Whitaker 2014

This article was downloaded by: [Mount St Vincent University]
On: 02 October 2014, At: 11:21

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Management, Spirituality &

Religion
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmsr20
Linking spirituality and values

to personal initiative through
psychological empowerment
a b
Brian G. Whitaker & James W. Westerman
a
Department of Management, Appalachian State University, 4078
Raley Hall, Boone, NC 28607, USA
b
Department of Management, Appalachian State University, 4095
Published online: 28 Apr 2014.
Click for updates
To cite this article: Brian G. Whitaker & James W. Westerman (2014) Linking spirituality and values
to personal initiative through psychological empowerment, Journal of Management, Spirituality &
Religion, 11:3, 269-291, DOI: 10.1080/14766086.2014.905221
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2014.905221
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Mount St Vincent University] at 11:21 02 October 2014
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 2014
Vol. 11, No. 3, 269–291, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2014.905221
Linking spirituality and values to personal initiative through

psychological empowerment
Brian G. Whitakera* and James W. Westermanb
a
Department of Management, Appalachian State University, 4078 Raley Hall, Boone,
NC 28607, USA; bDepartment of Management, Appalachian State University, 4095
(Received 6 May 2013; accepted 19 February 2014)
To answer calls by organizational scholars for empirical works examining

the important individual and contextual antecedents of personal initiative,
we develop and test a model in which spirituality and alignment with orga-
nizational spiritual values result in greater personal initiative ratings by
supervisors through the mediating effects of psychological empowerment.
Results from supervisor–subordinate dyadic data (N = 150) obtained from
employed MBA students indicated that psychological empowerment par-
tially mediates the influence of spirituality on personal initiative and fully
mediates the relationship between organizational spiritual values alignment
and personal initiative. These results suggest that spirituality and organiza-
tional spiritual values alignment represent key antecedents of personal ini-
tiative and that psychological empowerment is an important intermediary of
these links. Implications are discussed.
Keywords: spirituality; psychological empowerment; values; personal
initiative
Introduction
Organizations today operate in an increasingly uncertain business environment
characterized by greater domestic and international competition, decentralized
and dynamic work, faster rates of innovation, and changing job roles. In order
to thrive, contemporary employees need the psychological resources to adap-
tively work within a fast-paced, stressful business landscape and be versatile
within a changing organizational milieu (Pulakos et al. 2000). As such, employ-
ees are increasingly required to be proactive, self-starting, and future-oriented
(Frese and Fay 2001, Griffin et al. 2007). This rapidly evolving nature of work
has challenged conventional notions of employee performance, and compelled
scholars to suggest that the conceptualization of work performance should be
expanded to include personal initiative under this domain (Crant 2000, Frese
and Fay 2001, LePine et al. 2002, Parker et al. 2006, Griffin et al. 2007).
*Corresponding author. Email: whitakerbg@appstate.edu

© 2014 Association of Management, Spirituality & Religion
270 B.G. Whitaker and J.W. Westerman
As personal initiative has been linked to positive individual and

organizational outcomes (Frese et al. 1997, Crant 2000, Seibert et al. 2001),
recent theoretical and empirical work has emphasized the importance of creat-
ing favorable work environments to develop initiative in the workplace (Parker
et al. 2001, 2006, Griffin et al. 2007). However, as noted by management
scholars, the intervening processes and motivating mechanisms underlying the
associations between contextual characteristics, intra-individual elements, and
personal initiative have received insufficient research attention (Grant and
Ashford 2008, Parker et al. 2010). In addition, although a number of studies
have investigated the impact of individual and contextual factors on personal
initiative, research has not examined spirituality and compatibility with the
spiritual values of one’s organization.

Several scholars have made recent calls for research clarifying the relation-
ships between spirituality and employee performance constructs including
personal initiative (Duchon and Plowman 2005, Sheep 2006, Beekun and
Westerman 2012). Over the last decade and a half, research has demonstrated
positive effects for spirituality and employee productivity and performance
(Mitroff and Denton 1999, Bierly et al. 2000). These positive effects have also
been demonstrated at the unit and organizational level (Mitroff and Denton
1999, Duchon and Plowman 2005). However, absent in the extant literature
are empirical works examining the links between employee spirituality,
alignment with workplace spiritual values, and personal initiative. By integrat-
ing the constructs of spirituality and psychological empowerment with the
personal initiative literature, this study hopes to advance our understanding of
the antecedents of proactive employee motivation and derive useful insights to
inform practice.
Personal initiative
Personal initiative is conceptualized as a behavior syndrome characterized by
its self-starting nature, its proactive approach, and its persistence in overcom-
ing barriers and obstacles that arise during goal pursuit (Frese et al. 1996,
Frese and Fay 2001). Such behaviors aim at improving given work methods
and procedures as well as developing personal prerequisites for meeting future
work demands (Sonnentag 2003) and reflect a proactive approach toward work
and performance (Griffin et al. 2007, Grant and Ashford 2008). While concep-
tually similar to organizational citizenship (Organ et al. 2006), personal initia-
tive is thought to be more discretionary in nature and broader in scope as it
addresses general proactive behaviors aimed at achieving both organizational
and personal goals (Frese and Fay 2001, Ohly et al. 2006). In this vein, high
personal initiative individuals are thought to adopt active meta-goals that allow
them to construe their roles more broadly and compel them to adaptively devi-
ate from organizationally prescribed, extrinsically rewarded roles (Parker et al.
2006). These assertions are empirically supported by research linking personal
initiative to several important individual and organizational outcomes,
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 271
including employability ratings (Frese et al. 1997), firm profitability (Baer and
Frese 2003), idea implementation (Binnewies and Gromer 2012), idea quality
(Binnewies et al. 2007), and innovation (Daniels et al. 2011).
Researchers have begun to explicate an integrative framework of individual
and contextual antecedents and correlates of personal initiative, including self-
efficacy (Parker et al. 2006), job involvement (Crant 2000), work engagement
(Sonnentag 2003), job autonomy (Frese and Fay 2001, Parker et al. 2006), flex-
ible role orientations (Parker et al. 2006), work stressors (Fay and Sonnentag
2002), and organizational support (Morrison and Phelps 1999). While these
results are certainly enlightening, notably missing from empirical examination
are studies linking individual and workplace spirituality to personal initiative.
Spirituality in the workplace

Interest in spirituality as a scholarly topic has grown in recent years, possibly as
a result of the confluence of disparate events within the wider global culture.
Increasing levels of ethnic and religious diversity within the workplace, the
gradual shift to the workplace fulfilling individuals’ communal needs, organiza-
tional scandals, and increased downsizing and outsourcing have all been cited as
precursors of the contemporary interest in spirituality (Marques et al. 2005).
These societal forces and issues have triggered marked interest in finding
meaning and purpose in the workplace, as well as stimulating reactive move-
ments within modern management research. Many have argued that the contem-
porary focus on topics such as team work, citizenship, emotion, equity, work–
life balance, and morality reflect attempts by scholars to revitalize the “soul” at
work and ensure the continued success of businesses in a changing world
increasingly characterized by material concerns and incivility (e.g. Gockel 2004,
Karakas 2010). As a result, over the last few decades, scholarship has undergone
a fundamental shift from a purely mechanistic, rationalist paradigm common in
classical management theory (Taylor 1947, Weber 1947) to more of a spiritual
paradigm that promotes consciousness and understanding. To date, however, a
relative dearth exists in research literature explicating how spirituality in the
workplace can influence motivational impulses on the job.
The spiritual paradigm, in essence, recognizes that people work not only
with their hands, but also with their hearts or spirit (Ashmos and Duchon
2000). For spiritual individuals, spirituality forms a core part of their meaning
system, influencing their global beliefs, goals, and sense of meaning in life.
While not everyone considers themselves to be spiritual, in the US, nationwide
polls consistently reflect strongly held spiritual1 beliefs. For example, Gallup
polls show that 96% of Americans believe in some form of universal spirit
(Gallup Organization 2006) and the majority of Americans acknowledge a
need for spiritual growth (Miller and Thoresen 2003). Thus, for most, spiritual-
ity appears to form a central part of one’s world view and represents an
integral part of one’s identity influential in all contexts, including the
workplace (Hays 2007, Ozorak 2005, Silberman 2005). As such, its
consideration as a primary variable in the organizational behavior literature is

