Capella University Personal Values and Professional Conduct Discussion Questions

Personal Values and Professional Conduct

For this discussion, address the following:

Is it possible for professionals to remain neutral with respect to their employees’ values?

In what ways might a professional’s values affect the ability to administrate or advocate for others?

Use the Capella library to locate a peer-reviewed journal article that focuses on values in the workplace. Then, analyze and report on the article. Be sure you complete the following:

Summarize the article’s important points.

How could you apply the information that you learned in this article to your current or future work situation?

Cite and reference your text and the peer-reviewed journal article in your initial post.

Ó Springer 2007
Journal of Business Ethics (2008) 81:465–480
DOI 10.1007/s10551-007-9507-0
Workplace Values and Outcomes:
Exploring Personal, Organizational,
and Interactive Workplace Spirituality
ABSTRACT. Spiritual values in the workplace,
increasingly discussed and applied in the business ethics
literature, can be viewed from an individual, organizational, or interactive perspective. The following study
examined previously unexplored workplace spirituality
outcomes. Using data collected from five samples consisting of full-time workers taking graduate coursework,
results indicated that perceptions of organizational-level
spirituality (‘‘organizational spirituality’’) appear to matter
most to attitudinal and attachment-related outcomes.
Specifically, organizational spirituality was found to be
positively related to job involvement, organizational
identification, and work rewards satisfaction, and negatively related to organizational frustration. Personal spirituality was positively related to intrinsic, extrinsic, and
total work rewards satisfaction. The interaction of personal spirituality and organizational spirituality was found
related to total work rewards satisfaction. Future workplace spirituality research directions are discussed.
KEY WORDS: worker values, workplace spirituality,
ethics, worker attitudes, work outcomes
Introduction
The relationship between values and business ethics
has more recently enlarged its scope to include
spiritual values. An increasing number of articles and
books (e.g., Cavanagh and Bandsuch, 2002; Jurkiewicz and Giacalone, 2004; Sheep, 2006) are
linking the spiritual values-ethics-performance relationship and reflect more than an academic interest.
The need for organizational leaders to devote attention to spiritual values has likely never been greater
Robert W. Kolodinsky
Robert A. Giacalone
Carole L. Jurkiewicz
(Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, 2003). With continuous
change and financial metrics playing increasingly
important decisional roles (Greider, 2003; Khandwalla, 1998; Lennick and Kiel, 2005), leaders expect
workers will do whatever it takes to keep up the
pace and positively affect the organizational bottomline. For many workers, such dynamics mean that
work has taken an ever more prominent and timeconsuming place in their lives. As a result, workers’
need for connectedness, meaning, purpose, altruism,
virtue, nurturance, and hope in one’s work and at
one’s workplace likely is also at an all-time high
(Cavanagh and Bandsuch, 2002; Fry, 2003; Jurkiewicz and Giacalone, 2004; Pfeffer, 2003; Sheep,
2006). Some (e.g., Giacalone, 2004) have argued
that a focus on such transcendent needs and values is
an important way to bring about the ethical decisions and outcomes that are desired in organizations
today.
Unfortunately, although there has been rapid
growth in workplace spirituality research during the
past decade (Beekun and Badavi, 2005; Giacalone
and Jurkiewicz, 2003; Schwartz, 2006), little is yet
known about the effects spiritual values have on the
extent to which workers have a meaningful, good
life at work. Whereas employers may understand
that important work-related outcomes (such as attitudinal indicators) affect the bottom line, ethicists
recognize that such outcomes related also to the
ethical treatment of employers (e.g., fair treatment,
caring, and compassionate working environments,
etc.). Though attitudinal and attachment-related
work consequences such as job satisfaction, satisfaction with rewards, job involvement, organizational
identification, and frustration with one’s organization all have been found linked to vital bottom-line
Robert W. Kolodinsky et al.
466
effects (Abrams et al., 1998; Fox and Spector, 1999;
Huselid and Day, 1991; Judge et al., 2001), their
relationship with spiritual values in the workplace
has remained unexamined.
In the current study, an initial test of the relationship between spiritual values and work attitudes
is examined. Worker values influence wide-spread
organizational phenomena, and the critical role that
values play in affecting work-related attitudes is
difficult to overstate (Kristiansen and Zanna, 1994;
Mumford et al., 2002; Peterson, 1994). The focus
here is on exploring the degree to which personal
spirituality, organizational spirituality, and interactive spirituality conceptualizations are predictive of
general attitudinal constructs (i.e., satisfaction with
work rewards, organizational frustration) and
attachment-related attitudinal constructs (i.e., job
involvement, organizational identification). Figure 1
depicts the relationships in the current study.
Literature review
Overview of spirituality in the workplace
The growing interest in spiritual values among academicians (Cavanaugh, 1999), practitioners (Laabs,
1996), and the public in general (Zukav, 1989) has
resulted in attempts to critically evaluate the concept
(Sass, 2000), synthesize our knowledge of the topic,
and assess its utility scientifically (Giacalone and
Jurkiewicz, 2003). Although the reasons for this
interest remain unclear (Cash et al., 2000; Inglehart,
1997; Mitroff and Denton, 1999), the greater challenge for understanding workplace spirituality is
undoubtedly conceptual rather than ontological.
The emerging academic literature on workplace
spirituality is often characterized as vapid and in need
of enhanced scientific rigor (e.g., Giacalone and
Jurkiewicz, 2003; Sass, 2000).
Perhaps the most glaring challenge is the meaning
of workplace spirituality itself. While the definitions
of spirituality itself remain elusive in the literature
(Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, 2003), the general thrust
of workplace spirituality research has focused on
individuals rather than organizations, examining
such individual level concepts as spiritual well-being
(Ellison, 1983; Moberg, 1984), spiritual distress (Kim
et al., 1987), and spiritual development (Chandler
et al., 1992). As the study of workplace spirituality is
still in its infancy, the concept of workplace spirituality has yet to be clearly defined. In fact, three
distinct conceptual understandings of workplace
spirituality are possible.
At the most basic and individual level, workplace
spirituality can be viewed as the incorporation of
one’s own spiritual ideals and values in the work
setting. This conceptualization of workplace spirituality reflects a simple application of ‘‘personal
spirituality’’ – the totality of personal spiritual values that an individual brings to the workplace and
how such values influence both ethically-related
and ethically-unrelated worker interactions and
outcomes. Consequently, this view of workplace
spirituality presumes that one’s personal spiritual
values have an effect on worker behavior as well as
interpretations of, and responses to, work-related
events.
Workplace spirituality can also refer to a more
macro-level view of the organization’s spiritual cliWorker Consequences
Personal
Spirituality
Job
Involvement (+)
Organizational
Identification (+)
Organizational
Spirituality
Organizational
Frustration (–)
Work Reward
Satisfaction (+)
Figure 1 Exploratory workplace spirituality relationships.
Workplace Values and Outcomes
mate or culture. Whereas ‘‘personal spirituality’’
encompasses the individual values brought to the
workplace, we view ‘‘organizational spirituality’’ as
reflecting an individual’s perception of the spiritual
values within an organizational setting. Much like an
individual’s perceptions regarding ethical climates
(Parboteeah and Cullen, 2003), examining organizational spirituality as an individual barometer of an
organization’s spiritual values involves assessing
worker perceptions of the macro organizational
environment. Given that the relationship between
values and organizational culture and important
work outcomes is well-established (e.g., Deal and
Kennedy, 1982; Meglino et al., 1989), how workers
view organizational spirituality likely impacts their
work attitudes, beliefs, satisfaction, and personal
capacities to meet work challenges (Giacalone and
Jurkiewicz, 2003).
Yet a third conceptualization of workplace spirituality is an interactive one. From this vantage,
workplace spirituality reflects the interaction
between an individual’s personal spiritual values and
the organization’s spiritual values. Understanding the
impact of spirituality on work is therefore not simply
a function of either a micro or macro value structure
alone, but of their interactive impact within the work
setting. Conceptualizing workplace spirituality in this
way parallels the concept of person-environment fit
(Caplan and Harrison, 1993).
Workplace spirituality outcomes
Workplace spirituality and its consequences can be
viewed through the lens of the concept of personorganization fit (P-O fit), a perceptual construct
which refers to ‘‘judgments of congruence between
an employee’s personal values and an organization’s
culture’’ (Cable and DeRue, 2002, p. 875). P-O fit
researchers suggest that when fit is strong between a
worker’s values and his or her perceptions of the
organization’s values, better work outcomes will
result (e.g., Liedtka, 1989; Posner and Schmidt,
1993). Shared person-organization values indicate
strong P-O fit, which has been found to positively
affect work attitudes (Balazas, 1990; Posner et al.,
1985), job satisfaction and turnover (O’Reilly et al.,
1991), and operating unit performance (Enz and
Schwenk, 1991).
