J Bus Ethics (2015) 131:173–181
DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2269-6
Exploring the Supportive Effects of Spiritual Well-Being on Job
Satisfaction Given Adverse Work Conditions
Manuel J. Tejeda
Received: 11 November 2013 / Accepted: 21 June 2014 / Published online: 10 July 2014
Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract Interest in spirituality as a protective factor in
various aspects of daily life has increased over the years.
Still there has been relatively little research attention paid
to the effect of spirituality in the workplace. The current
study was conducted to explore the role of spiritual well-
being as positive spillover effect on job satisfaction when
adverse workplace experiences are reported. Spiritual well-
being was related to job satisfaction even when the adverse
workplace conditions of job frustration, work tension and
victimization were present. The context of the findings with
other research and theory are discussed, as are directions
for future research.
Keywords Workplace spirituality
Job satisfaction
Job
frustration
Work tension
Workplace victimization
Introduction
Despite the growing attention to the connections between
religion, spirituality, and work, the integration of spiritual
beliefs and practices in the workplace remains a vital yet
neglected area of empirical attention (Lynn et al. 2009).
While claims linking spirituality to organizational conse-
quences such as productivity lack robust empirical evi-
dence, research has been steadily directed toward these
issues and the topic is increasingly garnering more atten-
tion by the research community (Kolodinsky et al. 2008).
For example, in a recent study of spirituality and employee
performance using multiple reporters and organizational
M. J. Tejeda (&)
Andreas School of Business, Barry University, 11300 Northeast
Second Ave (ASB 243), Miami Shores, FL 33161, USA
e-mail: mtejeda@barry.edu
levels, Osman-Gani et al. (2012) found spiritual well-being
was significantly related to employee performance. Indeed,
spirituality at work has the potential of having very positive
and real effects on organizational effectiveness (Karakas
2010). As Tepper (2003) hypothesizes, the experience of
connectedness increases the workers’ disposition and sen-
sitivity to the needs of other employees and thereby pro-
duces helping behaviors—outcomes which managers
would wish to promote to maximize work outcomes.
Thus, organizations have been quick to endorse the
development of workplace spirituality and spiritual well-
being noting that a spiritual and humanistic workplace is
beneficial to both employees and organizations (Garcia-
Zamor 2003). Employees, too, have welcomed such
opportunities to find meaningfulness in their work (Sharabi
2009), and popular management literature has equally
embraced spirituality at work as yet another critical pre-
scription for a happy workforce. So, over the past decade,
there has been a proliferation of spirituality programs
within the work environment in order to promote both the
personal and organizational benefits of spiritual well-being.
As Karakas (2010, p. 99) recently observed, there is now a
real risk of ‘‘spirituality becoming a fad or a management
tool to manipulate employees.’’ But, as Duchon and
Plowman (2005) noted, research is slowly addressing
questions regarding the benefits of spirituality on work-
place experiences, especially the consequences of spiritu-
ality on empirical employee outcomes. Therefore, the
purpose of this study is to investigate some effects of
spirituality beyond its known beneficial effect on general
job satisfaction by exploring how spiritual well-being—as
an outcome of spirituality—might affect general job sat-
isfaction given adverse work conditions such as job frus-
tration, work tension, as well as workplace conflict and
perceived violence.
123
174
Spirituality and Spiritual Well-Being
Despite their common interconnected use, spirituality and
spiritual well-being are related but not parallel constructs.
Emmons (1999, p. 877) states that ‘‘spirituality, as typically
defined in common parlance, is thought to encompass a
search for meaning, for unity, for connectedness to nature,
humanity and the transcendent.’’ Focusing on a sense of
purposefulness, Tart (1983, p. 4) defines spirituality as ‘‘the
vast realm of human potential dealing with ultimate pur-
poses, with higher entities, with God, with life, with
compassion, with purpose.’’ And, in one of the first
empirical studies of workplace spirituality, Mitroff and
Denton (1999, p. 83) reported that the senior business
executives considered spirituality as ‘‘the basic feeling of
being connected with one’s complete self, others and the
entire universe.’’
More poignantly, Ashmos and Duchon (2000, p. 137)
identified spirituality at work as ‘‘the recognition that
employees have an inner life that nourishes and is nourished
by meaningful work that takes place in the context of com-
munity’’. Marques et al. (2007, p. 12) offered an extension of
that definition noting that ‘‘Spirituality in the workplace is an
experience of interconnectedness among those involved in a
work process, initiated by authenticity, reciprocity, and
personal goodwill; engendered by a deep sense of meaning
that is inherent in the organization’s work; and resulting in
greater motivation and organizational excellence’’.
Spiritual well-being, on the other hand, is the conse-
quence of experiencing spirituality (Chowdhury and Fer-
nando 2013; Fernando and Chowdhury 2010). As Moberg
(1979, p. 11) notes ‘‘Spiritual well-being pertains to the
wellness or ‘health’ of the totality of the inner resources of
people, the ultimate concerns around which all other values
are focused, the central philosophy of life that guides
conduct, and the meaning-giving center of human life
which influences all individual and social behavior.’’ Mo-
berg (1986) further describes spiritual well-being as an
extension of one’s own life satisfaction and the perception
of life to be meaningful. As Altaf and Awan (2011, p. 94)
point out, ‘‘Workplace spirituality is the spiritual well-
being of an individual in working conditions.’’