long overdue.
In the extant literature, there is no universally accepted definition of spiritu-
ality in the workplace context (Kinjerski and Skrypnek 2004, Giacalone and
Jurkiewicz 2010a). However, there seems to be an emerging consensus that
spirituality is a multifaceted construct that concerns a preference for deriving
meaning from work that transcends our ordinary lives, a strong desire for per-
sonal growth, and an orientation to working adaptively within the context of a
community (Dehler and Welsh 2003, Milliman et al. 2003). More specifically,
this theme of transcendence can be thought of as an individual’s outward
expression of an inner source of energy. It compels individuals to connect to
purposes that are larger than one’s self and perceive sacredness in everyday
relationships and roles (Dehler and Welsh 2003). The second theme of per-
sonal growth acknowledges “that employees have an inner life that nourishes
and is nourished by meaningful work” (Ashmos and Duchon 2000, p. 137)
and an attendant need to develop individual potential (Howard 2002). Through
enhanced meaning one grows to be fulfilled; from this perspective, spirituality
is an ongoing process of seeking and achieving both spiritual and personal
growth in the workplace (Graber and Johnson 2001). Lastly, the theme of com-
munity refers to individuals’ deeply held personal values with respect to how
they interrelate with others (e.g. truth, right conduct, and love) and a desire to
actively contribute to the betterment of others (Neck and Milliman 1994, Ash-
mos and Duchon 2000). In short, in the context of the workplace, spirituality
reflects an effort to find purpose, to develop and sustain strong connections to
coworkers, and engage in work behaviors that are congruent with one’s deeply
held values (Mitroff and Denton 1999).
Relating individual spirituality to personal initiative via empowerment

Although the study of spirituality in the context of the workplace is still in its
nascent phase, empirical relationships have already been demonstrated between
spirituality and many critical individual and organizational outcomes. Spiritual-
ity has been linked to organizational commitment (Milliman et al. 2003,
Markow and Klenke 2005), organizational performance (Thompson 2000),
intrinsic, extrinsic, and total job rewards (Kolodinsky et al. 2008), employee
well-being (Karakas 2010, Sprung et al. 2012), reduced stress at work (Atkins
2007), depression (Robertson 2007, Yoshioka 2007), conflict and absenteeism
(Krahnke et al. 2003), and withdrawal cognitions (Markow and Klenke 2005,
Sprung et al. 2012). Furthermore, spiritual employees tend to perform better
on the job (McGeachy 2001, Giacalone and Jurkiewicz 2003) due to increased
feelings of motivation and meaning in their work (Garcia-Zamor 2003). As
such, there is evidence suggesting that spirituality plays an important role in
the work environment.
As noted by scholars across many disciplines (e.g. Sheep 2006, Park 2007,
Konopack and McAuley 2012), the primary function of spirituality is to serve
as a lens through which one interprets everyday experiences and imbues those
experiences with meaning. For example, Kim and Seidlitz (2002) found that
spirituality buffered the adverse effects of stress on emotional and physical
adjustment, suggesting that spirituality may serve as a resource in combating
negative effects associated with the environment. Applied to the workplace,
when faced with challenges spirituality may serve as a buffer, lessening the
impact of negative work-related cognitions; employees may use spirituality to
cope with the work environment through various strategies (e.g. meditation,
spiritual contemplation, or prayer; Cash and Gray 2000). As a result, individu-
als higher in spirituality tend to possess higher levels of hope, optimism,
gratitude, and compassion, and through them experience higher levels of posi-
tive psychological well-being (Kim-Prieto and Diener 2009). Consistent with

this body of research, we suggest that individual spirituality may replenish
personal resources and serve as an effective coping mechanism for extreme sit-
uations as well as day-to-day stressors. In this way, spirituality may equip
employees with deeper wells of socioemotional resources, allowing them to
better handle demands and experience less stress, burnout, and other negative
consequences. These assertions are supported by research indicating that spiri-
tuality tends to be fairly consistently related to lower levels of distress or nega-
tive affect (see Koenig et al. 2001, for a review), and indicate that spirituality
should be linked to the construct of psychological empowerment.
The psychological empowerment construct has ties to Bandura’s (1982)
work on self-efficacy. It is a motivational construct originating in an employ-
ee’s perception that the employee can independently and positively influence
their work on their own and comprises individual cognitions and perceptions
that constitute feelings of behavioral and psychological investment in work
(Conger and Kanungo 1988, Spreitzer 1995). Thus, psychological empower-
ment describes “people’s belief in their capabilities to mobilize the motivation,
cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to exercise control over
given events” (Ozer and Bandura 1990, p. 472), and it relates to an expectation
that effort will lead to performance and one’s ability to cope with the events,
situations, and people they encounter at work (Stewart and Manz 1997).
Empowerment reflects an active orientation towards a work role (Thomas and
Velthouse 1990), and is conceptually distinct from a view of empowerment as
simply a set of managerial practices focused on the delegation of responsibili-
ties (e.g. decentralization and goal-setting; Leach et al. 2003).
Psychological empowerment has received a considerable amount of atten-
tion (e.g. Liden et al. 2000, Carless 2004, Ergeneli et al. 2007), has multiple
antecedents, and has been related to a variety of workplace outcomes (for a
review, see Seibert et al. 2011). Of particular importance to this study, psycho-
logical empowerment has been linked to many forms of proactive on-the-job
behaviors including innovation (Seibert et al. 2011), organizational citizenship
(Spreitzer 2008), and creativity (Shin and Zhou 2003). In short, psychologi-
cally empowered individuals see themselves as competent and able to influence
their jobs and work environments in meaningful ways, facilitating proactive
and independent behaviors (Thomas and Velthouse 1990, Spreitzer 1995).