467
In the current case, we believe that when there is
a strong match between worker values and their
perceptions of the organization’s spiritual values,
more positive attitudinal outcomes will result. Specifically, workers who agree with, and embrace, the
values evident in the organizational climate will feel
a stronger attachment to, and have better attitudes
about, their organizations and their work. For
example, we expect that when workers desire
working for an organization that espouses and
models such spiritual values as openness, connection,
truth, personal development and growth, serving
and sharing, and finding meaning and purpose
through one’s work, they will more closely identify
with their organizations. Organizational identification can be viewed as a worker’s perception of
congruence or ‘‘oneness’’ with his or her organization (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). Workers who
strongly identify with their organizations typically
are more supportive of them (Ashforth and Mael,
1989), make decisions consistent with objectives set
by their organizations (Simon, 1997; Smidts et al.,
2001), and feel more involved with the mission of
their organizations (Cable and DeRue, 2002). We
suggest a positive relationship between worker perceptions of organizational spiritual values and identification with their organizations. Further, we
expect that when workers with spiritual values are in
organizational climates perceived as spiritually congruent, even greater organizational identification
will result from such interaction.
Similarly, the match between individual worker
spiritual values and organizational spiritual values
will also result in workers feeling more involvement
with their jobs. Job involvement has been defined in
a multitude of ways, including the degree of
importance of a job to one’s self-image (Lodahl and
Kejner, 1965), the degree of active participation in
one’s job (Allport, 1943; Bass, 1965), the degree to
which self-esteem or self-worth is affected by one’s
perceived performance level (French and Kahn,
1962), the degree of importance of one’s work to
one’s life (Gomez-Mejia, 1984), and the extent to
which the individual identifies psychologically with
his or her job (Blau, 1985; Blau and Boal, 1987). In
the current study, it is expected that workers who
feel a greater sense of workplace spirituality congruence will also feel the most involved in their jobs.
For instance, workers who value and perceive a
468
Robert W. Kolodinsky et al.
sense of connection and community in their organizations, and who have meaning and purpose in
their lives and through their work, will find their
jobs to be more important and psychologically
rewarding than other workers. Whereas we expect
that both personal spiritual values and organizational
spiritual values will each be positively predictive,
their interaction is expected to result in an even
greater degree of job involvement.
Spillover theory (Diener, 1984; Wilensky, 1960)
is another useful framework to conceptualize the
influence that spiritual values have on attitudinal
outcomes such as work reward satisfaction and
frustration with one’s organization. Typically applied
to quality of life studies, spillover theory is commonly viewed as having two types – vertical and
horizontal spillover. In vertical spillover, satisfaction
in one life dimension (e.g., spiritual well-being)
influences overall life satisfaction, the most superordinate dimension (Lee et al., 2003). In horizontal
spillover, ‘‘satisfaction with one life domain influences satisfaction of neighboring life domains’’ (Lee
et al., 2003, p. 209). Horizontal spillover would be
in effect, for instance, when satisfaction with one’s
personal spiritual life positively influences, or ‘‘spills
over’’ to, satisfaction with one’s work life. This
occurs in part because spirituality helps to instill
meaning into one’s work (Emmons, 1999).
In the same way, we believe that workers who
bring strong personal spiritual values to the workplace will find such typically positive spirituality
‘‘spilling over’’ horizontally and positively to various
work-related matters. Similarly, workers who view
their organizational climate or culture as highly
spiritual (i.e., organizational spirituality) will find a
spillover to other work-related domains, such as
their satisfaction with work-related rewards. Work
reward satisfaction involves attitudinal judgments
about extrinsic rewards, such as compensation and
promotions, and intrinsic rewards, such as recognition and a sense of achievement. Having workers
feel satisfied with work-related rewards is a key
consideration of equity theory (Adams, 1963, 1965),
as workers judge the fairness of rewards based on
comparisons of inputs and outputs of other workers.
Rewards satisfaction has been found to be positively
related to a variety of key work outcomes, including
overall job satisfaction and employee retention
(Ramlall, 2003), and organizational commitment
(Ward and Davis, 1995). Due to both spillover and
the positive effects of spirituality congruence, we
expect that personal spirituality and organizational
spirituality, individually and interactively, will positively predict work rewards satisfaction.
Lastly, we examined workplace spirituality effects
on organizational frustration. Spector and colleagues
(Fox and Spector, 1999; Spector, 1975, 1978) have
extensively researched the topic of workplace frustration and its effects on counterproductive and
antisocial behavior. Reducing organizational frustration is important because unabated it can lead to
aggression and other negative work behaviors
(Storms and Spector, 1987). Workers who view
their organizations as more spiritual will feel less
friction and frustration at work, in part because
spiritual organizations tend to be more participative
and inclusive in their decision-making and information sharing (Kolodinsky et al., 2003), helping
workers to feel empowered and important. Further,
we believe that the very nature of spiritual organizations embracing openness and a community orientation will further reduce organizational
frustration. Hence, we expect an inverse relationship
between the workplace spirituality constructs (i.e.,
personal spiritual values and organizational spiritual
values) and organizational frustration. As with the
other outcomes in this study, we expect that the
interactive effect on organizational frustration will be
stronger than either spirituality construct alone.
Method
To empirically examine the exploratory relationships
in Fig. 1, data were collected from five separate
samples. To better ascertain the nature of spirituality
outcomes in work settings, data were collected from
two samples for each of the focal constructs. In
addition, we deliberately chose different samples and
varied some of the measurement instrumentation in
a partial ‘‘constructive replication’’ (Lykken, 1968)
approach. Compared to a strict ‘‘literal replication’’
(Lykken, 1968), this more conservative approach,
should results converge for these studies, would
provide more confidence in the validity of our
findings.
Each of the five samples consisted of full-time
workers enrolled as graduate students at large
Workplace Values and Outcomes
universities. Since survey participation was a required part of each class, the response rate for all
samples was 100%. For each of the samples, there
were several identical methods and data collection
procedures. Data collection took place over several
weeks, as participants completed a series of measures
using optical scan sheets that were provided to each
respondent at 1 week intervals. In order to maintain
anonymity and still be able to match each respondent’s weekly survey to those previously completed,
respondents were asked to create a fictitious name by
inserting the two initials of a favorite sports figure,
the last name of a performer, and the name of a food
in the spot on the optical sheet reserved for the
respondent’s name. This fictitious name became
their ‘‘code name’’ and allowed us to match individual responses for each measure to measures
completed in later weeks.
Finally, a two-step regression procedure was used
to statistically assess the outcomes in each of the
studies. In Step1, each outcome was regressed on
both predictors – personal spirituality and organizational spirituality. In Step 2, the personal spirituality  organizational spirituality interaction term was
added.
Study 1 – effects on organizational frustration
Sample
A total of 74 (N = 74) students enrolled in graduate
programs of the business schools at two large universities provided data pertaining to their respective
workplace. The sample consisted of 51% females,
70% were within a 26–35 age range, and 62%
reported working for their organizations for a period
of 1–5 years.
Measures
Personal spirituality was measured using the Human
Spirituality Scale (HSS; Wheat, 1991), a measure
developed to assess substantive individual attributes
constituting one’s spiritual values. Previous work
(e.g., Belaire and Young, 2000) showed that this
measure was successful in assessing an individual’s
spirituality. The HSS is a 20-item instrument with
Likert-type scaling, ranging from 1 (constantly) to 5
(never) for each item. Representative items for this
scale included ‘‘I experience a sense of the sacred in
469
living things’’ and ‘‘ I set aside time for personal
reflection and growth.’’ The internal consistency
reliability estimate for this scale (Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.85) was similar to that reported by Wheat
(1991; a = 0.89).
Organizational spirituality was measured by
rephrasing items from the original HSS into statements intended to assess one’s perceptions of spiritual values exhibited by one’s organization, rather
than the individual’s personal spirituality. The
‘‘Organizational Spiritual Values Scale’’ (OSVS) was
therefore comprised of 20 rephrased items using
Likert-type scaling, ranging from 1 (completely false)
to 5 (completely true). Representative items for this
scale included ‘‘In this organization there is sense of
the sacredness of life’’ and ‘‘We are urged to set aside
time for personal reflection and growth in this
organization.’’ The internal consistency reliability
estimate for this scale was strong (a = 0.93).
Organizational frustration was assessed with a
29-item measure developed by Spector (1975). Each
of the items was rated on a six point Likert-style scale
ranging from 1 (disagree completely) to 6 (agree
completely). Representative items for this scale included ‘‘My job is boring and monotonous’’ and ‘‘I
find that every time I try to do something at work I
run into obstacles.’’ The internal consistency reliability estimate for this scale was 0.91.
