Table 9 Hierarchical regression model for variables predicting absorption
Model 1a
B Std. error b t of coef.
Organizational role -.608 .095 -.502 -6.411
Spirituality
Adjusted R2 .246
DR2 .252
F for DR2 41.10
Sig. F change .000
a
Predictors: constant, organizational role
b
Predictors: constant, organizational role, spirituality
significant at p \ .05 for all models except for with
absorption as the dependent variable.
Discussion
From the hierarchical regression in Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9,
spirituality after controlling for organizational role was
significantly associated with engagement, vigor, and dedi-
cation; therefore, hypotheses H1, H2, and H3 were sup-
ported. H4 was not supported, since spirituality was not
shown to be significantly related to the absorption sub-
scale of engagement. As widely theorized (Adawiyah et al.
2011; Pawar 2008; Poole 2009; Saks 2011; Shuck et al.
2011; Tepper 2003), support was found for the relationship
between individual spirituality and engagement although
within the studied population, the effect size was modest
and explained only 45 % of the variation in engagement
and the sub-scales of vigor and dedication. The relationship
between spirituality and the absorption dimension of
engagement was not supported which suggested that
increased individual spirituality was not associated with
characteristics of absorption such as participants being
carried away, immersed, or intense relative to their work
(Salanova et al. 2005; Schaufeli et al. 2006). However,
absorption was significantly correlated to overall engage-
ment, vigor, and dedication at the 99 % confidence with
r values of .920, .804, and .806, respectively, making the
lack of a spirituality-absorption relationship revealing.
The lack of a significant relationship between individual
spirituality and absorption may suggest while spirituality is
associated overall with higher engagement, the relationship
does not necessarily include being immersed in work.
Higher levels of spirituality are reflected in more energetic,
diligent work attitudes, but not necessarily the emotional
immersion characteristic that the absorption scale measures
(Salanova et al. 2005; Schaufeli et al. 2006). Spirituality as
a personal dimension similar to personality affects intrinsic
motivation (Maslach et al. 2001; Shuck et al. 2011) and as
595
Model 2b
Sig. B Std. error b t of coef. Sig.
.000 -.608 .094 -.502 -6.468 .000
.131 .072 .142 1.825 .071
.260
.020
3.33
.071
such may provide an alternative higher order fulfillment, a
Maslow hierarchy-like actualization substitute, to the
absorption dimension of engagement (Kahn 1990; Quatro
2004; Sledge et al. 2011). Such a differentiation in the
engagement dimensions relationships suggests that work-
ers spirituality may promote more effort, energy, dili-
gence, persistence, purpose, and pride, but not a condition
of being engrossed or immersed (Salanova et al. 2005;
Schaufeli et al. 2006). The difference could also suggest
that spirituality actually inhibits only the absorption
dimension of employee engagement in some manner.
While the data did not support the influence of gender,
type organization, or size organization on spirituality,
engagement, or any of the sub-scales of engagement, the
participants role or rank within their organization was sig-
nificantly related to engagement and all sub-scale dimen-
sions of engagement as indicated both through correlation
and within the multiple regression modeling. The variation
in engagement between the organizational roles was further
explored through the Bonferroni post hoc test as well as by
examining the mean values and confidence limits for orga-
nization role groups across all engagement variables. The
analyses found that a significant difference existed between
the three groups of executives, managers, and non-managers;
specifically, the more senior the role as represented by a
lower coded value, the higher the level of engagement.
Whether participants are at more senior roles because they
are more engaged, or whether the more senior role leads to
higher engagement cannot be determined from the research
performed. Participant age was correlated with spirituality,
but the relationship was not a significant contributing factor
within the multivariate regression environment.