Based on the aforementioned body of research indicating that individual-level
factors and cognitive orientations influence psychological empowerment, and
that psychological empowerment relates to many forms of proactive on-the-job
behaviors, we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Spirituality will positively relate to psychological empowerment.
Hypothesis 2: Psychological empowerment will positively relate to personal initiative.
Additionally, we expect that psychological empowerment should be the

more proximal cognitive predictor of the relationship between spirituality and
personal initiative (see Figure 1). As noted above, spiritual individuals

routinely appraise, experience, and respond to affectively relevant workplace
experiences in qualitatively unique ways relative to their non-spiritual
counterparts. Based on differences in experiential interpretation, it is likely that
spiritual employees may more consistently have at their disposal emotional and
cognitive resources that influence expectations of self-efficacy and the
frequency of contextually appropriate positive cognitions. In turn, it is likely
that these individuals will take more initiative when presented with obstacles,
become actively involved in problem-solving, quickly capitalize on opportuni-
ties for growth, enact ideas in the workplace, and engage in other prosocial
behaviors to fulfill a sense of connectedness with others. Our proposed
mediating effect is indicated by research showing that spiritual employees tend
Figure 1. Proposed model linking spirituality and values alignment to personal

initiative through psychological empowerment.
to view potential problems as opportunities for personal growth rather than a

hindrance (Zinnbauer et al. 1999), and that spiritual employees tend to engage
in more citizenship behaviors (Kazemipour and Mohd Amin 2012). Based on
this rationale, we suggest that spirituality likely influences personal initiative
through the mediating effects of psychological empowerment.
Hypothesis 3: Psychological empowerment will fully mediate the relationship

between spirituality and personal initiative.
Alignment with organizational spiritual values to personal initiative via

empowerment
In addition to individual-level spirituality, the organizational context in which
one works should also influence perceptions of psychological empowerment
and subsequent personal initiative. Empowerment theories assert that it is indi-
vidual perceptions and valuations of the work environment that shape empower-
ment cognitions, and much research has been devoted to explicating these
situational determinants of empowerment (Conger and Kanungo 1988, Spreitzer
1996, Quinn and Spreitzer 1997). Similarly, proposed theoretical models for
integration of spirituality and work have begun positing the various types of
organizational cultures that exist which allow for the expression and integration
of spirituality in the workplace and how those ethos influence cognition and
behavior (Mitroff and Denton 1999, Miller 2007, Ashforth and Pratt 2010,
Giacalone and Jurkiewicz 2010b). However, alignment with organizational
spiritual values represents an important, yet under-researched contextual consid-
eration in the formation of psychological empowerment.
Premised on the notion of providing an individual employee with a sense of
purpose that is greater than oneself, organizational spiritual values alignment
reflects a component of workplace spirituality that encompasses the extent to
which individuals experience a strong sense of alignment between their personal
sense of purpose and the mission of the organization (Ashmos and Duchon
2000, Milliman et al. 2003). Over the last decade, studies have elaborated on
the benefits that may accrue to organizations who are able to tap workers desire
for spirituality in the workplace in the form of greater productivity and
organizational identification (Jurkiewicz and Giacalone 2004), motivation
(Wrzesniewski 2003, Marques et al. 2005), commitment and job involvement
(Milliman et al. 2003), and ethical conduct (Mitroff 2003).
One way to interpret these findings is to suggest that when the workplace
atmosphere is aligned with the values of the employee, that person experiences
heightened levels of pro-organizational motivation. It is well established that
alignment of personal and organizational values reduces dissonance and
improves work attitudes, commitment, turnover, and performance (McGregor
1960, Meglino et al. 1989, Posner and Schmidt 1993), and influences
employee perceptions of organizational support for employee emotional and
spiritual fitness (Algoe and Fredrickson 2011, Pargament and Sweeney 2011).
Indeed, in the absence of such alignment, spiritual individuals appear to react
more negatively than non-spiritual employees (Sprung et al. 2012), echoing
the sentiments of Harris et al. (2007, p. 254) who argue that the meaning
people make of their work is now considered “one of, if not the strongest,
predictor of employee outcomes.”
Based on results such as these, organizational scholars have converged on a
key notion with regard to organizational spiritual values alignment: organiza-
tions that express human values and a higher purpose provide employees with
a broader and more motivating common purpose than organizations that define
strategic goals alone (Sawhney 2002). Shared spiritual values and a common
purpose are thought to compel organizational commitment and ownership of

the work role, minimizing the need for conventional time-consuming controls
(Dolan and Garcia 2002). Such a context provides a psychological “buffer”
from the adverse effects of stress, negative emotion, and the ability to adjust
(Kim and Seidlitz 2002, Sprung et al. 2012), decreases the frequency of nega-
tive affect-related experiences, and increases the frequency of positive experi-
ences (Weiss and Cropanzano 1996, Davis et al. 2009) via appraisal
mechanisms that inform coping potential and future expectations (Lazarus
1991, 1999). In the long term, recurrent positivity with regard to coping poten-
tial and future expectations should serve to build enduring personal resources
not only in the form of psychological and cognitive resources, but also innova-
tion skills and empathic capacities (Fredrickson 2001). Based on this rationale,
a high degree of compatibility between individual and organizational spiritual
values should positively influence psychological empowerment and subsequent
personal initiative:
Hypothesis 4: Alignment with organizational spiritual values will positively relate

to psychological empowerment.
Hypothesis 5: Psychological empowerment will fully mediate the relationship

between alignment with organizational spiritual values and personal initiative.
Method
Participants and procedure
Subordinate participants were 234 employed MBA students from a mid-size
university in the midwestern region of the United States who received extra
credit and a monetary incentive for their participation in the study. All partici-
pants worked at least part time (25 h/week) and completed measures designed
to assess spirituality, perceptions of workplace values, psychological empower-
ment, and demographic information. Upon survey completion, subordinates
completed a consent form permitting the researchers to contact their supervi-
sors to collect data on personal initiative ratings of the focal employee as well
as demographics. Subordinates whose supervisors did not complete surveys

were excluded from further analysis. Supervisors responded to a total of 150
surveys, yielding a response rate of 64.10%.
The average age of the subordinate (supervisor) participants was 31.8
(44.9) years old, with a mean tenure of approximately 35.8 (63.1) months,
working an average of 34.5 (46.6) hours per week. The sample was 58.1%
(41.2%) female and 89.6% (89.8%) Caucasian, 6.5% (7.8%) African-American,
and 3.9% (2.4%) classified themselves as Asian American, Hispanic American,
or Other.
Measures
Unless otherwise noted, all study variables were assessed with a 5-point Lik-
ert-type response scale with anchors ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5
(Strongly Agree).
Spirituality
We used the five-item Inner Life subscale (α = 0.94) of the Spirituality at Work
measure (Ashmos and Duchon 2000). Sample items read “My spiritual values
influence the choices I make” and “I care about the spiritual health of my
coworkers.”
Values alignment
We used the seven-item Alignment with Organizational Values scale (α = 0.94)
of the Spirituality at Work measure (Ashmos and Duchon 2000), which
assesses how well one identifies with the mission, values, and goals of his/her
organization and the degree to which the organization allows room for spiritu-
ality to be manifested. Sample items read, “This organization encourages
employees to develop new skills and abilities” and “This organization encour-
ages the creation of community.”
Psychological empowerment
We used Spreitzer’s (1995) 12-item scale (α = 0.84) to measure self-reported
psychological empowerment. This scale measures four components of psycho-
logical empowerment: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact.
Sample items for each of the four subscales include the following: “I am confi-
dent about my ability to do my job” (competence), “The work I do is very
important to me” (meaning), “I can decide on my own how to go about doing
my work” (self-determination), and “My impact on what happens in my
department is large” (impact).
Personal initiative ratings

Supervisors rated their target subordinates’ personal initiative with a seven-item
scale (α = 0.84) developed by Frese et al. (1997). Items were modified from
their original first-person (“I take initiative immediately even when others
don’t”) to third-person orientation (“This employee takes initiative immediately
even when others don’t”) in order for supervisors to rate the focal employee.
Analytic procedures
Our focal analyses involved tests of the relationships among latent constructs,
estimated using the structural equation modeling software Mplus (Muthén and
Muthén 2010). Maximum likelihood estimation was used. We used Hu and