Unlike spirituality, spiritual well-being focuses on the
fitness of those inner spiritual resources that promote the
experience of connectedness and meaningfulness in a
person’s life. Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2003, p. 13)
address the central role of that connectedness experience
by defining workplace spirituality as ‘‘a framework of
organizational values evidenced in the culture that pro-
motes employees’ experience of transcendence through the
work process, facilitating their sense of being connected to
others in a way that provides feelings of completeness and
joy.’’
123
M. J. Tejeda
Literature Review
Researchers have approached the connection between
spirituality and workplace outcomes in a number of ways.
Tepper (2003) noted that spiritual employees perform fre-
quent acts of organizational citizenship behaviors primarily
by having a greater meaning and purpose of their work-
place experiences whereas Garcia-Zamor (2003) suggested
that spiritual employees may increase performance vis-à-
vis heightened motivation derived from the intrinsic
meaningfulness of work. Saks (2011) agreed and further
hypothesized that employee engagement, and then turnover
and commitment, could be impact by spirituality through
the mechanism of meaningfulness of work.
Recently, Karakas (2010, p. 98) reviewed some 140
articles on workplace spirituality and identified a set of
positive benefits to employees resulting from ‘‘spirited’’
workplaces. The benefits included empowered, committed,
and passionate employees who are highly self-reflective,
self-aware, compassionate, and connected. Karakas (2010)
further proposed that employee well-being would be ben-
eficially impacted by the positive effects of spirituality.
Conversely, he also noted that workplaces with underde-
veloped spirituality would be ‘‘barren’’ and comprised of a
lack of connectedness and social support while disposing to
employees to stress, burnout, and low morale (p. 98). These
effects would be consistent with organizational views of
benefits of promoting workplace spirituality (Fry 2003;
Jurkiewicz and Giacalone 2004; Milliman et al. 1999;
Pawar 2009; Pfeffer 2003).
Similarly, spiritual well-being has been observed to
serve as a psychological resource during stressful life-
events and situations (e.g., Ahrens et al. 2010; Sternthal
et al. 2010; Koenig 2013). In the work environment, Altaf
and Awan (2011) reported that spiritual well-being appears
to moderate the relationship between work overload and
job satisfaction as well as having a direct relationship with
the latter. Likewise, Kazemipour et al. (2012) and Kaz-
emipour and Amin (2012) reported positive significant
relationships between workplace spirituality and organi-
zational citizenship behaviors as well as affective organi-
zational commitment. Finally, reporting similar findings
and connections, Spring et al. (2012), utilizing a sample of
participants derived from the General Social Survey, found
that self-reported spirituality was associated with positive
outcomes, such as physical and mental health, unless
workplace aggression was observed. In all, the research
evidence suggests an important connection between spiri-
tual well-being on life and workplace outcomes, but spe-
cifically on job satisfaction. Nonetheless, a question
emerges about whether the positive effects of spiritual
well-being would be observed on job satisfaction under
adverse conditions.
Spiritual Well-Being on Job Satisfaction
Theoretical Framework
These connections between spirituality and positive
workplace outcomes may be viewed in the context of
spillover theory as a framework for conceptualizing
observed effects. Spillover theory (Wilensky 1960)
hypothesizes that our roles and attitudes are not compart-
mentalized within impermeable components of our lives
but rather that effects in one area of life have conse-
quence—or spillover—into other areas. The theory was
originally applied in the research on quality of life (Diener
1984) and work–family tension research (Greenhaus and
Beutell 1985) but most recently was applied in the area of
spirituality and work (Kolodinsky et al. 2008). The theory
notes two types of spillover effects: horizontal and vertical.
Horizontal effects describe how ‘‘satisfaction with one life
domain influences satisfaction of neighboring life
domains.’’ (Lee et al. 2003, p. 209) So, as traditionally
applied, a general sense of satisfaction within family life
would produce higher levels of satisfaction in work life.
Vertical spillover effects are observed when on life
dimension such as overall life satisfaction is positively
benefited by another life dimension such as spiritual well-
being. Thus, positive developments within spiritual life are
therefore likely to ‘‘spill’’ into other aspects of life such as
work and family. We would expect these spills to occur
because spirituality promotes meaning and connectedness
within one’s work (Emmons 1999; Tepper 2003). Thus,
consistent with prior research and theory, one would expect
that spiritual well-being, as the consequence of experi-
encing spirituality, would to be related to job satisfaction.
Hence,
Hypothesis 1a Spiritual well-being will be positively
related to job satisfaction.
Kolodinsky et al. (2008) further hypothesized that
spirituality would mitigate the effects of organizational
frustration. Fox and Spector (1999) have noted that job
frustration is an antecedent to workplace antisocial
behavior and other counterproductive behavioral outcomes
including interpersonal aggression (Spector 1978). Spill-
over theory may also be helpful in viewing spirituality as a
buffering mechanism against negative job circumstances
particularly when considering spirituality as a psychologi-
cal resource for coping against work frustrations. Positive
moods promoted by the spiritual resources of an individual
can serve to dampen the psychological effects of job con-
ditions and the antisocial behaviors of co-workers.