The research was the first to examine the relationship of
individual spirituality including a transcendent element to
employee engagement and the dimensions of vigor, dedica-
tion, and absorption and contributes to understanding the
previously hypothesized relationships between spirituality
and employee engagement not only as a second-tier con-
struct, but also in terms of the individual dimensions of
123
596
engagement. While the empirical data revealed support for
the relationship between spirituality and engagement, the
effect was small for all constructs (r2 \ .052) which sug-
gested that there are many other factors influencing employee
engagement beyond spirituality and the participants role
within the organization. Other engagement antecedents such
as employees personality and environmental factors
including organizational climate, management style, fit,
culture, and other outside life pressures (Kahn 1990) were not
addressed within the focus and design of this research.
Limitations
Common method variance (CMV) was a potential limitation
within this research as all data were self-reported by the
individual participants. A Harmons single factor test was
performed post hoc to analyze the factor structure and three
factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 emerged, none of
which explained a majority of the variance suggesting that
CMV was not a major concern (Podasakoff et al. 2003).
However, as Podasakoff et al. (2003) argued, while Har-
mons is the most widely used method of assessing CMV, it
is not very sensitive. To further mitigate potential CMV,
dissimilar scales were employed with the UWES-9 rated
using a 7-point Likert scale and the DSES rated on a 6-point
reversed scale except one item which was rated on a 4-point
scale (Chang et al. 2010). Social desirability was another
potential bias related to the reporting of spirituality; how-
ever, alternative information sources for measuring this
internal attitude were not readily available, and the DSES
utilized a combination of explicit instructions to attempt to
minimize social biases (Spector 2006). Instructions included
informing the participant that they may or may not experi-
ence the conditions surveyed, and they should disregard
whether they feel that they should experience the conditions
in the questionnaire (Underwood 2011). The generalization
of this research study results may also have been diminished
by the use of the LinkedIn social networking population for
initially soliciting the convenience sample participants.
Since LinkedIn is promoted as a professional network and
members may exhibit higher levels of career-mindedness,
bias could have resulted in greater than normative engage-
ment ratings. There is no indication, however, that the
LinkedIn population would render non-representative spir-
ituality ratings, and no studies were identified, which con-
firmed or disputed the possible LinkedIn population biases.
Future Research
The findings of this study which supported the relationship
between individual spirituality and engagement and its
123
R. A. Roof
dimensions of vigor and dedication but not absorption
should encourage further exploration into the complex
group of engagement antecedents and outcomes including
leadership style, job satisfaction, commitment, and pro-
ductivity. Also, while the DSES included the measurement
of transcendent spirituality, to further understand spiritu-
ality and workplace engagement, other spirituality mea-
sures may offer additional texture within future inquiries.
In particular, expanding beyond the self-evaluation of
individual spirituality by exploring spiritual practices as
predictors of engagement, leadership practices, and out-
comes offer promise toward advancing the understanding
of how spirituality plays out in the workplace and how
organizations may benefit through supportive spirituality
policies.
The inconsistent relationship across the engagement
sub-scales which resulted in the spirituality and absorption
relationship not being supported also suggests the potential
to learn more about the phenomena through qualitative
inquiry or more focused surveys, longitudinal studies, or
even experimental research.
Conclusion
This study advanced the unexplored relationship between
spirituality and engagement, two early stage emergent
constructs and found that spirituality positively and sig-
nificantly correlates with engagement, vigor, and dedica-
tion, but not absorption. While the findings revealed
aspects of the relationship of individual spirituality within
the workplace, the study simultaneously generated many
new questions to be answered. Understanding the rela-
tionship between spirituality and employee engagement
further offers the potential for considering spirituality as
one potential component in countering the global decline in
workplace engagement (Saks 2011). Much is yet to be
understood in terms of whether and how promoting the free
practices of workplace spirituality may be an effective
strategy for providing a more enlightened work environ-
ment and advancing employee engagement (Pawar 2008).
For these early stage constructs, the research added to the
scant empirical evidence of the widely theorized relation-
ships between individual spirituality and employee
engagement, and provided a basis for further investigation.
Advancing the understanding of employee engagement
through the investigation of antecedents including spiritu-
ality, leadership behaviors, cultural influences, and orga-
nizational conditions offers the promise of not just
improving organizational performance, but of fulfilling the
leaders greater responsibility to enrich the human condi-
tion through offering employees healthy, purposeful,
meaningful, and dignified work environments.