Bentler’s (1999) fit criteria, which recommend the following cutoff values
when evaluating model fit: 0.09 (or below) for the standardized root-mean-
square residual (SRMR) and 0.95 (or above) for the comparative fit index
(CFI). Additionally, the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) is
ideally less than 0.06.
For modeling purposes, we created multiple-item composite indicators
(parcels) using items that share secondary factor loadings (Hall et al. 1999,
Williams and Anderson 1994). Specifically, two parcels were created reflecting
values alignment, four were formed for psychological empowerment, and two
were created for personal initiative. We let the five items pertaining to spiritu-
ality serve as indicators of the latent spirituality construct rather than form a
parcel from these items.
Test of the measurement model

The measurement model, which included four latent constructs representing
spirituality, organizational spiritual values alignment, psychological empower-
ment, and personal initiative, fit the data well after allowing covariances
between two of the spirituality indicator residuals and two of the psychological
empowerment subscale residuals2, χ2(83, N = 150) = 153.69, p < 0.01; CFI =
0.95; RMSEA = 0.05; SRMR = 0.09 (Table 2). These results provide evidence
that the model meets Hu and Bentler’s (1999) conservative two-index presenta-
tion criteria for good model fit. All loadings of the measured variables on their
respective constructs were statistically significant and positive.
Test of the structural model

Table 1 presents the correlations among the latent constructs from the final
measurement model. Although they do not alone provide a full test of the
hypothesized relationships, they are generally consistent with the expected
pattern of results (all are significant at p < 0.05 unless otherwise noted).
Spirituality and organizational spiritual values alignment showed the proposed
significant, positive relationships with the psychological empowerment
construct (r = 0.36 and r = 0.52, respectively). As expected, psychological

empowerment related positively and significantly with personal initiative
(r = 0.17).
The hypothesized structural model was a mediated model consisting of
paths between spirituality, organizational spiritual values alignment, psycholog-
ical empowerment, and personal initiative, where psychological empowerment
was hypothesized to fully mediate the relationship between spirituality and per-
sonal initiative as well as the link between organizational spiritual values align-
ment and personal initiative. Organizational tenure and employee age serve as
easily obtainable proxies for other constructs like job knowledge, organiza-
tional socialization, and physical skills. Consequently, these temporal variables
play an important role in human resource models, empirical studies, and practi-
tioner decision-making. For instance, theoretical models of work performance
and behaviors frequently include organizational tenure and employee age (Ack-
erman 1992, Tesluk and Jacobs 1998, Farrell and McDaniel 2001). Moreover,
gender has been shown to be related to biases in the performance evaluation
context (Cleveland and Landy 1983). As such, age, gender, and tenure have
been used as covariates in a number of studies assessing supervisor perceptions
of employee performance (Morrison 1994, Suliman 2007). Based on this ratio-
nale, subordinate age, gender, and tenure were used as controls in the media-
tion analyses of this research.
This model fit the data poorly, χ2(73, N = 150) = 117.74, p < 0.01;
CFI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.09; SRMR = 0.12, and resulted in a significant
decrease in model fit, Δχ2(10, N = 150) = 35.95, p < 0.01. Prior to revising the
hypothesized model, we compared our obtained fit indices against an alterna-
tive model in order to ensure the relative viability of our a priori model (Lance
and Vandenberg 2002). Specifically, we tested a model wherein personal initia-
tive served as the focal mediator of the spirituality empowerment and organiza-
tional spiritual values alignment empowerment relationships. Results indicate
that the hypothesized model displayed better fit to the data than the alternative
model, χ2(73, N = 150) = 122.25, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.09;
SRMR = 0.13.
Table 1. Intercorrelations among latent constructs in measurement model and scale

score descriptive statistics.
Latent variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4
(1) Spirituality 4.27 0.62 (0.91)
(2) Organizational spiritual values 4.13 0.99 −0.04 (0.84)
alignment
(3) Psychological empowerment 3.90 0.77 0.36** 0.52** (0.88)
(4) Personal initiative 4.04 0.57 0.31** 0.17* 0.33** (0.86)
Note: Reliabilities reported in parentheses.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
We then tested a revised a priori model in which we added a direct path,

based on modification indices, between spirituality and personal initiative (Fig-
ure 2). Allowing this path to be freely estimated resulted in a substantial
improvement in model fit according to the fit indices (Δχ2(1, N = 150) = 9.47,
p < 0.01) and acceptable index fit criteria, χ2(72, N = 150) = 108.27, p < 0.01;
CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.08; SRMR = 0.07 (Table 2). Thus, the modified model
indicates that the relationship between spirituality and personal initiative may
be partially mediated by psychological empowerment. These results will be
discussed further in the following portion of this section devoted to hypothesis
testing.
Next, a model was assessed that added a direct path from organizational
spiritual values alignment to personal initiative to test for the partial mediation
of psychological empowerment on this relationship. This model fit the data well
χ2(71, N = 150) = 109.98, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.08; SRMR = 0.07
(Table 2), and did not fit worse than the modified structural model Δχ2(1,
N = 150) = 1.71, p = ns. In addition, the standardized path coefficient for the link
between organizational spiritual values alignment and personal initiative was
non-significant; suggesting that psychological empowerment fully mediated the
effects of organizational spiritual values alignment on personal initiative.
Examination of the paths in the final model (Figure 2) demonstrated that
Hypotheses 1 and 2 were fully supported; spirituality positively related to psy-
chological empowerment, which was in turn associated with supervisor ratings
of personal initiative. However, Hypothesis 3 was only partially supported.
Our results indicated that spirituality operated through and independently of
Figure 2. Final model with standardized path coefficients. χ2(72, N = 150) = 108.27,
p < 0.01; comparative fit index = 0.95; root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.08;
standardized root-mean-square residual = 0.07. **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.
Table 2. Fit indices and statistics for the a priori, structural, and modified structural
models.
χ2 df Δχ2 Δdf CFI RMSEA SRMR
(1) Measurement model 153.69 83 0.95 0.05 0.09
(2) A priori structural model 117.84 73 0.93 0.09 0.12
(3) Modified structural model 108.27 72 35.95** 1 0.95 0.08 0.07
(as shown in Figure 2)
(4) Partial mediation model 109.98 71 1.71 1 0.95 0.08 0.07
(adding a direct link from
organizational values to
personal initiative)
Note: All analyses were carried out on N = 150. CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR = standard-
ized root-mean-square residual; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation.

**p < 0.01.
psychological empowerment to influence personal initiative. In addition, the

pattern and magnitude of standardized coefficients in the latent model remained
consistent after removing the influence of demographics from analysis. To sup-
plement the structural equation modeling, we calculated Goodman I statistics
to test the statistical significance of the hypothesized indirect effects on per-
sonal initiative. In this procedure, the magnitude of the unstandardized indirect
effect and its accompanying standard error are calculated, using procedures
based on the work of Sobel (1982) and Goodman (1960). The ratio of the indi-
rect effect over its standard error is compared with a z distribution to determine
statistical significance. Results of these tests indicate that psychological
empowerment does act as a significant mediator of the association between
spirituality and personal initiative (2.14, p < 0.05) as well as the relationship
between organizational spiritual values alignment and personal initiative (4.32,
p < 0.01). Hypothesis 4, which postulated a positive relationship between orga-
nizational spiritual values alignment and psychological empowerment, was sup-
ported. Lastly, the relationship between organizational spiritual values
alignment and personal initiative was fully mediated by psychological empow-
erment, supporting Hypothesis 5.
Discussion
The hypotheses for this study were largely supported. In accordance with theo-
retical models of spirituality at work (Mitroff and Denton 1999, Miller 2007,
Ashforth and Pratt 2010, Giacalone and Jurkiewicz 2010b) and values congru-
ence (McGregor 1960, Meglino et al. 1989, Posner and Schmidt 1993), our
results indicated that spirituality and organizational spiritual values alignment
were both significant predictors of personal initiative and that perceptions of
psychological empowerment mediated these links. These results suggest that
individual-level spirituality and compatibility with organizational-level spiritual
values may influence the meaning one attaches to day-to-day work cognitions
and stressors by increasing available coping options and psychological
resources needed to adaptively react in today’s challenging and dynamic