Study 2 – effects on organizational frustration and reward
satisfaction
Sample
A total of 89 (N = 89) students enrolled in MBA
and Masters in Public Administration (MPA) programs at two large universities completed surveys.
The sample consisted of 51% females, 60% within a
26–35 age range, and 61% reported working for
their organizations for a period of 1–5 years.
Measures
Personal spirituality was measured with a different
scale from that used in Study 1, this time using The
Purpose in Life Scale (PILS; Crumbaugh, 1968;
Crumbaugh and Maholick, 1964), a 20-item selfreport scale of meaning and purpose in life that has
been shown to have good reliability (Seeman, 1996;
Zika and Chamberlain, 1992). Support for the scale’s
470
Robert W. Kolodinsky et al.
convergent and discriminant validity has been
demonstrated by Seeman (1996). Each of the 20
items was rated on a 7-point scale (1 = low purpose
or meaning; 7 = high purpose or meaning). Representative items included: ‘‘If I could choose, I
would: (1) prefer never to have been born – (7) like
nine more lives just like this one; ‘‘ and ‘‘As I view
the world in relation to my life, the world: (1)
completely confuses me – (7) fits meaningfully with
my life.’’ The internal consistency reliability estimate
for this scale was 0.89.
Organizational spirituality was measured using the
same 20-item OSVS measure described in Study 1.
The internal consistency reliability estimate for this
scale was 0.93. Organizational frustration was measured using the same 29-item scale (Spector, 1975)
used in Study 1. The internal consistency reliability
estimate for organizational frustration was 0.94.
Work reward satisfaction was measured three
different ways. Two 3-item scales developed by
Cammann and colleagues (1983) were used to
measure intrinsic and extrinsic reward satisfaction.
These scales were also combined into a 6-item
measure to assess total reward satisfaction. The response set was a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 7 (very satisfied). A
representative intrinsic reward satisfaction item was
‘‘How satisfied are you with the chances you have to
learn new things?’’ An extrinsic reward satisfaction
item was ‘‘How satisfied are you with the amount of
pay you get?’’ The internal consistency reliability
estimates were 0.88 for intrinsic reward satisfaction,
0.63 for extrinsic reward satisfaction, and 0.72 for
the combined measure (total rewards satisfaction).
Study 3 – effects on reward satisfaction
Sample
A total of 124 (N = 124) students enrolled in MBA
and MPA programs at two large universities provided
data pertaining to their respective workplace. The
sample consisted of 48% females, 56% were within a
26–35 age range, and 52% reported working for their
organizations for a period of 1–5 years.
Measures
As in Study 1, personal spirituality was measured
using the HSS (a = 0.86). Organizational spirituality
was measured in the same manner as in the previous
two studies, using the OSVS (a = 0.94). Each of the
rewards satisfaction constructs was measured in the
same manner as that described in Study 2. The
internal consistency reliability estimates for these
three reward satisfaction measures were as follows:
extrinsic (a = 0.66), intrinsic (a = 0.88), and total
rewards satisfaction (a = 0.71).
Studies 4 and 5 – effects on job involvement and
organizational identification
Samples
Studies 4 and 5 were conducted with the same MBA
and MPA students (N = 68) at two large universities, once with the HSS personal spirituality measure
(Study 4) and later with the PILS measure (Study 5).
In both studies, the organizational spirituality measure and the outcome measures were identical. The
demographics for this group (for both Studies 4 and
5) consisted of 50% females, 78% within a 26–35 age
range, and 57% reported working for their organizations for a period of 1–5 years.
Measures
Personal spirituality was measured with the HSS
instrument in Study 4 (a = 0.86) and the PILS
instrument in Study 5 (a = 0.89). Organizational
spirituality was measured with the same 20-item OSVS
measure used in each of the previous studies (Study 4
a = 0.93; Study 5 a = 0.92). Job involvement was
measured by asking respondents to rate a 3-item scale
developed by Cammann and colleagues (1983) based
on items from the Lodahl and Kejner (1965) measure of organizational involvement. Respondents
used a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) to rate the items.
Representative job involvement items included ‘‘I
live, eat, and breathe my job’’ and ‘‘The most
important things which happen to me involve my
job.’’ The internal consistency reliability estimates
were 0.79 for Study 4 and 0.78 for Study 5. The
organizational identification measure used was a 12item scale developed by Efraty and colleagues
(1991). Respondents are asked to rate each item on a
seven point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all
true) to 7 (completely true). A representative organizational identification item was ‘‘I feel a sense of
Workplace Values and Outcomes
471
(b = )0.48, p < 0.001). Explained variance for the organizational frustration predictors in Step 1 was 30%. Satisfaction with reward predictors exhibited a different pattern when compared to organizational frustration predictors. Table 4 reveals that personal spirituality was a consistent and positive predictor for all three reward satisfaction variables. Specifically, personal spirituality was a positive predictor of extrinsic rewards satisfaction (b = 0.26, p < 0.01), intrinsic rewards satisfaction (b = 0.21, p < 0.01), and total rewards satisfaction (b = 0.30, p < 0.01). In addition to significant results for personal spirituality, organizational spirituality was a positive predictor of both intrinsic rewards satisfaction (b = 0.32, p < 0.01) and the combined measure (b = 0.32, p < 0.001). Explained variance for the reward satisfaction predictors in Step 1 was as follows: 12% for extrinsic rewards satisfaction, 18% for intrinsic rewards satisfaction, and 24% for total rewards satisfaction. Interactive spiritual values (personal spirituality  organizational spirituality) failed to be a significant predictor of any of the reward satisfaction variables. pride in working for my organization.’’ The internal consistency reliability estimate was 0.89 for both Studies 4 and 5. Results Study 1 – effects on organizational frustration Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for Study 1 are shown in Table I. Organizational frustration was regressed on the personal spirituality and organizational spirituality predictors in Step 1 and on the personal spirituality  organizational spirituality interaction term in Step 2. Table II shows that, at Step 1, the personal spirituality and organizational spirituality main effects accounted for 25% of the variance (F = 12.01, p < 0.01) in organizational frustration. However, examination of the beta weights indicated only organizational spirituality to be related to organizational frustration, with the expected negative relationship (b = )0.52, p < 0.01). Further, the interaction term in Step 2 failed to account for any significant variance in organizational frustration. Hence, for this sample, only organizational spirituality can be viewed as predicting organizational frustration. Study 3 – effects on rewards satisfaction Study 2 – effects on organizational frustration and rewards satisfaction Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for Study 3 are shown in Table V. The regression results shown in Table VI reveal that, in distinct contrast to the findings in Study 2, personal spirituality failed to predict any of the three reward satisfaction outcomes. This finding may be due in part to measurement artifacts, as personal spirituality was assessed with a different measure (HSS) than in Study 2, which employed the Purpose in Life Scale. However, Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for Study 2 are shown in Table III. Regression results for the organizational frustration outcome revealed a similar pattern to that found in Study 1 (see Table IV). Once again, organizational spirituality was the only significant organizational frustration predictor TABLE I Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among main study variables (study 1) Variable 1. Personal spiritualitya 2. Organizational spirituality 3. Organizational frustration a M SD 1 2 3 77.15 64.09 76.15 8.63 15.31 24.89 (0.85) 0.23** 0.14* (0.93) )0.49** (0.91) Human spirituality scale. Note. N = 74. Alpha internal-consistency reliability coefficients appear in parentheses along the main diagonal. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. Robert W. Kolodinsky et al. 472 organizational spirituality was a positive predictor of each of the reward satisfaction outcomes. Specifically, organizational spirituality predicted extrinsic rewards satisfaction (b = 0.24, p < 0.01), intrinsic rewards satisfaction (b = 0.26, p < 0.01), and total rewards satisfaction (b = 0.32, p < 0.001). Explained variance for both personal spirituality and organizational spirituality in Step 1 of the regression analyses was 5% for extrinsic rewards satisfaction, 10% for intrinsic rewards satisfaction, and 11% for total rewards satisfaction. While the personal spirituality x organizational spirituality interaction failed to significantly predict either extrinsic or intrinsic rewards satisfaction, it did however predict the total reward satisfaction measure (b = )0.17, p < 0.05), contributing an additional 3% TABLE II Regression results for organizational frustration (study 1) Variable Step 1 Step 2 )0.53 )1.98* 1.72 3,70 8.88** 0.03 0.28 Personal spirituality (PS)a 0.10 Organizational spirituality (OS) )0.52** PS  OS Df 2,71 F 12.01** DR2 R2 0.25** a Human spirituality scale. Note. N = 74. Tabled values are standardized regression weights. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. TABLE III Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among main study variables (study 2) M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 107.26 64.61 74.67 28.75 15.49 13.26 13.62 15.17 24.98 6.63 4.43 4.05 (0.89) 0.26* )0.28** 0.38*** 0.29** 0.31** (0.93) )0.52*** 0.40*** 0.37*** 0.24** (0.94) )0.45*** )0.39*** )0.31** (0.72) 0.80*** 0.76*** (0.88) 0.22** (0.63) Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Personal spiritualitya Organizational spirituality Organizational frustration Total rewards satisfaction Intrinsic rewards satisfaction Extrinsic rewards satisfaction a Purpose in life scale. Note. N = 89. Alpha internal-consistency reliability coefficients appear in parentheses along the main diagonal. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. TABLE IV Regression results for organizational frustration and rewards satisfaction variables (study 2) Variable Organizational frustration Step 1 Step 2 Total rewards satisfaction Step 1 Step 2 Intrinsic rewards satisfaction Step 1 Step 2 Extrinsic rewards satisfaction Step 1 Step 2 0.00 0.30** 0.53 0.21** )0.05 0.26** 0.92** Personal spirituality (PS)a )0.16 Organizational )0.48*** )0.16 0.32*** 0.77 0.32** )0.18 0.18 1.46 spirituality (OS) PS  OS )0.40 )0.56 0.62 )1.59 Df 2,86 3,85 2,86 3,85 2,86 3,85 2,86 3,85 F 18.14*** 12.03*** 13.64*** 9.11*** 9.37*** 6.31*** 5.97** 4.74** DR2 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 R2 0.30 0.31 0.24 0.24 0.18 0.19 0.12 0.14 a Purpose in life scale. Note. N = 89. Tabled values are standardized regression weights. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 Workplace Values and Outcomes 473 TABLE V Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among main study variables (study 3) Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Personal spiritualitya Organizational spirituality Total rewards satisfaction Intrinsic rewards satisfaction Extrinsic rewards satisfaction M SD 1 2 3 4 5 76.42 63.41 29.35 16.04 13.31 9.16 15.36 6.45 4.24 4.09 (0.86) 0.23* 0.11 0.18* )0.01 (0.94) 0.33** 0.29** 0.22* (0.71) 0.78** 0.76** (0.88) 0.20* (0.66) a Human spirituality scale Note. N = 124. Alpha internal-consistency reliability coefficients appear in parentheses along the main diagonal. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. TABLE VI Regression results for rewards satisfaction variables (study 3) Variable Total rewards satisfaction Step 1 Personal spirituality (PS) a Organizational spirituality (OS) PS  OS Df F DR2 R2 0.04 0.32*** 2,121 7.50*** 0.11 Step 2 0.05 0.37*** )0.17* 3,120 6.37*** 0.03* 0.14 Intrinsic rewards satisfaction Step 1 0.12 0.26** 2,121 6.42** 0.10 Step 2 0.13 0.30** )0.14 3,120 5.07** 0.01 0.11 Extrinsic rewards satisfaction Step 1 )0.06 0.24** 2,121 3.36* 0.05 Step 2 )0.05 0.27** )0.13 3,120 2.93* 0.02 0.07 a Human spirituality scale Note. N = 124. Tabled values are standardized regression weights values are standardized regression weights. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. more explained variance to the equation, for a total of 14% (F = 6.37, p < 0.001). To graphically depict the interaction, we employed the procedure advocated by Stone and Hollenbeck (1989), plotting slopes at two levels of organizational spirituality: at one standard deviation above the mean and at one standard deviation below the mean. As shown in Fig. 2, regardless of personal spirituality level, total rewards satisfaction was highest for those indicating high organizational spirituality compared to low organizational spirituality respondents. Interestingly, increasing levels of personal spirituality among high organizational spirituality respondents did not serve to aid but rather reduced total rewards satisfaction. In contrast, among low organizational spirituality respondents, total rewards satisfaction levels rose as personal spirituality levels increased. Hence, among those perceiving low organizational spirituality, higher personal spirituality values positively affected one’s total reward satisfaction. Studies 4 and 5 – effects on job involvement and organizational identification Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for Studies 4 and 5 are in Tables VII and VIII, respectively. Regression results are shown in Tables IX and X. In both studies, organizational spirituality proved to be a positive predictor of job involvement (Study 4: b = 0.38, p < 0.01; Study 5: b = 0.32, p < 0.01) and organizational identification (Study 4: Robert W. Kolodinsky et al. 474 High Organizational Spirituality PILS measure) but failed to predict either outcome in Study 4 (with the HSS measure). Specifically, in Study 5, personal spirituality positively predicted job involvement (b = 0.30, p < 0.01) and organizational identification (b = 0.19, p < 0.01). Explained variance for job involvement was 19% for Study 4 and 24% for Study 5. Explained variance for organizational identification was even more impressive – 45% for Study 4 and 47% for Study 5. As for interactions, none of the personal spirituality  organizational spirituality combinations in either study was significant. Low Organizational Spirituality 0.6 Total Reward Satisfaction 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 Personal Spirituality (plotted at -1SD and +1SD) Discussion Figure 2 Plot of the personal spirituality  organizational spirituality interaction on total reward satisfaction (study 3). b = 0.67, p < 0.001; Study 5: b = 0.62, p < 0.001). Interestingly, personal spirituality was a positive predictor of both outcomes in Study 5 (with the The current research examined the effects of personal spiritual values, perceptions of organizational spiritual values, and their interaction on both attitudinal and attachment workplace outcomes. Although the results from one of the five samples provide support for an interactive conceptualization of workplace spirituality, it would be most accurate TABLE VII Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among main study variables (study 4) Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. Personal spiritualitya Organizational spirituality Job involvement Organizational identification M SD 1 2 3 4 77.94 66.59 10.40 57.21 9.00 14.78 4.13 13.59 (0.86) 0.27* 0.18 0.25* (0.93) 0.67** 0.41** (0.79) 0.51** (0.89) a Human spirituality scale. Note. N = 68. Alpha internal-consistency reliability coefficients appear in parentheses along the main diagonal. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. TABLE VIII Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among main study variables (study 5) Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. a Personal spiritualitya Organizational spirituality Job involvement Organizational identification M SD 1 2 3 4 106.45 66.11 10.23 56.86 14.17 14.66 4.06 13.64 (0.89) 0.23 0.38** 0.33** (0.92) 0.39*** 0.66*** (0.78) 0.50*** (0.89) Purpose in life scale. Note. N = 68. Alpha internal-consistency reliability coefficients appear in parentheses along the main diagonal. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Workplace Values and Outcomes 475 TABLE IX Regression results for job involvement and organizational identification (study 4) Variable Job involvement Step 1 Personal spirituality (PS) a Organizational spirituality (OS) PS  OS Df F DR2 R2 Step 2 0.15 0.38** 0.37 0.81 )0.55 3,64 5.01** 0.00 0.19 2,65 7.50*** 0.19 Organizational identification Step 1 0.01 0.67*** 2,65 26.54*** 0.45 Step 2 0.33 1.33 )0.82 3,64 17.86*** 0.01 0.46 a Human spirituality scale. Note. N = 68. Tabled values are standardized regression weights. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 TABLE X Regression results for job involvement and organizational identification (study 5) Variable Job involvement Step 1 Personal spirituality (PS) a Organizational spirituality (OS) PS  OS Df F DR2 R2 0.30** 0.32** 2,63 9.94*** 0.24 Step 2 0.96 1.47 )1.46 3,62 7.30*** 0.02 0.26 Organizational identification Step 1 0.19** 0.62*** 2,63 28.19*** 0.47 Step 2 0.07 0.40 0.27 3,62 18.55*** 0.00 0.47 a Purpose in life scale. Note. N = 68. Tabled values are standardized regression weights. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. to state that there was little evidence of an interaction between personal spiritual values and organizational spiritual values for the worker consequences examined. Rather, one variable, organizational spirituality, had the strongest and most consistent effects on the outcomes examined in the five samples. With just one exception, in which organizational spirituality failed to predict extrinsic rewards satisfaction in Study 2, organizational spirituality significantly predicted the outcomes in all five studies. As expected, organizational spirituality was positively related to job involvement, organizational identification, and rewards satisfaction, and negatively associated with organizational frustration. The current findings appear to suggest that workers desire workplaces perceived as exuding spiritual values, even if the workers themselves are not personally spiritual. The current results add to a large body of research indicating that the content of an organization’s culture matters to workers (e.g., Deal and Kennedy, 1982). Along with the impact various types of cultures (e.g., strong versus weak, Schein, 1985, 1999) have on outcomes, the spiritual values evident in an organization’s culture appear to 476 Robert W. Kolodinsky et al. have important effects on worker attitudes known to influence worker motivation, productivity, and retention (Herman, 1973; Lawler, 1994). For example, it indeed may be that more spiritual organizations provide the sense of community that so many workers seek, helping to reduce employee withdrawal behaviors. Further, the openness and servant-orientation (Bennis, 2001; Greenleaf, 1977) exhibited by many spiritual organizational cultures provides workers with the task-related information and responsibility needed to truly feel empowered, helping to fuel worker motivation and productivity. From the current research, it would appear that further examination of organizational spirituality – its correlates, antecedents, and outcomes – is certainly warranted and represents an opportunity for extensive future research. Future research questions might include: What is the specific relationship between spirituality and ethics? What are the variables most affecting one’s perceptions of organizational spiritual values? To what degree do prior work experiences influence organizational spirituality perceptions? What variables moderate the relationship between organizational spirituality and the outcomes studied? For example, whereas personal spirituality largely failed as a moderator in the current studies, what roles do such variables as supervisory relationship and values similarity to top executives play in influencing the organizational spirituality-outcomes relationship? Further, what is the relationship between organizational spirituality and other key organizational outcomes, such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job anxiety and tension, and withdrawal behaviors? Another important future research area is in determining the degree of attraction prospective workers have to workplaces characterized as spiritual. Much of the recent interest in P-O fit stems from Schneider’s attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) framework (Schneider, 1987), which suggests that prospective workers and organizations ‘‘are attracted to one another based on their similarity’’ (Cable and Judge, 1997, p. 546). It may be that some organizations are better at attracting workers solely because their cultures are known to have various spiritual attributes. Indeed, much has been written about the servant leadership orientation in companies such as Service Master, Toro, Herman Miller, and RitzCarlton (Kolodinsky et al., 2003), for instance. Future research should explore how such organizational spirituality perceptions are formed, how such perceptions are transferred, and what specific spirituality attributes are most attractive to prospective employees. The current findings have important practitioner implications. Managers who are effective at developing and maintaining organizational environments that are characterized by spiritual values, such as openness, embracing diverse viewpoints and values, and a servant-orientation are more likely to enjoy more favorable worker attitudes. Entrepreneurs looking to establish a new venture would be wise to consider the type of organizational climate they seek to foster. The establishment of a spiritual climate through modeling servant leadership, open communication, and valuing individual differences will go a long way to affecting worker perceptions and attitudes. Interestingly, personal spirituality had mostly nonsignificant results in the current research. It may be that respondents had an easier time responding to items about their organizations than themselves. Further, personal spirituality was measured using two different scales, and artifacts associated with the differences between the two personal spirituality measures may account for some of the nonsignificant results for this independent variable. For example, in Studies 4 and 5, with the sole exception of the different personal spirituality scales, identical constructs were examined. In Study 4, personal spirituality failed to predict organizational identification and job involvement. However, in Study 5, personal spirituality was a positive predictor of both outcomes. Despite these mixed results, and given the wellestablished importance of personal values (e.g., Rokeach, 1973) in organizational research, continued inquiry into personal spirituality seems warranted. The current research had several limitations that deserve mention. First, the five samples were collected in a cross-sectional manner. Future research should examine workplace spirituality longitudinally. Data collected in this manner could help determine the degree to which perceptions of workplace spirituality develop over time, for instance. Second, the full-time workers in the samples were mostly less than 36 years of age and, likely, had not worked for more than a few orga- Workplace Values and Outcomes nizations. A more age-diverse and experienced sample may have more refined perceptions about what they seek in an organization, enabling a better assessment of values congruence, both personally and organizationally. Third, the extrinsic reward satisfaction measure had below a desired internal consistency reliability threshold (e.g., Nunnally, 1978). The low alpha may have affected the sole non-significant organizational spirituality result in Study 2. Last, the organizational spirituality scale was developed using a modified personal spirituality scale not developed for work settings. Despite good psychometric properties in all five samples, further refinement and validation of the scale is needed before it should be used more widely. In summary, the results from five samples support the notion that perceptions of organizational spirituality affect attitudinal and attachment-related worker consequences. From these exploratory results, it appears that organizations which foster cultures characterized by spiritual attributes reap important worker benefits. References Abrams, D., K. Ando and S. Hinkle: 1998, ‘Psychological Attachment to the Group: Cross Cultural Differences in Organizational Identification and Subjective Norms as Predictors of Workers’ Turnover Intentions’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24(10), 1027–1040. Adams, J. S.: 1963, ‘Toward an Understanding of Inequity’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67, 422–436. Adams, J. S.: 1965, ‘Inequity in Social Exchange’, in L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 2 (Academic Press, New York), pp. 267–299. Allport, G.: 1943, ‘The Ego in Contemporary Psychology’, Psychological Review 50, 451–478. Ashforth, B. E. and F. Mael: 1989, ‘Social Identity Theory and the Organization’, Academy of Management Review 14(1), 20–39. Balazas, A. L.: 1990, ‘Value Congruency: The Case of the Socially Responsible Firm’, Journal of Business Research 20, 171–181. Bass, B.: 1965, Organizational Psychology (Allyn & Bacon, Boston). Beekun, R. I. and J. A. Badawi: 2005, ‘Balancing Ethical Responsibility Among Multiple Organizational Stakeholders: The Islamic Perspective’, Journal of Business Ethics 60, 131–145. 477 Belaire, C. and J. S. Young: 2000, ‘Influences of Spirituality on Counselor Selection’, Counseling and Values 44, 189–197. Bennis, W.: 2001, ‘Become a Tomorrow Leader’, in L.C. Spears and M. Lawrence (eds.), Focus on Leadership: Servant-Leadership for the 21st Century (John Wiley, New York), pp. 101–109. Blau, G. J.: 1985, ‘A Multiple Study Investigation of the Dimensionality of Job Involvement’, Journal of Vocational Behavior 27, 19–36. Blau, G. J. and K. B. Boal: 1987, ‘Conceptualizing How Job Involvement and Organizational Commitment Affect Turnover and Absenteeism’, Academy of Management Review 12, 288–300. Cable, D. M. and D. S. DuRue: 2002, ‘The Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Subjective Fit Perceptions’, Journal of Applied Psychology 87(5), 875–884. Cable, D. M. and T. A. Judge: 1997, ‘Interviewers’ Perceptions of Person-Organization Fit and Organizational Selection Decisions’, Journal of Applied Psychology 82, 546–561. Cammann, C. and M. G. D. J. Fichman Jenkins Klesh: 1983, ‘Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire’, in S. E. E. E. P. H. C. Seashore Lawler Mirvis Cammann (ed.), Assessing Organizational Change: A Guide to Methods, Measures, and Practices (Wiley-Interscience, New York), pp. 71–138. Caplan, R. D. and R. V. Harrison: 1993, ‘Person-Environment Fit Theory: Some History, Recent Developments, and Future Directions’, Journal of Social Issues 49, 253–276. Cash, K. C., G. R. Gray and S. A. Rood: 2000, ‘A Framework for Accommodating Religion and Spirituality in the Workplace’, Academy of Management Executive 14, 124–134. Cavanagh, G. F. and M. R. Bandsuch: 2002, ‘Virtue as a Benchmark for Spirituality in Business’, Journal of Business Ethics 38, 109–120. Cavanaugh, G.: 1999, ‘Spirituality for Managers: Context and Critique’, Journal of Organizational Change Management 12(3), 186–199. Chandler, C., J. M. Holden and C. Kolander: 1992, ‘Counseling for Spiritual Wellness: Theory and Practice’, Journal of Counseling and Development 71(2), 168–175. Crumbaugh, J.: 1968, ‘Cross-Validation of Purpose in Life Test’, Journal of Individual Psychology 24, 74–81. Crumbaugh, J. C. and L. T. Maholick: 1964, ‘An Experimental Study in Existentialism: The Psychometric Approach to Frankl’s Concept of Noogenic Neurosis’, Journal of Clinical Psychology 20, 200–207. Deal, T. and A. Kennedy: 1982, Corporate Cultures (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA). 