Individual Spirituality on Employee Engagement 597

Appendix (1) I feel Gods presence.

(2) I experience a connection to all of life.
Engagement Scale: Ultrecht Work Engagement Scale-9 (3) During worship, or at other times when connecting
(UWES-9) with God, I feel joy which lifts me out of my daily
concerns.
The following statements are about how you feel at work. (4) I find strength in my religion or spirituality.
Please read each statement carefully and decide if you ever (5) I find comfort in my religion of spirituality.
feel this way about your job. If you have never had this feeling, (6) I feel a deep inner peace or harmony.
select 0 for your response. If you have had this feeling, indicate (7) I ask for Gods help in the midst of daily activities.
how often you felt it by selecting the number from 1 to 6 that (8) I feel guided by God in the midst of daily activities.
best describes how frequently you feel that way. (9) I feel Gods love for me, directly.
(10) I feel Gods love for me, through others.
Never = 0
(11) I am spiritually touched by the beauty of creation.
Almost Never, a few times a year or less = 1
(12) I feel thankful for my blessings
Rarely, once a month or less = 2
(13) I feel a selfless caring for others.
Sometimes, A few times a month = 3
(14) I accept others even when they do things I think are
Often, Once a week = 4
wrong.
Very Often, A few time a week = 5
(15) I desire to be closer to God or in union with the
Always, every day = 6
divine.
(16) In general, how close do you feel to God? Not at
(1) At my work, I feel bursting with energy (V) all, Somewhat close, Very close, As close as
(2) At my job, I feel strong and vigorous (V) possible.
(3) I am enthusiastic about my job (D) Source Underwood (2006).
(4) My job inspires me (D)
(5) When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to Informed Consent and Study Disclosure: Delivered
work (V) on Page One of Online Survey Instrument
(6) I feel happy when I am working intensely (A)
(7) I am proud to do the work that I do (D) This study of employee engagement dimensions and the
(8) I am immersed in my work (A) potential relationship with individual spirituality is being
(9) I get carried away when I am working (A) performed by Rick Roof, an Organizational Leadership
Source Schaufeli et al. (2006). Ph.D. student at Regent University. You are invited to
participate in this study which will involve completing an
online survey instrument with 25 survey questions fol-
lowed by a few demographic questions for analysis and
Individual Spirituality Scale: The Daily Spiritual
validation. The questionnaire is expected to take approxi-
Experience Scale (DSES)
mately 10 min to complete.
As a participant, there is no compensation and no direct
The list that follows includes items you may or may not
benefits, although you may find that contributing to the
experience. Please consider how often you directly have
research and a better understanding of these emerging con-
this experience, and try to disregard whether you feel you
cepts is rewarding. Participation is voluntary, anonymous,
should or should not have these experiences. A number of
and withdrawal, which is available at any time. Risks are
the items use the word God. If this word is not a com-
minimal, primarily related to anonymity although no name,
fortable one for you, please consider substituting another
social security, or other personally identifying information
word that calls to mind the divine or holy for you.
will be collected, and the survey responses will be stored on
For questions 115 secure servers. The results of this study may be published,
Many times a day but individual responses will not be depicted in any articles.
Every day To be eligible to participate, you must be a full-time
Most days adult (18 or over) employee of your organization. If you
Some days have any questions concerning participation, privacy, or
Once in a while the study, please contact the researcher, Rick Roof, at
Never richroo@mail.regent.edu.

123
598
If you elect to continue to the survey, understanding the
aforementioned conditions, your participation will be truly
appreciated.
References
Adawiyah, W. R., Shariff, M. N., Saud, M. B., & Mokhtar, S. S.
(2011). Workplace spirituality as a moderator in the relationship
between soft TQM and organizational commitment. Interna-
tional Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(10), 93100.
Atlaf, A., & Awan, M. A. (2011). Moderating affect of workplace
spirituality on the relationship of job overload and job satisfac-
tion. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 9399.