Job Frustration specifically refers to the emotional state
experienced when job-related goals and desires remain
unfulfilled and itself leads to anger and aggression (Peters
et al. 1980). It may also lead to fear and isolation because
of a lack of confidence in completing work tasks from a
175
sense of being overburdened or overwhelmed. Similarly,
work tension refers to the negative impact of a job that
result in greater anxiety and fear about the effect on work
one’s physical and emotional health (House and Rizzo
1972). Spiritual well-being, again as a consequence of
experiencing spirituality, thus may serve as a reservoir of
positive affect to protect against the negative emotional
consequence of work stressors such as job frustration and
work tension. Hence,
Hypothesis 1b Spiritual well-being will be significantly
and inversely related to job frustration.
Hypothesis 1c Spiritual well-being will be significantly
and inversely related to work tension.
Workplace Victimization refers to incidents in which
one or more individuals use words or actions to cause
physical or psychological harm to another person in the
work environment (Aquino and Thaus 2009). Spector and
Jex (1998) and Spector and O’Connell (1994) employed
the term interpersonal conflict and linked the behaviors to
job frustration. The behaviors range from micro-aggres-
sions that are verbal to more serious rude comment and
finally to extreme physical violence. The intent of the
aggressor is both to control as well as alienate the victim in
the work environment. Bowling and Beehr (2006) noted a
significant and inverse relationship between workplace
victimization and positive affect. As spiritual well-being
promotes a sense of connectedness and positive affect,
those may spillover to produce resilience to the experience
of workplace violence. Thus,
Hypothesis 1d Spiritual well-being will be significantly
and inversely related to workplace victimization.
While the link between job satisfaction and workplace
aggression is well established (e.g., Judge et al. 2006), the lit-
erature further supports that job satisfaction is an outcome with
other workplace variables such as other job burnout, frustration
absenteeism, and work tension (Jawahar 2012; Mount et al.
2006; Saari and Judge 2004). Moreover, research focused on
religious involvement and spiritual well-being has also reported
relationships between job satisfaction and the elements of job
burnout (Kutcher et al. 2010). Similarly, demographic variables
such as gender, marital/partnered status, and age have been
related to job satisfaction and similar organizational outcomes
(e.g., Ganster and Rosen 2013; Posthuma and Campion 2009).
So, because spiritual well-being is hypothesized to be a
powerful predictor of job satisfaction, one hypothesizes
that its effect can be detected after controlling for the co-
occurring negative predictors of job frustration, work ten-
sion, and workplace victimization. That is, the spillover
effect of spiritual well-being on job satisfaction will be
detectable even after the spillover effects of job frustration,
123
176
work tension, and workplace victimization are each
accounted for as well as any biases from demographic
variables. Therefore,
Hypothesis 2a Spiritual well-being will be related to job
satisfaction after controlling for the effect from demo-
graphic variables and job frustration.
Hypothesis 2b Spiritual well-being will be related to job
satisfaction after controlling for the effect from demo-
graphic variables and work tension.
Hypothesis 2c Spiritual well-being will be related to job
satisfaction after controlling for the effect from demo-
graphic variables and workplace victimization.
Method
Sample and Procedure
The sample consisted of employed managers participating
in an online networking service with the geographic
catchment in the southeastern United States. The managers
were invited to participate in the current study via email. A
total of 500 invitations were sent and 292 individuals
completed the survey resulting in a response rate of
58.4 %. The median age of the sample was 39 years
(average = 38.8, s.d. = 11.7), 55 % were women and
76 % reported as heterosexual.
The sample was predominantly white/Caucasian (90 %),
3.4 % identifying as African-American or African Descent,
and 4.5 % of the sample identifying as multiracial. 16.4 % of
the sample identified as Hispanic in ethnicity. 52.7 % of sample
reported as married or partnered. In terms of faith tradition,
42 % of the sample self-reported as being part of a Christian
denomination (Roman Catholic, Anglican, etc.,), and 51 % of
the sample described themselves as agnostic. The remainder of
the sample reported as Jewish, Muslim, and Atheist.
While 100 % of the sample reported as employed, 14 %
of the sample reported as ‘‘self-employed.’’ The industry
profile of the sample was diverse ranging from arts to
technology services. Consulting services comprised the
largest group at 14.7 % of the sample with medical at
10.3 %, and retail at 9.9 %. In terms of educational
attainment, 60.2 % reported completing secondary educa-
tion, 15.8 % held associate degrees, 21 % held bachelor
degrees, and the remainder held post-secondary education
including master degrees and professional doctorates.