organizational environments.
However, contrary to our hypotheses, spirituality also exerted a significant
direct and positive effect on personal initiative. It seems that more spiritual
individuals’ desire for transcendence (an outward expression of an inner source
of energy) and personal growth (a need to develop individual potential) is also
directly associated with more self-starting, proactive, and goal-persistent
employee behavior. The existence of the differing mediating relationships for
individual spirituality and organizational spiritual values alignment on
employee empowerment and personal initiative deserves further research and
exploration.
One theoretical framework that may provide some guidance is Lazarus’

(1991, 1999) cognitive-motivational-relational theoretical perspective. This frame-
work, which undergirds affective events theory (Weiss and Cropanzano 1996),
highlights the role of cognitive appraisal in determining how one reacts to
day-to-day environmental stressors that have the potential to strengthen (or under-
mine) one’s beliefs and perceptions about the organization (affecting empower-
ment) and potential resulting behaviors (personal initiative). Two appraisal
processes, primary and secondary, serve as proximal determinants of experienced
emotion which in turn motivate behavioral response. When a positive (or distress-
ing) work event occurs, the primary appraisal process evaluates the significance of
an issue: is the given event personally meaningful for their goals and well-being
(goal relevance) and is the event beneficial or harmful (goal congruence)?
Enhanced spirituality may heighten the significance of everyday events and
provide an individual with a more salient framework within which to derive mean-
ing, whereas organizational spiritual values congruence with the organization
emphasizes the role of the event in a shared moral belief system. If the event has
no personal meaning and is not harmful, then the event elicits no emotional reac-
tion. Conversely, if one makes the determination that he or she has a personal spiri-
tual and shared values stake in a potentially threatening situation, emotional
reactions are evoked which trigger a secondary appraisal.
During this secondary stage, the event is evaluated with respect to the per-
son’s coping potential (whether, how, and to what degree the affected person
believes that he or she can cope effectively with the event’s potential threats or
harms) and their future expectations (how favorable or unfavorable the
expected outcomes are). The relationship with empowerment is rather straight-
forward, as it represents a belief in one’s capabilities to mobilize the motiva-
tion, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to exercise control over
a given event. Importantly, the secondary appraisal is heavily dependent on
available coping options and resources for adaptively reacting to challenges so
that goal attainment is facilitated. The results of this research support the rela-
tionship of individual spirituality and organizational spiritual values congruence
as positive influences on empowerment beliefs, providing needed coping
options and resources.
However, the secondary cognitive appraisal stage may also be useful in

providing suggestions as to why organizational spiritual values alignment is
limited to indirect effects on personal initiative behaviors whereas one’s spiritu-
ality exerts direct effects. As one half of organizational spiritual values align-
ment represents the organizational context – the firm’s culture and values, it
requires an implicit consideration of the organization’s role in the secondary
evaluation of one’s coping potential and outcome expectations before any
behavioral response to an event occurs. Thus, personal initiative (behavioral
response) is limited by one’s fit with the organization’s spiritual values and
culture, and whether the organization will correspondingly provide the
resources and courses of action needed for the individual to feel empowered
and to exercise control over a given event.

This may provide illumination of a seemingly contradictory research finding
that more spiritual individuals demonstrate lower levels of satisfaction and
higher levels of stress and intention to leave in response to organizational cul-
tures that tolerate verbal and physical aggression (Sprung et al. 2012). Whereas
our research findings indicate that one’s spirituality directly and positively
influences both psychological empowerment and personal initiative, recognition
of an organizational culture and context that condones such violations of a
spiritual individual’s moral conscience and beliefs would likely provide strong
evidence of a lack of spiritual values alignment, decreasing empowerment and
personal initiative (and increasing stress and intention to quit, while decreasing
satisfaction). Given recent compelling arguments advocating that researchers
view unexpected direct effects as opportunities to stimulate theorizing about
important omitted mediators (e.g. Rucker et al. 2011), we believe that future
research could examine such specific behavioral events to further specify the
nature of the mediating mechanisms linking individual spirituality, organiza-
tional spiritual values alignment empowerment, and behavior.
These findings also have important implications for organizations wishing
to influence on-the-job personal initiative. Due to the increasing need for
employees who are self-starting, persistent in the face of obstacles, and for-
ward-thinking, it may be prudent for organizational decision-makers to con-
sider harnessing workplace spirituality for its buffering effects on day-to-day
affect-laden experiences. Many developed countries have legislated statutes
meant to protect the rights of its employees to hold religious conviction, and
otherwise engage in spiritual activity associated with their religion while at
work (e.g. Article 5 of Turkish Labor Law No. 4857, Denmark’s Act on the
Prohibition against Discrimination, Austria’s Equal Treatment Act, America’s
Title VII, Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution, Article 3 of Labor Code of the
Russian Federation). As such, organizational decision-makers and human
resource specialists in most developed countries have the latitude to consider
the means by which to nurture spirituality in the workplace.
As advocated by management scholars, organizations seeking to increase
spirituality in the workplace could provide meaningful work that instills a
sense of purpose, fosters a sense of connection and positive social relations
with coworkers, and creates a context for employees to feel open to spiritual
expression (Rego and Pina e Cuhna 2008). In this vein, organizational scholars
have generated classifications for companies who choose to be sensitive to
their employees’ religious and spiritual interests and identities (Miller 2007,
Ashforth and Pratt 2010). In short, these taxonomies are meant to assist organi-
zational development efforts meant to inculcate an organizational culture that
respects the varieties of spiritual experience evident in humanity in general,
and in the modern workplace in particular, in order to leverage some of the
positive effects of spirituality (e.g. personal initiative) while avoiding conten-
tious outcomes.
As a note of caution, managers should be made aware that ineffectively
managing spirituality in the workplace may expose organizations to substantial

legal vulnerability (Morgan 2005), escalating groupthink (Polley et al. 2005),
and lower levels of motivation for employees who become dissatisfied with the
workplace as a result of spiritual incompatibility (King and Williamson 2005).
Further, ineffectively managing spirituality in the workplace may also have
negative consequences for multinational organizations and firms conducting
business in complex, spiritually diverse global markets.
In terms of discrete practices, offering work that is not only personally
meaningful but also beneficial to society could provide enhanced opportunity
for employees to incorporate their values into the organization’s mission and
values (Bandsuch and Cavanagh 2005). In turn, such a practice could harness
spiritual individuals’ felt responsibility to engage in prosocial behaviors. Such
organizations would strive to make significant contributions to the welfare of
employees, customers, and other stakeholders (Neal 1997). Additionally, as
Ashmos and Duchon (2000) indicate, the recent downsizing, reengineering,
and layoff trends have contributed to the demoralization and alienation of
American workers. A leadership style rooted in other-centered values and
enhanced with spirituality may implicitly convey to employees that they are
not merely factors of production, but also spiritual beings that function to
infuse a greater sense of purpose and meaning into the work being performed.
Limitations and future directions