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008).
Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health
psychology. Work & Stress, 22(3), 187200.
Brown, R. B. (2003). Organizational spirituality: The sceptics
version. Organization, 10(2), 393400.
Butts, D. (1999). Spirituality at work: An overview. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 12(4), 328331.
Cabanda, E., Fields, D., & Winston, B. (2011). Organizational
leadership PhD: Quantitative research methods. New York:
McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Chang, S., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the
editors: Common method variance in international business
research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 178184.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crossman, J. (2010). Conceptualising spiritual leadership in secular
organizational contexts and its relation to transformational,
servant, and environmental leadership. Leadership and Organi-
zational Development Journal, 31(7), 596608.
Daniel, J. L. (2010). The effect of workplace spirituality on team
effectiveness. Journal of Management Development, 29(5),
442456.
Dehler, G. E., & Welsh, M. A. (1994). Spirituality and organizational
transformation: Implications for the new management paradigm.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 9(6), 17.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical
power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and
regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 11491160.
Fernando, M., & Jackson, B. (2006). The influence of religion-based
workplace spirituality on business leaders decision-making: An
inter-faith study. Journal of Management and Organization,
12(1), 2339.
Freeman, G. T. (2011). Spirituality and servant leadership: A
conceptual model and research proposal. Emerging Leadership
Journeys, 4(1), 120140.
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693727.
Garcia-Zamor, J.-C. (2003). Workplace spirituality and organizational
performance. Public Administration Review, 63(3), 355363.
Gerst, R. (2013). Understanding employee engagement and trust. The
Journal for Quality and Participation, 35(4), 3236.
Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003). Handbook of
Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance. Ar-
monk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Gockel, A. (2004). The trend toward spirituality in the workplace:
Overview and implications for career counseling. Journal of
Employment Counseling, 41(4), 156167.
Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2011). Using SPSS for windows and
macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
123
R. A. Roof
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010).
Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Heaton, D. P., Schmidt-Wilk, J., & Travis, F. (2004). Constructs,
methods, and measures for researching spirituality in organiza-
tions. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(1),
6282.
Hodge, D. R. (2001). Spiritual assessment: A review of major
qualitative methods and a new framework for assessing spiritu-
ality. Social Work, 46(3), 203214.
Hoppe, S. L. (2005). Spirituality and leadership. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 104, 8392.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engage-
ment and disengagement at work. Academy of Management
Journal, 33(4), 692724.
Karakas, F. (2010). Spirituality and performance in organizations: A
literature review. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 89106.
King, J. E., & Crowther, M. R. (2004). The measurement of
religiosity and spirituality: Examples and issues from psychol-
ogy. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(1),
83101.
Klenke, K. (2003). The S factor in leadership education, practice,
and research. Journal for Education for Business, 79(1), 5660.
Korac-Kakabadse, N., Kouzmin, A., & Kakabadse, A. (2002).
Spirituality and leadership praxis. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 17(3), 165182.
Kriger, M., & Seng, Y. (2005). Leadership with inner meaning: A
contingency theory of leadership based on the worldviews of five
religions. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 771806.
Lee, D.-J., Sirgy, M. J., Efraty, D., & Siegel, P. (2003). A study of
quality of work life, spiritual well-being, and life satisfaction. In
R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of
Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance (pp.
209230). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Lips-Wiersma, M., & Mills, C. (2002). Coming out of the closet:
Negotiating spiritual expression in the workplace. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 17(3), 183202.
Luthans, F. (2001). Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy:
Implications for managerial effectiveness and development.
Journal of Management Development, 21(5), 376387.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee
engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 330.
Marques, J. F. (2007). The reciprocity between spirituality in the
workplace and thinking outside the box. Business Renaissance
Quarterly, 2(3), 93117.
Marques, J. (2010). Spiritual considerations for managers: What
matters most to workforce members in challenging times.
Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 381390.