Measures
Spiritual Well-Being The consequence of spirituality was
measured using the Spiritual Index of Well-Being (Daal-
eman and Frey 2004). The 12-item self-report measure
123
M. J. Tejeda
defines spirituality as a sense of life purpose or meaning
from a transcendent source and is composed of two 6-item
subscales: self-efficacy and life scheme. The measure was
developed to assess the quality of life studies in patient
populations and has demonstrated adequate psychometric
properties. In a multisite, cross-sectional study, the mea-
sure’s authors report that the measure demonstrate con-
struct validity using confirmatory factor analysis
procedures as well as internal consistency and stability in
both the total measure and subscales. The measure is Likert
scaled on a five point anchor ranging from ‘‘strongly
agree’’ to ‘‘strongly disagree.’’ In the current study, the
total scale score was used and the internal consistency
estimate was a = .88.
Job Satisfaction Global job satisfaction was measured
using three-items from the Michigan Organizational
Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann et al. 1979). The
self-report measure uses a Likert format scaled on a seven
anchor points ranging from ‘‘strongly agree’’ to ‘‘strongly
disagree.’’ In the current study, the internal consistency
estimate was a = .94.
Job Frustration The construct was measured using the
Frustration with Work scale developed by Peters et al. (1980).
The measure consists of three self-report items scored on a
7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘‘strongly agree’’ to
‘‘strongly disagree.’’ Previous research has found internal
consistency estimates ranging from .67 to .85. In the current
research, the internal consistency estimate was a = .72.
Work Tension The construct was measured using the
Work Tension Scale developed by House and Rizzo
(1972). The self-report scale consists of 7 items and
describes the psychological and somatic symptoms result-
ing from tension from work including stress, insomnia, and
nervousness. Items are endorsed as either true or false. The
measure has demonstrated adequate psychometric proper-
ties in multiple settings with internal consistency estimates
from .71 to .89. In the current research, the internal con-
sistency estimate was a = .76.
Workplace Victimization The self-report construct was
measured using the victimization scales reported by
Aquino et al. (1999). The 8-item measure is composed of
two 4-item subscales: direct victimization and indirect
victimization. Direct victimization refers to overt aggres-
sive acts experienced at work by the participant completing
the scale while indirect victimization refers to duplicitous
and covert behaviors. Respondents answer on a 5-point
Likert scale noting the frequency of the victimization over
the period of the prior year along the anchors of ‘‘never,’’
Spiritual Well-Being on Job Satisfaction
‘‘one to three times,’’ ‘‘four to six times,’’ ‘‘seven to nine
times,’’ ‘‘more than ten times.’’ The scale developers
reported internal consistency estimates for the subscales of
.76 and .81 for the direct and indirect victimization sub-
scales, respectively. In the current research, the internal
consistency estimates are a = .88 for indirect victimization
and a = .71 for the direct and indirect victimization sub-
scales, respectively.
Data Analytic Strategy
The first set of hypotheses was analyzed using simple
correlations with one-tailed tests of significance because
the hypotheses are stated directionally. The second set of
hypotheses was analyzed using hierarchical regression. In
each of the analyses, job satisfaction is dependent variable.
The first term in the hierarchical regression involved a
block of three categorical variables: age, self-reported
gender, and the presence of a life partner. So, the block was
included to control for any possible influence they may
have on job satisfaction. The second block consisted only
of one of the adverse work environment variables: job
frustration, work tension, direct workplace victimization,
and indirect workplace victimization. Finally, the third
block was spiritual well-being.
Results
Table 1 reports the pairwise correlation matrix of the
variables employed in the study. The diagonal reports the
means and standard deviation of each variable. The sample
size of each pairwise correlation is also reported. A direct
relationship between spiritual well-being and each of the
outcomes except direct victimization is present. Hypothesis
1a was supported; spiritual well-being was positively
related to job satisfaction (r(223) = .255, p \ .001.).
Hypotheses 1b and 1c were also supported. The data sug-
gest an inverse relationship between spiritual well-being
and the negative outcomes of job frustration, r(224) =
-.312, p \ .001, work tension r(213) = -.253, p \ .001.
Hypothesis 1d was only partially supported in that the data
show an inverse relationship between spiritual well-being
and indirect victimization, r(213) = -.215, p = .002 but
no relationship between spiritual well-being and indirect
victimization, r(209) = -.035, p = .61.
Unrelated to the hypotheses, the data show no observed
relationship between job satisfaction and workplace vic-
timization, direct or indirect. Table 2 reports the pairwise
correlations between the control variables to the predictor
variable and outcomes.
Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 report the result of the hierarchical
regression analyses. Surprisingly given the correlation
177
results, Hypothesis 1a was not supported. Spiritual well-
being was not related to job satisfaction after controlling
for the effects of age, gender, and relationship status as
well as job frustration (b = .124, t(213) = 1.89,
p = .059). While job frustration did explain variance in job
satisfaction (DR2 = .16, DF(1,214) = 42.98, p \ .001), no
additional amount of variance was explained by spiritual
well-being (DR2 = .01, DF(1,213) = 3.61, p = .059) .
Hypothesis 2a, however, was supported. Spiritual well-
being was significantly and inversely related to job satis-
faction after controlling for the effects of the control
variables and work tension (b = .192, t(203) = 2.72,
p = .007). In the hierarchical regression, spiritual well-
being explained an independent and significant proportion
of the variance in job satisfaction scores (DR2 = .03,
DF(1,203) = 7.39, p = .007).