The use of a student sample (albeit a non-traditional, currently externally
employed MBA sample) may limit the generalizability of the results. If the
constructs require a significant amount of time on the job to form associations,
our findings may be artificially attenuated or enhanced. Additionally, while the
sample size was large enough to conduct our analyses, future studies could use
larger samples to test the reliability of the current findings. We also wish to
emphasize that our hypothesis testing was conducted in a cross-sectional man-
ner, which limits the extent to which causality can be assessed. Future theoreti-
cal process models should focus on identifying the specific causal mechanisms
that contribute to the expression of spirituality in the workplace, and its conse-
quences. There is significant potential value in developing more comprehensive
theoretical models that consider interactions among religion-oriented variables,

including antecedents, correlates, moderators, mediators, and outcomes.
Further, it should be noted that although we investigated a person’s level of
spirituality, we did not examine the extent to which he or she integrates spiritu-
ality into the workplace. To our knowledge, no scale exists to determine the
level of integration of one’s spirituality within the context of the workplace. If
individual, organizational, or job-related variables attenuate the extent to which
spirituality can be integrated with work, it would represent an important
boundary condition for examination. Future research should seek to construct
and validate a measure that taps this phenomenon and explicates such
phenomena.
Lastly, our study suggests the need for more research into how and to what
degree spirituality manifests itself in the workplace in terms of observable
behaviors. All indications point to increased religious/spiritual diversity within
the workspace. As such, a deeper exploration into the commonalities or differ-
ences among spiritual traditions and effective organizational contexts for their
expression would be beneficial. For example, future research could empirically
examine the Ashforth and Pratt (2010) approach of enabling, directing, and
partnering organizations to help determine the organizational spiritual context
which may best facilitate empowerment and personal initiative. Future research
should also examine multinational subject pools to further investigate the
strength and external validity of the significant and direct relationships between
spirituality, empowerment, and personal initiative found in this US sample.
Notes on contributors
Brian G. Whitaker’s research and consulting interests include feedback in organizations,
ethics in the workplace, and employee selection.
James W. Westerman’s research and consulting focus on sustainability, ethics,
organizational behavior, and human resource management.
Notes
1. It is important to note that spirituality and religion are not the same entity; rather,
they are two related, but distinct constructs. While spirituality and religion are
commonly thought of as synonymous, researchers have acknowledged the differ-
ences between the two (Henningsgaard and Arnau 2008).
2. Error variances were allowed to covary for the parcels referring to spirituality and
psychological empowerment.
References
Ackerman, P.L., 1992. Predicting individual differences in complex skill acquisition:
dynamics of ability determinants. Journal of applied psychology, 77, 598–614.
Algoe, S.B. and Fredrickson, B.L., 2011. Emotional fitness and the movement of
affective science from lab to field. American psychologist, 66, 35–42.
Ashforth, B.E. and Pratt, M.G., 2010. Institutionalized spirituality: an oxymoron? In:
R.A. Giacalone and C.L. Jurkiewicz, eds. Handbook of workplace spirituality and
organizational performance. New York: M.E. Sharpe, 93–107.
Ashmos, D. and Duchon, D., 2000. Spirituality at work. A conceptualization and mea-
sure. Journal of management inquiry, 9, 134–145.
Atkins, N.P., 2007. A correlational investigation: individual spirituality’s impact upon
workplace stress. San Diego, CA: Capella University.
Baer, M. and Frese, M., 2003. Innovation is not enough: climates for initiative and
psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of organi-
zational behavior, 14, 569–586.
Bandsuch, M. and Cavanagh, G., 2005. Integrating spirituality into the workplace: the-
ory and practice. Journal of management, spirituality and religion, 2, 199–233.
Bandura, A., 1982. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist,
37, 122–147.
Beekun, R. and Westerman, J., 2012. Spirituality and national culture as antecedents
to ethical decision-making: a comparison between the United States and Norway.
Journal of business ethics, 110, 33–44.
Bierly, III P., Kessler, E., and Christensen, E., 2000. Organizational learning, knowl-
edge and wisdom. Journal of organizational change management, 13, 595–618.
Binnewies, C. and Gromer, M., 2012. Creativity and innovation at work: the role of
work characteristics and personal initiative. Psicothema, 24, 100–105.
Binnewies, C., Ohly, S., and Sonnentag, S., 2007. Taking personal initiative and com-
municating about ideas: what is important for the creative process and for idea cre-
ativity? European journal of work & organizational psychology, 16, 432–455.
Carless, S.A., 2004. Does psychological empowerment mediate the relationship
between psychological climate and job satisfaction? Journal of business and psy-
chology, 18, 405–425.
Cash, K.C. and Gray, G.R., 2000. A framework for accommodating religion and spiri-
tuality in the workplace. Academy of management executive, 14, 124–133.
Cleveland, J.N. and Landy, F.J., 1983. The effects of person and job stereotypes on
two personnel decisions. Journal of applied psychology, 68, 609–619.
Conger, J. and Kanungo, R., 1988. The empowerment process: integrating theory and
practice. The academy of management review, 13, 471–482.
Crant, J.M., 2000. Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of management, 26,
435–462.
Daniels, K., et al., 2011. Linking the demands-control-support model to innovation:
the moderating role of personal initiative on the generation and implementation of
ideas. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 84, 581–598.
Davis, D.E., et al., 2009. Relational spirituality and the development of the similarity
of the offender’s spirituality scale. Psychology of religion and spirituality, 1,
249–262.
Dehler, G.E. and Welsh, M.A., 2003. The experience of work: spirituality and the new
workplace. In: R.A. Giacalone and C.L. Jurkiewicz, eds. Handbook of workplace
spirituality and organizational performance. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 108–122.
Dolan, S.L. and Garcia, S., 2002. Managing by values: cultural redesign for strategic
organizational change at the dawn of the 21st century. Journal of management
development, 21, 101–117.
Duchon, D. and Plowman, D.A., 2005. Nurturing the spirit at work: impact on work
unit performance. The leadership quarterly, 16, 807–833.
Ergeneli, A., Saglam, G., and Metin, S., 2007. Psychological empowerment and its rela-
tionship to trust in immediate managers. Journal of business research, 60, 41–49.
Farrell, J.N. and McDaniel, M.A., 2001. The stability of validity coefficients over
time: Ackerman’s (1988) model and the general aptitude battery. Journal of applied
psychology, 86, 60–79.
Fay, D. and Sonnentag, S., 2002. Rethinking the effects of stressors: a longitudinal
study on personal initiative. Journal of occupational health psychology, 7, 221–
234.
Fredrickson, B.L., 2001. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the
broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American psychologist, 56, 218–
226.
Frese, M. and Fay, D., 2001. Personal initiative: an active performance concept for
work in the 21st century. Research in organizational behavior, 23, 133–187.
Frese, M., et al., 1996. Personal initiative at work: differences between East and West
Germany. Academy of Management journal, 39, 37–63.
Frese, M., et al., 1997. The concept of personal initiative: operationalization, reliability
and validity of two German samples. Journal of occupational and organizational
psychology, 70, 139–161.
Gallup Organization, 2006. Religion. Available from http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/
Religion.aspx [Accessed 19 November 2012].
Garcia-Zamor, J., 2003. Workplace spirituality and organizational performance. Public
administration review, 63, 355–363.
Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L., 2003. Handbook of workplace spirituality and
organizational performance. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L., 2010a. Handbook of workplace spirituality and
organizational performance. 2nd ed. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L., 2010b. Toward a science of workplace spiritual-
ity. In: A. Giacalone and C.L. Jurkiewicz, eds. Handbook of workplace spirituality,
organizational performance. 2nd ed. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 3–28.
Gockel, A., 2004. The trend toward spirituality in the workplace: overview and impli-
cations for career counseling. Journal of employment counseling, 41, 156–167.
Goodman, L.A., 1960. On the exact variance of products. Journal of the American sta-
tistical association, 55, 708–713.
Graber, D.R. and Johnson, J., 2001. Spirituality and health care organizations. Journal
of health care management, 46, 39–50.
Grant, A.M. and Ashford, S.J., 2008. The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research
in organizational behavior, 28, 3–34.
Griffin, M.A., Neal, A. and Parker, S.K., 2007. A new model of work role perfor-
mance: positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of
Management journal, 50, 327–347.
Hall, R.J., Snell, A.F., and Foust, M.S., 1999. Item parceling strategies in SEM: inves-
tigating the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs. Organizational
research methods, 2, 233–256.
Harris, K.J., Kacmar, K.M., and Zivnuska, S., 2007. An investigation of abusive
supervision as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator
of the relationship. The leadership quarterly, 18, 252–263.
Hays, P., 2007. Addressing cultural complexities in practice: assessment, diagnosis,
and therapy. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Henningsgaard, J.M. and Arnau, R.C., 2008. Relationships between religiosity, spiritu-
ality, and personality: a multivariate analysis. Personality & individual differences,
45, 703–708.
Howard, S., 2002. A spiritual perspective on learning in the workplace. Journal of
managerial psychology, 17, 230–242.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation model-
ing: a multidisciplinary journal, 6, 1–55.
Jurkiewicz, C.L. and 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. Spirituality and performance in organizations: a literature review.
Kazemipour, F. and Mohd Amin, S., 2012. The impact of workplace spirituality
dimensions on organisational citizenship behaviour among nurses with the mediat-
ing effect of affective organisational commitment. Journal of nursing management,
20, 1039–1048.
Kim, Y. and Seidlitz, L., 2002. Spirituality moderates the effect of stress on emotional
and physical adjustment. Personality and individual differences, 32, 1377–1390.