478 Robert W. Kolodinsky et al. Diener, E.: 1984, ‘Subjective Well-being’, Psychological Bulletin 95, 542–575. Efraty, D., M. J. Sirgy and C. B. Claiborne: 1991, ‘The Effects of Personal Alienation on Organizational Identification: A Quality-of-Life Model’, Journal of Business and Psychology 6(Fall), 57–78. Ellison, C. W.: 1983, ‘Spiritual Well-being: Conceptualization and Measurement’, Journal of Psychology and Theology 11, 330–340. Emmons, R.: 1999, The Psychology of Ultimate Concerns: Motivation and Spirituality in Personality (Guildford Press, New York). Enz, C. A. and C. R. Schwenk: 1991, ‘The Performance Edge: Strategic and Value Dissensus’, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 4, 75–85. Fox, S. and P. E. Spector: 1999, ‘A Model of Work Frustration-Aggression’, Journal of Organizational Behavior 20(6), 915–931. French, J. R. P. and R. L. Kahn: 1962, ‘A Programmatic Approach to Studying the Industrial Environment and Mental Health’, Journal of Social Issues 18, 1–47. Fry, L. W.: 2003, ‘Toward a Theory of Spiritual Leadership’, The Leadership Quarterly 14, 693–727. Giacalone, R. A.: 2004, ‘A Transcendent Business Education for the 21st Century’, Academy of Management Learning and Education 3, 415–420. Giacalone, R. A. and C. L. Jurkiewicz: 2003, ‘Toward a Science of Workplace Spirituality’, in R. A. Giacalone and C. L. Jurkiewicz (eds.), Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance (M.E. Sharpe Publishers, Armonk, NY), pp. 3–28. Gomez-Mejia, L. R.: 1984, ‘Effect of Occupation of Task-Related, Contextual, and Job Involvement Orientation: A Cross-Cultural Perspective’, Academy of Management Journal 27(4), 706–720. Greenleaf, R. K.: 1977, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness (Paulist Press, New York). Greider, W.: 2003, The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy (Simon & Schuster, New York). Herman, J. B.: 1973, ‘Are Situational Contingencies Limiting Job Attitude-Job Performance Relationships?’, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 10, 208–224. Huselid, M. A. and N. E. Day: 1991, ‘Organizational Commitment, Job Involvement, and Turnover: A Substantive and Methodological Analysis’, Journal of Applied Psychology 76(3), 380–391. Inglehart, R.: 1997, Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey). Judge, T. A., C. J. Thoresen, J. E. Bono and G. K. Patton: 2001, ‘The Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review’, Psychological Bulletin 127, 376–407. Jurkiewicz, C. L. and R. A. Giacalone: 2004, ‘A Values Framework for Measuring the Impact of Workplace Spirituality on Organizational Performance’, Journal of Business Ethics 49, 129–142. Khandwalla, P. N.: 1998, ‘Thorny Glory: Toward Organizational Greatness’, in S. Srivastva and D. L. Cooperrider (eds.), Organizational Wisdom and Executive Courage (The New Lexington Press, San Francisco), pp. 157–204. Kim, M. J. and G. K. A. M. McFarland McLane: 1987, Pocket Guide to Nursing Diagnoses (Mosby, St. Louis, MO). Kolodinsky, R. W., M. G. Bowen and G. R. Ferris: 2003, ‘Embracing Workplace Spirituality and Managing Organizational Politics: Servant Leadership and Political Skill for Volatile Times’, in R. A. Giacalone and C. L. Jurkiewicz (eds.), Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance (M.E. Sharpe Publishers, Armonk, NY), pp. 164–180. Kristiansen, C. M. and M. P. Zanna: 1994, ‘The Rhetorical Use of Values to Justify Social and Intergroup Attitudes’, Journal of Social Issues 50, 47–65. Laabs, J.: 1996, ‘Downshifters’, Personnel Journal March, 62–76. Lawler, E. E.: 1994, Motivation in Work Organizations (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco). Lee, D., M. J. Sirgy, D. Efraty and P. Siegel: 2003, ‘A Study of Quality of Work Life (QWL), Spiritual WellBeing, and Life Satisfaction’, in R. A. Giacalone and C. L. Jurkiewicz (eds.), Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance (M.E. Sharpe Publishers, Armonk, NY), pp. 209–230. Lennick, D. and F. Kiel: 2005, Moral Intelligence: Enhancing Business Performance and Leadership Success (Wharton Business Press, Upper Saddle River, NJ). Liedtka, J. M.: 1989, ‘Value Congruence: The Interplay of Individual and Organizational Value Systems’, Journal of Business Ethics 8, 805–815. Lodahl, T. M. and M. Kejner: 1965, ‘The Definition and Measure of Job Involvement’, Journal of Applied Psychology 49, 24–33. Lykken, D. T.: 1968, ‘Statistical Significance in Psychological Research’, Psychological Bulletin 70, 151–159. Meglino, B., E. Ravlin and D. Adkins: 1989, ‘A Work Values Approach to Corporate Culture: A Field Test of the Value Congruence Process and its Relationship to Individual Outcomes’, Journal of Applied Psychology 74(3), 424–432. Mitroff, I. and E. Denton: 1999, ‘A Study of Spirituality in the Workplace’, Sloan Management Review 40(4), 83–92. Workplace Values and Outcomes Moberg, D. O.: 1984, ‘Subjective Measures of Spiritual Well-Being’, Review of Religious Research 25, 351–359. Mumford, M., M. Connelly, W. Helton, J. Van Doorn and H. Osburn: 2002, ‘Alternative Approaches for Measuring Values: Direct and Indirect Assessments in Performance Prediction’, Journal of Vocational Behavior 61, 348–373. Nunnally, J. C.: 1978, Psychometric Theory, 2nd edition (McGraw-Hill, New York). O’Reilly, C., J. Chatman and D. Caldwell: 1991, ‘People and Organizational Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit’, Academy of Management Journal 34(3), 487–516. Parboteeah, K. B. and J. B. Cullen: 2003, ‘Ethical Climates and Spirituality: An Exploratory Examination of Theoretical Links’, in R. A. Giacalone and C. L. Jurkiewicz (eds.), Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance (M.E. Sharpe Publishers, Armonk, NY), pp. 137–151. Peterson, R. S.: 1994, ‘The Role of Values in Predicting Fairness Judgments and Support of Affirmative Action’, Journal of Social Issues 50(4), 95–115. Pfeffer, J.: 2003, ‘Business and the Spirit: Management Practices That Sustain Values’, in R. A. Giacalone and C. L. Jurkiewicz (eds.), Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance (M.E. Sharpe Publishers, Armonk, NY), pp. 29–45. Posner, B. and W. Schmidt: 1993, ‘Values Congruence and Differences Between the Interplay of Personal and Organizational Value Systems’, Journal of Business Ethics 12(5), 341–349. Posner, B., J. Kouzes and W. Schmidt: 1985, ‘Shared Values Make a Difference: An Empirical Test of Corporate Culture’, Resource Management 24(3), 293– 309. Ramlall, S.: 2003, ‘Managing Employee Retention as a Strategy for Increasing Organizational Competitiveness’, Applied H.R.M. Research 8(2), 63–72. Rokeach, M.: 1973, The Nature of Human Values (Free Press, New York). Sass, J.: 2000, ‘Characterizing Organization Spirituality: An Organizational Communication Culture Approach’, Communication Studies 51(3), 195–217. Schein, E. H.: 1985, Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco). Schein, E. H.: 1999, The Corporate Culture Survival Guide: Sense and Nonsense about Cultural Change (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco). Schneider, B.: 1987, ‘The People Make the Place’, Personnel Psychology 40, 437–453. Schwartz, M. S.: 2006, ‘God as a Managerial Stakeholder?’, Journal of Business Ethics 66, 291–306. 479 Seeman, T. E.: 1996, ‘Social Ties and Health: The Benefits of Social Integration’, Annals of Epidemiology 6, 442–451. Sheep, M. L.: 2006, ‘Nurturing the Whole Person: The Ethics of Workplace Spirituality in a Society of Organizations’, Journal of Business Ethics 66, 357– 375. Simon, H. A.: 1997, Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations (Free Press, New York). Smidts, A., A. Pruyn and C. Van Riel: 2001, ‘The Impact of Employee Communication and Perceived External Prestige on Organizational Identification’, Academy of Management Journal 49(5), 1051–1062. Spector, P. E.: 1975, ‘Relationships of Organizational Frustration With Reported Behavioral Reactions of Employees’, Journal of Applied Psychology 60, 635–637. Spector, P. E.: 1978, ‘Organizational Frustration: A Model and Review of the Literature’, Personnel Psychology 31, 815–829. Stone, E. F. and J. R. Hollenbeck: 1989, ‘Clarifiying Some Controversial Issues Surrounding Statistical Procedures for Detecting Moderator Variables: Empirical Evidence and Related Matters’, Journal of Applied Psychology 74, 3–10. Storms, P. L. and P. E. Spector: 1987, ‘Relationships of Organizational Frustration With Reported Behavioural Reactions: The Moderating Effect of Locus of Control’, Journal of Occupational Psychology 60, 227– 234. Ward, E. D. and E. Davis: 1995, ‘The Effect of Benefit Satisfaction on Organizational Commitment’, Compensation and Benefits Management 11(3), 35–40. Wheat, L. W.: 1991, ‘Development of a Scale for the Measurement of Human Spirituality’, Dissertation Abstracts International 52–09A, 3230. Wilensky, J. L.: 1960, ‘Work, Careers and Social Integration’, International Social Science Journal 12, 543–560. Zika, S. and K. Chamberlain: 1992, ‘On the Relation Between Meaning in Life and Psychological Wellbeing’, British Journal of Psychology 83, 133–145. Zukav, G.: 1989, The Seat of the Soul (Simon & Schuster, New York). Robert W. Kolodinsky Management, James Madison University, MSC 0205, Showker Hall, Harrisonburg, VA, 22807, U.S.A. E-mail: kolodirw@jmu.edu 480 Robert W. Kolodinsky et al. Robert A. Giacalone Human Resource Management, Temple University, The Fox School, 108 Speakman Hall, 1810 N. 13th St., Philadelphia, PA, 19122, U.S.A. E-mail: ragiacal@temple.edu Carole L. Jurkiewicz Public Administration Institute, Louisiana State University, 3200 D CEBA, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803-6338, U.S.A. E-mail: cljrkwcz@lsu.edu Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Workplace Values: Cross-Cultural Insights from the Service Industries by Sally Sledge Norfolk State University, U.S.A. Angela K. Miles North Carolina A & T State University, U.S.A. With the globalization of businesses in recent years, managers must attract and retain the right employees. Part of the fit between a worker and employer is in the area of values. Employees bring personal values to the job and they also are asked to display the workplace values of the organization. Managers must be sure that all workers share the values of the organization. Few studies examine workplace values cross-culturally and qualitatively. Using existing theory, we find that service workers in three countries display workplace values that reflect cultural norms. Managerial implications and directions for future research are given. 