Hypothesis 2a was also supported. As reported in
Table 5, Spiritual well-being was significantly related to
job satisfaction after controlling for the effects of age,
gender, and relationship status as well as direct victim-
ization (b = -.179, t(199) = -2.58, p = .011). In the
hierarchical regression, spiritual well-being explained an
independent and significant proportion of the variance in
job satisfaction scores (DR2 = .03, DF(1,199) = 6.67,
p = .011). Likewise, spiritual well-being was significantly
related to job satisfaction after controlling for the effects of
age, gender, and relationship status as well as indirect
victimization (b = -.230, t(202) = -3.31, p = .001),
thus accounting significant portion of the variance in job
satisfaction (DR2 = .05, DF(1,202) = 10.96, p = .001).
Because of the findings, an additional exploratory hier-
archical regression was conducted with job satisfaction as
the dependent variable to determine if there was a rela-
tionship with spiritual well-being after controlling for the
same demographic variables (age, gender, and partner) as
well as job frustration, work tension, and both forms of
victimization. In this analysis, the control variables were
entered in the first block, then job frustration in the next
block followed by work tension, direct victimization,
indirect victimization, and final spiritual well-being, each
in separate blocks. The objective was to determine if
spiritual well-being remained a predictor of job satisfaction
after accounting for the variance of each adverse work
condition. The findings are reported in Table 7. Although
job frustration remained a significant predictor of job sat-
isfaction (b = -275, t(189) = -3.64, p \ .001) as did
gender (b = -.140, t(189) = -2.01, p = .046) and indi-
rect victimization (b = -.160, t(189) = -2.06, p = .04),
spiritual well-being remained—albeit weakly—a signifi-
cant predictor of job satisfaction (b = .141, t(189) = 1.98,
p = .049) still explaining a modest but significant 2 % of
the variance in work tension scores (DR2 = .02,
DF(1,191) = 3.92, p = .049).
123
178 M. J. Tejeda

Table 1 Means and SD in parenthesis listed on diagonal; Pairwise correlations provided with N in parenthesis
1. Spiritual well-being 49.40 (7.37)
2. Job satisfaction 0.255**(223) 9.47(1.04)
3. Job frustration -0.312** (224) -0.370** (247) 8.21 (1.71)
4. Work tension -0.253** (214) -0.112** (237) 0.410 (244) 4.92 (1.16)
5. Victimization (direct) -0.035 (209) 0.066 (231) -0.079 (237) 0.084 (233) 1.72 (2.53)
6. Victimization (indirect) -0.215** (213) 0.053 (237) 0.155* (244) 0.362** (241) 0.360** (234) 2.03 (2.92)
* p \ .05; ** p \ .001 (one-tailed)

Table 2 Pairwise correlations of control variables to predictor and Table 4 Results of stepwise hierarchical regression on job satisfac-
outcome variables tion accounting for work tension
Age Gender Partnered Model R2 Adjusted R2 F change df1 df2 Sig.
R2 change F change
1. Spiritual well-being -0.086 (244) 0.123* (244) 0.186** (244)
2. Job satisfaction 0.056 (248) -0.016 (248) 0.087 (243) 1a 0.05 0.04 0.05 3.51 3 205 p = 0.02
3. Job frustration 0.170** (255) 0.195** (255) 0.096 (250) 2b 0.06 0.04 0.01 2.56 1 204 p = 0.11
4. Work tension 0.084 (245) 0.058* (245) 0.125 (240) 3c 0.09 0.07 0.03 7.39 1 203 p = 0.007
5. Victimization -0.071 (238) -0.034 (238) 0.099 (233) The effect present in the first step was from gender (being female) (b = -21,
(direct) t(205) = -2.98, p = .003)
6. Victimization 0.003 (245) 0.066 (245) -0.066 (230) a
Predictors: (constant), (gender, partnered status, and age)
(indirect) b
Predictors: (constant), (gender, partnered status, and age), work tension
c
* p \ .05; ** p \ .001 (two-tailed) Predictors: (constant), (gender, partnered status, and age), work tension, and
spiritual well-being

Table 3 Results of stepwise hierarchical regression on job satisfac- Table 5 Results of stepwise hierarchical regression on job satisfac-
tion accounting for job frustration tion accounting for direct victimization
Model R2 Adjusted R2 F change df1 df2 Sig. Model R2 Adjusted R2 F change df1 df2 Sig.