Kim-Prieto, C. and Diener, E., 2009. Religion as a source of cultural variation in the
experience of positive and negative emotions. The journal of positive psychology,
4, 447–460.
King, J.E. and Williamson, I., 2005. Workplace religious expression, religiosity and
job satisfaction: clarifying a relationship. Journal of management, spirituality and
religion, 2, 173–198.
Kinjerski, V. and Skrypnek, B.J., 2004. Defining spirit at work: finding common
ground. Journal of organizational change management, 17, 26–42.
Koenig, H.G., McCullough, M.E., and Larson, D.B., 2001. Handbook of religion and
health. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kolodinsky, R.W., Giacalone, R.A., and Jurkiewicz, C.L., 2008. Workplace values and
outcomes: exploring personal, organizational, and interactive workplace spirituality.
Konopack, J.F. and McAuley, E., 2012. Efficacy-mediated effects of spirituality and
physical activity on quality of life: a path analysis. Health and quality of life out-
comes, 10, 57.
Krahnke, K., Giacalone, R.A., and Jurkiewicz, C.L., 2003. Point-counterpoint: measur-
ing workplace spirituality. Journal of organizational change management, 16, 396–
405.
Lance, C.E. and Vandenberg, R.J., 2002. Confirmatory factor analysis. In: F. Drasgow
and N. Schmitt, eds. Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations: advances
in measurement and data analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 221–254.
Lazarus, R.S., 1991. Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lazarus, R.S., 1999. Stress and emotion: a new synthesis. New York: Springer.
Leach, D., Wall, T., and Jackson, P., 2003. The effect of empowerment on job knowl-
edge: an empirical test involving operators of complex technology. Journal of
occupational and organizational psychology, 76, 27–52.
LePine, J.A., Erez, A., and Johnson, D.E., 2002. The nature and dimensionality of
organizational citizenship behavior: a critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of
applied psychology, 87, 52–65.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J. and Sparrowe, R.T., 2000. An examination of the mediating
role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal
relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of applied psychology, 85, 407–416.
Markow, F. and Klenke, K., 2005. The effects of personal meaning and calling on
organization commitment: an empirical investigation of spiritual leadership. The
international journal of organizational analysis, 13 (1), 8–27.
Marques, J., Dhiman, S., and King, R., 2005. Spirituality in the workplace: developing
an integral model and a comprehensive definition. Journal of American Academy
of Business, 7, 81–91.
McGeachy, C., 2001. Spiritual intelligence in the workplace. Dublin: Veritas.

McGregor, D.M., 1960. The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill Book.
Meglino, B., Ravlin, E., and Adkins, C., 1989. A work values approach to corporate
culture: a field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individ-
ual outcomes. Journal of applied psychology, 74, 424–432.
Miller, D.W., 2007. God at work: the history and promise of the Faith at Work move-
ment. New York: Oxford University Press.
Miller, W.R. and Thoresen, C.E., 2003. Spirituality, religion, and health: an emerging
research field. American psychologist, 58, 24–35.
Milliman, J., Czaplewski, A.J., and Ferguson, J., 2003. Workplace spirituality and
employee work attitudes: an exploratory empirical assessment. Journal of organiza-
tional change management, 16, 426–447.
Mitroff, I.I., 2003. Do not promote religion under the guise of spirituality. Organiza-
tion, 10, 375–382.

Mitroff, I.I. and Denton, E.A., 1999. A spiritual audit of corporate America. San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Morgan, J.F., 2005. Religion at work: a legal quagmire. Managerial law, 47, 247–259.
Morrison, E.W., 1994. Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: the
importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management journal, 37,
1543–1567.
Morrison, E.W. and Phelps, C.C., 1999. Taking charge at work: extrarole efforts to ini-
tiate workplace change. Academy of Management journal, 42, 403–419.
Muthén, L. and Muthén, B., 2010. Mplus, version 6.0 (computer software). Los Ange-
les, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Neal, J.A., 1997. Spirituality in management education: a guide to resources. Journal
of management education, 21, 121–139.
Neck, C.P. and Milliman, J.F., 1994. Thought self-leadership: finding spiritual fulfill-
ment in organizational life. Journal of managerial psychology, 9 (6), 9–16.
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., and Pluntke, F., 2006. Routinization, work characteristics, and
their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of organizational
behavior, 27, 257–279.
Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M., and MacKenzie, S.P., 2006. Organizational citizenship
behavior: its nature, antecedents, and consequences. London: Sage.
Ozer, E.M. and Bandura, A., 1990. Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: a
self-efficacy analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 58, 472–486.
Ozorak, E.W., 2005. Cognitive approaches to religion. In: R. Paloutzian and C. Park,
eds. Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality. New York: Guilford
Press, 216–234.
Pargament, K. and Sweeney, P.J., 2011. Building spiritual fitness in the Army: an
innovative approach to a vital aspect of human development. American psycholo-
gist, 66, 58–64.
Park, C.L., 2007. Religiousness/spirituality and health: a meaning systems perspective.
Journal of behavioral medicine, 30, 319–328.
Parker, S.K., Bindl, U.K. and Strauss, K., 2010. Making things happen: a model of
proactive motivation. Journal of management, 36 (4), 827–856.
Parker, S.K., Wall, T.D., and Cordery, J.L., 2001. Future work design research and
practice: towards and elaborated work characteristics approach. Journal of occupa-
tional and organizational psychology, 74, 413–440.
Parker, S.K., Williams, H.M., and Turner, N., 2006. Modelling the antecedents of pro-
active behavior at work. Journal of applied psychology, 91, 636–652.
Polley, D., Vora, J., and Subba Narasimha, P.N., 2005. Paying the devil his due: limits
and liabilities of workplace spirituality. International journal of organizational
analysis, 13, 50–62.
Posner, B.Z. and Schmidt, W.H., 1993. Value congruence and differences between the
interplay of personal and organizational value systems. Journal of business ethics,
12, 341–347.
Pulakos, E.D., et al., 2000. Adaptability in the workplace: development of a taxonomy
of adaptive performance. Journal of applied psychology, 85, 612–624.
Quinn, R.E. and Spreitzer, G.M., 1997. The road to empowerment: seven questions
every leader should consider. Organizational dynamics, 26 (2), 37–49.
Rego, A. and Pina e Cunha M., 2008. Workplace spirituality and organizational com-
mitment: an empirical study. Journal of organizational change management, 21,
53–75.
Robertson, A., 2007. Spirituality and depression: a qualitative approach. Dissertation.
University of South Africa, South Africa.
Rucker, D.D., et al., 2011. Mediation analysis in social psychology: current practices
and new recommendations. Social and personality psychology compass, 5 (6),