Marques, J., Dhiman, S., & King, R. (2005). Spirituality in the
workplace: Developing an integral model and a comprehensive
definition. Journal of the American Academy of Business,
Cambridge, 7(1), 8191.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout.
Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397422.
Mitroff, I. I., & Denton, E. A. (1999). A study of spirituality in the
workplace. Sloan Management Review, 40(4), 8392.
Mohamed, A. A., Wisnieski, J., Askar, M., & Syed, I. (2004).
Towards a theory of spirituality in the workplace. Competitive-
ness Review, 14(1/2), 102107.
Murray, M., & Evers, F. T. (2011). Reweaving the fabric: Leadership
and spirituality in the 21st Century. Interbeing, 5(1), 515.
Neal, J. A. (1997). Spirituality in management education: A guide to
resources. Journal of Management Education, 21(1), 121139.
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS Survival Guide: A step by step guide to data
analysis using the SPSS program (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Individual Spirituality on Employee Engagement
Pawar, B. S. (2008). Two approaches to workplace spirituality
facilitation: A comparison and implications. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 29(6), 544567.
Phillips, K. A. (2012). Spirituality and strategic leadership: The
influence of spiritual beliefs on strategic decision making.
Journal of Business Ethics, 106, 177189.
Podasakoff, 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), 879903.
Poole, E. (2009). Organisational spirituality: A literature review.
Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 577588.
Quatro, S. A. (2004). New age or age old: Classical management
theory and traditional organized religion as underpinnings of the
contemporary organizational spirituality movement. Human
Resource Development Review, 3(3), 228249.
Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership
effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 655687.
Rego, A., & Pina e Cunha, M. (2008). Workplace spirituality and
organizational commitment: An empirical study. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 21(1), 5375.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee
engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7),
600619.
Saks, A. M. (2011). Workplace spirituality and employee engage-
ment. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 8(4),
317340.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiro, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational
resources and work engagement to employee performance and
customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(6), 12171227.
Sass, J. S. (2000). Characterizing organizational spirituality: An
organizational communication culture approach. Communication
Studies, 51(3), 195217.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The
measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A
cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measure-
ment, 66(4), 701716.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B.
(2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two
sample confirmatory factor analytical approach. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 3, 7192.
599
Sheep, M. L., & Foreman, P. O. (2012). An integrative framework for
exploring organizational identity and spirituality. Journal of
Applied Business and Economics, 13(4), 1129.
Shuck, M. B., Rocco, T. S., & Albornoz, C. A. (2011). Exploring
employee engagement from the employee perspective: Implica-
tions for HRD. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(4),
300325.
Sledge, S., Miles, A. K., & van Sambeek, M. F. (2011). A comparison
of job satisfaction in the service industry: Do cultural and
spirituality influences matter? Journal of Management Policy
and Practice, 12(4), 126145.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research
truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2),
221232.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate
statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Tepper, B. J. (2003). Organizational citizen behavior and the spiritual
employee. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.),
Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Per-
formance (pp. 181192). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Tischler, L. (1999). The growing interest in spirituality in business. A
long-term socio-economic explanation. Journal of Organiza-
tional Change Management, 12(4), 273279.
Tischler, L., Biberman, J., & McKeage, R. (2002). Linking emotional
intelligence, spirituality and workplace performance. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 17(3), 203218.
Tourish, D., & Pinnington, A. (2002). Transformational leadership,
corporate cultism and the spirituality paradigm: An unholy
trinity in the workplace? Human Relations, 55(2), 147172.
Underwood, L. G. (2006). Ordinary spiritual experience: Qualitative
research, interpretive guidelines, and popular distribution for the
Daily Spiritual Experience Scale. Archive for the Psychology of
Religion, 28(1), 181218.
Underwood, L. G. (2011). The Daily Spiritual Experience Scale:
Overview and results. Religions, 2, 2950.
Usman, A., & Danish, R. Q. (2010). Leadership spirituality in
banking professionals and its impact on organizational commit-
ment. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(3),
185193.
123
Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media
B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.