R2 change F change R2 change F change

1a 0.03 0.02 0.03 2.24 3 215 0.002 1a 0.04 0.03 0.04 2.76 3 201 p = 0.04
b
2 0.19 0.18 0.16 42.98 1 214 p \ 0.001 2b 0.05 0.03 0.01 1.31 1 200 p = 0.05
3c 0.21 0.21 0.01 3.61 1 213 p = 0.059 3c 0.03 0.05 0.03 6.67 1 199 p = 0.007

The effect present in the first two steps were from gender (being female) The effect present in the first two steps were from gender (being female)
(b = -.16, t(215) = -2.30, p = .02) and Job Frustration (b = -.38, (b = -.19, t(201) = -2.70, p = .008)
t(214) = -5.69, p \ .001) a
Predictors: (constant), (gender, partnered status, and age)
a
Predictors: (constant), (gender, partnered status, and age) b
Predictors: (constant), (gender, partnered status, and age), direct
b
Predictors: (constant), (gender, partnered status, and age), job frustration victimization
c c
Predictors: (constant), (gender, partnered status, and age), job frustration, and Predictors: (constant), (gender, partnered status, and age), direct victimiza-
spiritual well-being tion, and spiritual well-being

robust component of job satisfaction in the presence of

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of
spiritual well-being beyond the known beneficial effect of
spirituality on subjective general job satisfaction. The study
extends prior research on the relationship between spiritual
well-being and job satisfaction by exploring the effects of
self-reported aspects of adverse work conditions, such as
job frustration, work tension, and workplace victimization.
The findings suggest that spiritual well-being seems to be a
adverse conditions and situations.
The findings of the current research are consistent with
those of other researchers. Spring et al. (2012) as well as
Altaf and Awan (2011) report that spirituality appears to
have beneficial effects on work outcomes on job attitudes.
The findings of the current research also supports other
findings that spirituality is related to job satisfaction (e.g.,
Spring et al. 2012; Milliman et al. 2003); and indeed are
also consistent with spillover theory that both vertical
effects might occur in other in job satisfaction from spiri-
tual well-being even during adverse conditions.

123
Spiritual Well-Being on Job Satisfaction 179

Table 6 Results of stepwise hierarchical regression on job satisfac- the current research but might be the mechanism by which
tion accounting for indirect victimization the spillover effect occurs.
Model R2 Adjusted R2 F change df1 df2 Sig.
R2 change F change Limitations
a
1 0.06 0.04 0.06 4.14 3 204 p = 0.007
2b 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.80 1 203 p = 0.37 The current research, though interesting in light of prior
3c 0.11 0.09 0.05 10.97 1 202 p = 0.001 research, must be understood in the context of the study’s
The effect present in the first step was from gender (being female) (b = -.23,
limitations. First, it is obviously correlational. While the
t(204) = -3.26, p = .001) study provides weak inference for the relationship between
a
Predictors: (constant), (gender, partnered status, and age) spiritual well-being and a brief set of positive and negative
b
Predictors: (constant), (gender, partnered status, and age), indirect work outcomes, it does not offer a stronger one that would
victimization be available with greater rigor and controls. Second, the
c
Predictors: (constant), (gender, partnered status, and age), indirect victim-
ization, and spiritual well-being
study focuses on the self-reported elements of workplace
victimization. Ideally, a multi-method approach to measure
victimization would strengthen the evidence if the findings
were confirmed. Lastly, the effects of the sample are
Table 7 Results of stepwise hierarchical regression on job satisfac-
unclear. The sample self-selected to participate in online
tion accounting for all measured adverse work conditions
networking, and so it is not truly random. Such involve-
Model R2 Adjusted R2 F change df1 df2 Sig.
ment may be a proxy for other sample characteristics such
R2 change F change
as extroversion. Similarly, the majority of the sample is
1a 0.04 0.03 0.04 2.67 3 194 0.05 either of the Christian faith tradition or agnostic. While the
2b 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.76 1 193 p = 0.39 study does not address belief system, the composition of
3c 0.05 0.03 0.01 1.61 1 192 p = 0.21 the sample may limit the generalizability of the findings to
4d 0.06 0.03 0.01 2.41 1 191 p = 0.12
other settings or faith traditions, particularly those with
5e 0.14 0.11 0.08 16.64 1 190 p \ 0.001
alternative or actual prescriptive behaviors on managing
6f 0.16 0.12 0.02 3.90 1 189 p = 0.05
roles and responsibilities in the context work.
a
Predictors: (constant), (gender, partnered status, and age)
b
Predictors: (constant), (gender, partnered status, and age), work tension Practical Implications and Conclusion
c
Predictors: (constant), (gender, partnered status, and age), work tension,
direct victimization
d
Predictors: (constant), (gender, partnered status, and age), work tension,
As noted, the purpose of this study was to investigate the
direct victimization, indirect victimization effects of spiritual well-being beyond its known beneficial
e
Predictors: (constant), (gender, partnered status, age), work tension, direct effects on subjective general job satisfaction that have been
victimization, indirect victimization, job frustration previously identified in the empirical literature. The find-
f
Predictors: (constant), (gender, partnered status, age), work tension, direct ings may be particularly salient in that they emerge from a
victimization, indirect victimization, job frustration, spiritual well-being
sample of employed individuals holding management
positions within a range of industries. Managers specifi-
The current research also goes slightly further by dem- cally are the respondents in this research and report through
onstrating that spiritual well-being—as a measure, as the findings the favorable impact of spiritual well-being on
Moberg (1979) claims, of the health of inner spiritual job attitudes; and on their ability to apparently leverage
resources—was associated with lower self-reported job spiritual well-being as a resource during adverse
frustration, work tension, and indirect victimization. If one circumstances.