1. Introduction The study of workplace values has become prevalent in management disciplines due to links to motivation (Paarlberg & Perry, 2007; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959), employee satisfaction (Barrett, 1998; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959), organizational commitment (Elizur & Koslowsky, 2001) and cross-cultural management (Mellahi, 2001; White, 2006). According to Williams (2002), values are “desirable end-states of existence for humankind” and are typically learned in society. In the workplace, values guide behavior and ultimately influence profitability. Accordingly, some businesses are moving toward the use of values-based management, an agenda in which company core values are shaped, vividly exhibited and practiced by all organizational members (Crawford and Scaletta, 2006). Given the significance of values, emphasis has shifted toward comprehending the linkages between cultural values and workplace values. Using a multi-cultural hospitality sample, White (2006) found that cultural orientation impacts how individuals value work aspects. A study by Miles, Sledge and Coppage (2008) also established a connection between cultural values and workplace outcomes amongst Brazilian workers. Geare, Edgar and McAndrew (2009) studied the workplace values of managers and workers in New Zealand. Both groups viewed the employment relationship with the employers with a unitarist rather than a pluralist lens. Interestingly, workers prioritized their careers ahead of the organizational priorities, while managers expressed organizational commitment ahead of personal career preferences. These findings suggest that the links between culture and values are multifaceted, and merit further study. 50 Sledge and Miles 2. Qualitative Rationale Accordingly, this qualitative study explores the value differences between workers in China, Costa Rica and the United States (U.S.), as these countries have distinct cultural differences. Qualitative studies allow expanded meaning which is valuable to understanding cultural similarities and differences. A number of scholars have noted that quantitative studies contribute to theory building in the field of management (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994). Doz (2011) notes the relative infrequency of qualitative studies in international business research, due to factors such as the long time frame required to build theory, and the risk taking or out of the box thinking needed to perform such research, and the reticence of top journals to publish such work. However, he describes the unique benefits that qualitative research offers: “Rich, ‘thick’ process descriptions provide a guarantee against the temptation to rely on a single theoretical lens because they make obvious to the researcher that any single lens will shed only partial light on the phenomenon being researched… While true theory-agnostic grounded theorizing (Glazer & Strauss, 1967) is probably impossible, given the cognitive frames researchers carry with them, the richer the quantitative research the greater the chances of being free from excessive predetermined reliance on a given theory and therefore the better the odds of genuine theory building” (Doz, 2011, pp. 583-584). It is our goal to use rich methods of data collection and data analysis to contribute to theory building regarding workplace values in the global marketplace. This study contributes to the international business literature by extending the linkages between cultural and workplace values. Considerations include: What shared values are prominent in the workplace? Do shared values provide benefits for employees and organizations? What can managers do to promote the adoption of values in the workplace? The paper continues with a discussion on values. Study methodology and results follow. Finally, limitations and considerations for future research are offered. 3. Values Understanding values has become more vital as they influence attitudes and behavior and change less often than these components. Rokeach (1973) suggested that value development is influenced by culture, society and personality. Subsequently, it is believed that values have affective, cognitive and behavioral dimensions, and are linked to motivation (White, 2006). Several models and measures have been developed to study values. Early models such as the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire (MIQ), the Work Aspect Preference Scale and the Work Values Inventory (WVI) measured needs, work preferences and goals, respectively (White, 2006). Barrett (1998) offered a model of organizational values that is comparable to Maslow’s (1954) needs hierarchy, with 7 ordered values, beginning with survival, followed in order by relationship/belonging, self-esteem, transformation, internal cohesion, inclusion and unity. While the Barrett model is useful for assessing workplace values, it is hierarchical as opposed to circular or interactive, thus creating a more rigid structure. More recently, Pohlman and Gardiner (2000) use Value Theory to explain that the ideas and ideals that a person actually values will direct his or her behaviors and actions at work. Understanding 51 an employee’s values is an important part of a manager’s job in order to achieve a good fit between the worker and the organization, as well as creating a satisfying relationship on the part of both parties. A useful tool for this qualitative analysis of culture and workplace values is the Values Framework offered by Jurkiewicz and Giacalone (2004). Its premise captures strategic components of workplace values and accordingly provides a guide for measurability and cultural reflection. The Values Framework includes the values of benevolence (kindness), generativity (leaving a legacy), humanism (live to improve humanity), integrity (honesty), justice (fairness), mutuality (community), receptivity (accepted by others), respect (consideration of others), responsibility (independent task completion), and trust (belief in others). According to the authors, the existence or non-existence of these workplace values can influence workplace outcomes. In a follow-up study, Kolodinsky, Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2008) reported that positive organizational outcomes are tied to the effective use of organizational values. 4. Methods Sample The sample consisted of employees from service industries in the Beijing region of China, the San Jose region of Costa Rica and the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. These locations were chosen for their service industry variety and geographic representation. Each region is also known as a high tourism area with growing economic development. In each country, a diverse group of service employees was sought out through academic and business contacts of the principal investigators. In each country 50-60 respondents were selected for participation based upon workforce participation and job title in a service industry. Due to nonresponse rates, unusable data and incomplete surveys, the samples each yielded 40 usable responses, for a total sample size of 120. Analysis Before the study began, prospective participants were given information about the study as an academic research project and they were given information about the researchers. Participants were notified that their cooperation with the study was voluntary. They were given the chance to ask questions and opt out of the study before and during the research process. Data collection involved 3 techniques. First, employees were observed on the job. In the observations, 2 researchers recorded employee behaviors on the job. Second, questionnaires were administered to employees at work, including a diversity of work shifts. The surveys contained values-oriented questions using a 5 point scale along with demographic data requests and cultural influence queries. Surveys were distributed to shift managers who in turn gave them to their employees. For the Chinese and Costa Rican samples, in order to retain meaning, the survey was translated and back-translated to English with the aid of several native Chinese and Costa Ricans. Third, semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interviews were chosen because 52 they are among the most frequently used qualitative research techniques (Creswell, 1998). The interviews occurred during the employee breaks or before or after shifts. At each interview, 2 researchers and an interpreter were present to facilitate the exchange of information. The discussions began with an introduction to the topic of values. Then the discussion focused on cultural influences, workplace values, personal values, and the intersection of the 3 topics. The researchers recorded their findings independently. Data analysis included evaluating transcripts of the observations and interviews as well as the questionnaires. Data coding, qualitative content analysis and comparisons to Jurkiewicz and Giacalone’s (2004) Values Framework completed the evaluation. The first phase consisted of reviewing the transcribed interviews and observations with the coding themes, values, perceptions and behaviors related to the Values Framework. These actions were repeated 3 times to ensure validity (Miles and Domke-Damonte, 2000). Coded results were evaluated against the transcripts to facilitate reliability of the coding schemes. The transcripts were also compared to a sample of the original subjects. Following Lee (1991), this method allows for triangulation and validation of meaning in qualitative studies. As a check for inter-rater reliability, a list of definitions, participant answers, and coding categories were given to 2 assistants unfamiliar with the research. These assistants were asked to consult the appropriate coding categories and then classify each definition and response. The findings showed support for reliability of the coding categories with inter-rater agreement of 73% and 78%. Interclass correlations of .80 and .82 were achieved between each of the assistants and the researchers (p < .001) (Miles and Domke-Damonte, 2000). 