359–371.
Sawhney, M., 2002. Create value from values. CIO magazine, 16, 1.
Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L., and Crant, J.M., 2001. What do proactive people do? A
longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel psy-
chology, 54, 845–874.
Seibert, S.E., Wang, G., and Courtright, S.H., 2011. Antecedents and consequences of
psychological and team empowerment in organizations: a meta-analytic review.
Journal of applied psychology, 96, 981–1003.
Sheep, M.L., 2006. Nurturing the whole person: the ethics of workplace spirituality in
a society of organizations. Journal of business ethics, 66 (4), 357–375.
Shin, S.J. and Zhou, J., 2003. Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativ-
ity: evidence from Korea. Academy of Management journal, 46, 703–714.
Silberman, I., 2005. Religion as a meaning system: implications for the new millen-
nium. Journal of social issues, 61, 641–663.
Sobel, M.E., 1982. Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations
models. In: S. Leinhart, ed. Sociological methodology 1982. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 290–312.
Sonnentag, S., 2003. Recovery, work engagement, and practice behavior: a new look
at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of applied psychology, 88,
518–528.
Spreitzer, G.M., 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimension, mea-
surement, and validation. Academy of Management journal, 38, 1442–1465.
Spreitzer, G.M., 1996. Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment.
Academy of Management journal, 39, 483–504.
Spreitzer, G.M., 2008. Taking stock: a review of more than twenty years of research
on empowerment at work. In: C. Cooper and J. Barling, eds. The Sage handbook
of organizational behavior. Volume 1. Micro approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, 54–72.
Sprung, J., Sliter, M., and Jex, S., 2012. Spirituality as a moderator of the relationship
between workplace aggression and employee outcomes. Personality and individual
differences, 53, 930–934.
Stewart, G.L. and Manz, C.C., 1997. Understanding and overcoming supervisor resis-
tance during the transition to employee empowerment. Research in organizational
change and development, 10, 169–196.
Suliman, A.M.T., 2007. Links between justice, satisfaction and performance in the
workplace: a survey in the UAE and Arabic context. Journal of management devel-
opment, 26, 294–311.
Taylor, F.W., 1947. Scientific management. New York: Harper & Row.
Tesluk, P.E. and Jacobs, R.R., 1998. Toward an integrated model of work experience.
Personnel psychology, 51, 321–355.
Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A., 1990. Cognitive elements of empowerment: an
“interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management review,
15, 666–681.
Thompson, W.D., 2000. Can you train people to be spiritual? Training & Development,
54, 18–19.
Weber, M., 1947. The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Free.
Weiss, H.M. and Cropanzano, R., 1996. Affective events theory: a theoretical discus-
sion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In:
R.I. Sutton and B.M. Staw, eds. Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press, 1–74.
Williams, L. and Anderson, S., 1994. An alternative approach to method effects using
latent-variable models: applications in organizational behavior research. Journal of

applied psychology, 79, 323–331.
Wrzesniewski, A., 2003. Finding positive meaning in work. In: K.S. Cameron, J.E.
Dutton, and R.E. Quinn, eds. Positive organizational scholarship: foundations of a
new discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, 296–308.
Yoshioka, N., 2007. The relationship between religiosity/spirituality and depression
among older Asian Americans. Dissertation. California State University, Long
Beach, California, USA.
Zinnbauer, B.J., Pargament, K.I. and Scott, A.B., 1999. The emerging meanings of
religiousness and spirituality: problems and prospects. Journal of personality, 67
(6), 889–919.

Whitaker 2014

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Whitaker 2014

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

This article was downloaded by: [Mount St Vincent University]

On: 02 October 2014, At: 11:21

Journal of Management, Spirituality &

Linking spirituality and values

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2014.905221

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Linking spirituality and values to personal initiative through

(Received 6 May 2013; accepted 19 February 2014)

To answer calls by organizational scholars for empirical works examining

*Corresponding author. Email: whitakerbg@appstate.edu

As personal initiative has been linked to positive individual and

spiritual values of one’s organization.

Spirituality in the workplace

consideration as a primary variable in the organizational behavior literature is

Relating individual spirituality to personal initiative via empowerment

tive psychological well-being (Kim-Prieto and Diener 2009). Consistent with

and independent behaviors (Thomas and Velthouse 1990, Spreitzer 1995).

Hypothesis 1: Spirituality will positively relate to psychological empowerment.

Hypothesis 2: Psychological empowerment will positively relate to personal initiative.

Additionally, we expect that psychological empowerment should be the

personal initiative (see Figure 1). As noted above, spiritual individuals

Figure 1. Proposed model linking spirituality and values alignment to personal

to view potential problems as opportunities for personal growth rather than a

Hypothesis 3: Psychological empowerment will fully mediate the relationship

Alignment with organizational spiritual values to personal initiative via

purpose are thought to compel organizational commitment and ownership of

Hypothesis 4: Alignment with organizational spiritual values will positively relate

Hypothesis 5: Psychological empowerment will fully mediate the relationship

as demographics. Subordinates whose supervisors did not complete surveys

Personal initiative ratings

Muthén 2010). Maximum likelihood estimation was used. We used Hu and

Test of the measurement model

Test of the structural model

construct (r = 0.36 and r = 0.52, respectively). As expected, psychological

Table 1. Intercorrelations among latent constructs in measurement model and scale

We then tested a revised a priori model in which we added a direct path,

ized root-mean-square residual; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation.

psychological empowerment to inﬂuence personal initiative. In addition, the

resources needed to adaptively react in today’s challenging and dynamic

One theoretical framework that may provide some guidance is Lazarus’

However, the secondary cognitive appraisal stage may also be useful in

and to exercise control over a given event.

managing spirituality in the workplace may expose organizations to substantial

Limitations and future directions

theoretical models that consider interactions among religion-oriented variables,

and physical adjustment. Personality and individual differences, 32, 1377–1390.

McGeachy, C., 2001. Spiritual intelligence in the workplace. Dublin: Veritas.

tion, 10, 375–382.

and new recommendations. Social and personality psychology compass, 5 (6),

latent-variable models: applications in organizational behavior research. Journal of

Você também pode gostar