aligns this research in the context of prior findings, spiritual As addressed elsewhere in the research literature,
well-being appears to exert a protective effect on negative spiritual well-being appears to promote beneficial work
work outcomes while supporting job satisfaction. As other outcomes. This research extends those findings by identi-
researchers have pointed out, spirituality may be an fying potentially protective effects of spiritual well-being
effective coping strategy when employees face difficult in supporting job satisfaction even during sub-optimal
events such as frustrating work or other difficult situations work conditions. The current research cautiously adds to
such as aggressive co-workers. Spillover theory would the body of evidence that, more broadly, spirituality has
support the assertion that spiritual well-being can serve as a beneficial outcomes in the workplace. Certainly one
mechanism by which stressful events are muted so implication is for managers themselves to explore the
employees perceive them as less stressful. Alternatively, components of spiritual well-being that appear to have
spirituality may also serve to promote other mechanisms beneficial consequences for themselves and those whom
such as mindfulness and or resilience that are untested in they supervise.

123
180
Perhaps more importantly, managers hold critical posi-
tions in organizations that allow them to impact their
behavioral, affective and perhaps, even spiritual climate.
Furthermore, managers often have the capacity to advance
policies that support beneficial work environments and by
extension, hold administrative resources that may be tar-
geted toward promoting spiritual well-being as an employee
resource. One practical direction for managers, and likewise
a direction for future research, is to explore how to develop
opportunities for encouraging spiritual well-being in the
workplace. While the current research does not prescribe a
technique for promoting spiritual well-being, it does offer
some intriguing insights into its benefits; and thus suggests
that managers may wish to exploit those prospects that
buttress the spiritual well-being of employees in an effort to
garner its benefits on work outcomes.
Another possible direction that leads to both a practical
implication as well as a future research direction is to identify
methods that stimulate a sense of purpose and community
among employees. The component items that measure
spiritual well-being address the subjective sense of knowing
how to solve difficult circumstances in one’s life, having a
sense of meaning and purpose as well as involvement in
community and fellowship. These components of spiritual
well-being may be supported by workplace activities such as
volunteering, reflection, charity opportunities, and commu-
nity building.
In conjunction with other empirical research, the find-
ings in this study contribute to the growing evidence that
spirituality in the workplace is not only an important topic
for continued scholarly attention, but also a timely topic
that is gaining increasing practitioner attention. While the
findings of the current study underscore the benefits of
spiritual well-being at work, additional work is important
to mature our understanding of these benefits more fully.
Nonetheless, managers and organizations can be advised
that there appears to be significant benefits in addressing
and supporting the spiritual well-being of their employees.
References
Ahrens, C., Stansell, J., & Jennings, A. (2010). To tell or not to tell:
The impact of disclosure on sexual assault survivors’ recovery.
Violence and Victims, 25, 631–648.
Altaf, A., & Awan, M. A. (2011). Spirituality on the relationship of
job overload and job satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics,
104, 93–99.
Aquino, K., Grover, S. L., Bradfield, M., & Allen, D. G. (1999). The
effects of negative affectivity, hierarchical status, and self-
determination on workplace victimization. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 42, 260–272.
Aquino, K., & Thaus, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression
from the target’s perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60,
717–741.
123
M. J. Tejeda
Ashmos, D., & Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work: A conceptu-
alization and measure. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9,
134–145.
Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from
the victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 998–1012.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The
Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Chowdhury, R. M. M. I., & Fernando, M. (2013). The role of spiritual
well-being and materialism in determining consumers’ ethical
beliefs: An empirical study with Australian consumers. Journal
of Business Ethics, 113, 61–79.
Daaleman, T. P., & Frey, B. B. (2004). The Spirituality Index of
Well-Being: A new instrument for health-related quality of life
research. Annals of Family Medicine, 2, 499–503.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95,
542–575.
Duchon, D., & Plowman, D. A. (2005). Nurturing the spirit at work: Impact
on work unit performance. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 807–833.
Emmons, R. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concerns: Motivation
and spirituality in personality. New York: Guildford Press.
Fernando, M., & Chowdhury, R. M. M. I. (2010). The relationship
between spiritual well-being and ethical orientations in decision
making: An empirical study with business executives in
Australia. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 211–225.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-
aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915–931.
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693–727.
Ganster, D. C., & Rosen, C. C. (2013). Work stress and employee
health: A multidisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 39,
1085–1112.
Garcia-Zamor, J. C. (2003). Workplace spirituality and organizational
performance. Public Administration Review, 63(3), 355–363.
Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003). Toward a Science of
Workplace Spirituality. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz
(Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational
performance (pp. 3–28). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe Publishers.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work
and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.
House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as
critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Orga-
nizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 467–505.
Jawahar, I. M. (2012). Mediating role of satisfaction with growth
opportunities on the relationship between employee development
opportunities and citizenship behaviors and burnout. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 42(9), 2257–2284.
Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes,
and workplace deviance: Test of a multilevel model. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91, 126–138.
Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A values framework for
measuring the impact of workplace spirituality on organizational
performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 129–142.
Karakas, F. (2010). Positive management education: Creating creative
minds, passionate hearts, and kindred spirits. Journal of Man-
agement Education, 35, 198–226.
Kazemipour, F., & Amin, S. M. (2012). The impact of workplace
spirituality dimensions on organisational citizenship behaviour
among nurses with the mediating effect of affective organisational
commitment. Journal of Nursing Management, 20, 1039–1048.
Kazemipour, F., Amin, S. M., & Pourseidi, B. (2012). Relationship
between workplace spirituality and organizational citizenship
behavior among nurses through mediation of affective organi-
zational commitment. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 44(3),
302–310.
Spiritual Well-Being on Job Satisfaction
Koenig, H. G. (2013). Spirituality in patient care. West Conshohoc-
ken, PA: Templeton Press.
Kolodinsky, R. W., Giacolone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2008).
Workplace values and outcomes: Exploring personal, organiza-
tional, and interactive workplace spirituality. Journal of Business
Ethics, 81, 465–480.
Kutcher, E. J., I. I. I., Bragger, J. D., Rodriguez-Srednicki, O., &
Masco, J. L. (2010). The role of religiosity in stress, job
attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of
Business Ethics, 95, 319–337.
Lee, D., Sirgy, J., Efraty, D., & Siegel, P. (2003). A study of quality
life, spiritual well-being, and life satisfaction. In R. A. Giacalone
& C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality
and organizational performance (pp. 209–230). New York: M.E.
Sharpe.
Lynn, M., Naughton, M., & VenderVeen, S. (2009). Faith at work
scale (FWS): Justification, development, and validation of a
measure for Judaeo-Christian religion in the workplace. Journal
of Business Ethics, 85, 227–243.
Marques, J., Dhiman, S., & King, R. (2007). Spirituality in the
workplace: What it is, why it matters, how to make it work for
you. Fawnskin, CA: Personhood Press.
Milliman, J., Cszaplewski, A. J., & Ferguson, J. (2003). Workplace
spirituality and employee work attitudes: An exploratory empir-
ical assessment. Journal of Organizational Change Manage-
ment, 16, 426–447.
Milliman, J., Ferguson, J., Trickett, D., & Condemi, B. (1999). Spirit
and community at southwest airlines. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 12, 221–233.
Mitroff, I., & Denton, E. (1999). A Study of Spirituality in the
Workplace. Sloan Management Review, 40(4), 83–92.
Moberg, D. O. (Ed.). (1979). Spiritual well-being: Sociological
perspectives. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
Moberg, D. O. (1986). Spirituality and science, the progress,
problems, and promise of scientific research on spiritual
wellbeing. Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 38,
186–194.
Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of
personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The
mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59,
591–622.
Osman-Gani, A. M., Hashim, J., & Ismail, Y. (2012). Establishing
linkages between religiosity and spirituality on employee
performance. Employee Relation, 34, 360–376.
Pawar, B. (2009). Some of the recent organizational behavior
concepts as precursors to workplace spirituality. Journal of
Business Ethics, 88, 245–261.
181
Peters, L. H., O’Connor, E. J., & Rudolf, C. J. (1980). The behavioral
and affective consequences of performance-relevant situational
variables. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
25, 79–96.
Pfeffer, J. (2003). Business and the spirit: Management practices that
sustain values. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.),
Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational perfor-
mance (pp. 29–45). Armonk: NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Posthuma, R. A., & Campion, M. A. (2009). Age stereotypes in the
workplace: Common stereotypes in the workplace: Moderators,
and future directions. Journal of Management, 35(1), 158–188.
Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job
satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 43, 395–407.
Saks, A. (2011). Workplace spirituality and employee engagement.
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 8, 317–340.
Sharabi, M. (2009). Work values, employment and ethnicity. Cross
Cultural Management: An International Journal, 16, 398–409.
Sirgy, J. M., Efraty, D., Siegel, P., & Lee, D. (2001). A New Measure
of Quality-of- Work Life (QWL) Based on Need Satisfaction and
Spillover Theories. Social Indicators Research, 55, 241–302.
Spector, P. E. (1978). Organizational frustration: A model and review
of the literature. Personnel Psychology, 31, 815–829.
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report
measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at
work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative work-
load inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356–367.
Spector, P. E., & O’Connell, B. J. (1994). The contribution of
individual dispositions to the subsequent perceptions of job
stressors and job strains. Journal of Occupational and Organi-
zational Psychology, 67, 1–11.
Spring, J. M., Sliter, M. T., & Jex, S. M. (2012). Spirituality as a
moderator of the relationship between workplace aggression and
employee outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 53,
930–934.
Sternthal, M. J., Jun, H. J., Earls, F., & Wright, R. J. (2010).
Community violence and urban childhood asthma: A multilevel
analysis. European Respiratory Journal, 36, 1400–1409.
Tart, C. (1983). Transpersonal psychologies. El Cerrito, CA:
Psychological Processes Inc.
Tepper, B. J. (2003). Organisational citizenship behavior and the
spiritual employee. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz
(Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational
performance (pp. 181–190). Armonk: NY: M.E. Sharpe
Publishers.
Wilensky, J. L. (1960). Work, careers and social integration.
International Social Science Journal, 12, 543–560.
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.