5. Results The 3 samples are analyzed separately and then comparisons are made. The Values Framework of Jurkiewicz and Giacalone (2004) was used to identify meaningful observations, statements, quotes, and behaviors from the respondents. The findings are shown in Tables 1-7. Table 1 includes the average values ratings for each sample. The high and low scores for each country are noted, as well as the dimension high. Table 1 Average Scores for the 10 Dimensions of the Values Framework (5 Point Scale) BENEVOLENCE China Costa Rica United States 3.81 4.23* 2.96 GENERATIVITY 4.05* 4.01 2.07^ HUMANISM 3.77* 3.18 3.48 INTEGRITY 3.08 3.67* 53 3.28 JUSTICE 3.62 2.50^ 4.63* MUTUALITY 4.58*+ 3.75 3.55 RECEPTIVITY 4.10 3.89 4.80*+ RESPECT 3.97 4.36* 3.27 RESPONSIBILITY 2.06^ 3.12 3.49* TRUST 2.35 4.71*+ 4.26 *Dimension High; +Country High; ^Country Low Table 2 includes the list of Chinese participants. Table 3 includes the Chinese Values Analysis. Table 2 Respondent Descriptions and Coding Chinese Sample RESPONDENT GENDER POSITION AGE CH1 CH2 CH3 CH4 CH5 CH6 CH7 CH8 CH9 CH0 CH11 CH12 CH13 CH14 CH15 CH16 CH17 CH18 CH19 CH20 CH21 CH22 CH23 M M F F F F M M F M M F M F M M M F M M M F F ACCOUNTANT NIGHT WORKER GYM WORKER SECRETARY HOUSEKEEPING WAITRESS SECURITY OFFICER ENGINEER WAITRESS MAINTENANCE MANAGER QUALITY INSPECTOR GOVERNMENT SECURITY BOOKEEPER STORE CLERK HEAD CASHIER TOUR DESK OPERATOR HOSTESS ASST MANAGER REPAIR MAN ACCOUNTANT CLEANING STAFF RECEPTIONIST 50S 40S 20S 40S 40S 20S 60S 50S 30S 30S 40S 50S 30S 20S 20S 40S 40S 20S 40S 20S 50S 30S 30S 54 CH24 CH25 CH26 CH27 CH28 CH29 CH30 CH31 CH32 CH33 CH34 CH35 CH36 CH37 CH38 CH39 CH40 M M M M F F F F F M M F M F M F F PLUMBER COMPUTER TECHNICIAN BAGGAGE HANDLER FRONT DESK MANAGER BARTENDER SECRETARY GIFT SHOP WORKER STAFF STAFF TYPIST PLUMBER MAID BUS BOY CHIEF SECRETARY ENGINEER BUS DRIVER SPA WORKER 50S 20S 10S 20S 20S 20S 20S 30S 30S 30S 50S 30S TEENS 30S 40S 30S 30S Table 3 Chinese Values Analysis CHINESE SAMPLE VALUE OBSERVATION BENEVOLENCE Employees in retail store kept the store open late to accommodate customers. GENERATIVITY Employees showed respect and admiration for older workers on the same shift. Humanism integrity QUESTIONNAIRE FOCUS GROUP “We exist for the Most respondents expressed this value as customer.” important on the job. Links between the younger generation, the middle generation and the older generation were emphasized by respondents. Workers showed In spite of language compassion for hotel differences, hotel manager was eager to guests who did not please large group of understand the local culture. international guests. “It is important to do Bank employees the right thing. made sure that customers had proper documentation and forms for transactions of non-bank customers. 55 I do it “for me and my family.” Hotel workers had aids and resources such as dictionaries in order to serve guests. “We work hard to please the customers” justice mutuality Receptivity respect responsibility trust Employees rotated handling the various customer stations. Waiting in line for your turn is an expected behavior. Workers offered elderly guests chairs to sit in and water to drink while waiting in line. Manager of automotive service business refunded prepaid fees when the company could not accommodate the customers. Bus drivers routinely watched over customers’ belongings when they left the vehicle. Workers showed respect for authority figures at work, such as the supervisor or boss. Tour guides rearranged the daily schedule when some planned locations were not available. “In Chinese society, the young are taught to respect their elders.” Valet parking attendants displayed trustworthiness with customers’ personal items and vehicles. Co-workers displayed high levels of trust with each other and managers. Young men and young women had equivalent positions in the company. In a small business, the Teams of workers Family members worked together shop owner paid the collaborated to sell in quality control cultural crafts, where employees based on the mother had the role their contributions to functions. overall sales. of the cashier. Collectivist Common mealtime Tour guides from preferences were competing companies traditions served to dominant in focus bring employees worked together on together during lunch group discussions. busy days to ensure that tourists completed and dinner breaks. the sightseeing agenda. Strong commitment to company policy and procedures. Chinese Sample The Chinese sample showed moderate variability in shared organizational values amongst the service workers. Benevolence was manifest in all 3 data types, due in part to the nature of the business. Many customer service organizations instill the value of kindness in the workforce. In this study, it appeared that respondents possessed this value both in professional and personal terms. The Chinese ranked the highest on Generativity out of the 3 samples. This was expected due to cultural influences and the focus on harmony between the generations. Humanism seemed to come naturally to the employees as they freely shared their relationship-based activities related to their jobs, such as forming groups. Integrity was displayed in terms of honoring commitments made to coworkers or customers. Discussions with managers showed that the businesses valued this characteristic in employees. The responses to the Justice query varied for the Chinese respondents. Many believed that their employers wanted to be fair, 56 but did not have the actual policies in place to make this happen. One example was a comment by a waitress who never was assigned the weekend shifts, which typically pay more money because of larger tips. When the discussion turned to male versus female treatment, many respondents agreed that men and women were not treated equitably on the job. For example, the principal investigators noticed fewer female managers or supervisors than male managers or supervisors. The employee comments suggested that while women were not prevented from attaining these positions of leadership, men were generally given these roles over women. Mutuality was the highest ranking value for this sample. A sense of community was evident even when employees from several organizations had to coordinate efforts at a large venue for an outdoor theater performance. Teamwork was the preferred method of operation on most shifts as noted by observation. Small teams were typical, usually composed of 2-10 people. Receptivity was manifest both on the job and outside of the workplace, as seen by co-workers taking breaks together. In most cases, the workplaces were staffed by native Chinese, with few other nationalities represented. However, a number of respondents commented on the increasing diversity of geographic locations represented by their coworkers. Respect did not rank high in the surveys, but it was obvious in the interviews and observations that the employees showed much respect for the elderly and the customers. This finding may have been the result of modesty on the part of the Chinese workers. Responsibility was the lowest ranking value for this group. Perhaps associations with Communist practices influenced the respondents’ views on this concept. Trust was exhibited by employees who offered to watch children while a customer ran an errand. Other respondents expressed confidence in levels of trust in their managers and co-workers. Thus, the qualitative analysis techniques used here allow for a rich consideration of the Chinese service workers’ perceptions and values. Costa Rica Sample Table 4 includes the list of participants from Costa Rica. Table 5 includes the Costa Rican Values Analysis. Table 4 Respondent Descriptions and Coding Costa Rica Sample RESPONDENT CR1 CR2 CR3 CR4 CR5 GENDER M F F M M POSITION DRIVER SECRETARY MANAGER LANDSCAPER MEDICAL TECH 57 AGE 20S 30S 60S 20S 30S CR6 CR7 CR8 CR9 CR10 CR11 CR12 CR13 CR14 CR15 CR16 CR17 CR18 CR19 CR20 CR21 CR22 CR23 CR24 CR25 CR26 CR27 CR28 CR29 CR30 CR31 CR32 CR33 CR34 CR35 CR36 CR37 CR38 CR39 CR40 F F F F F M M F M M F M F M F F M M M F M F M F F M M F F M M M F F F NURSE PERSONAL TRAINER GYM WORKER FITNESS INSTRUCTOR SWIMMING INSTRUCTOR BELLHOP CONCIERGE ADMINISTRATOR ANALYST COMPUTER TECH COMPUTER TECH DRIVER CHILDCARE WORKER MAINTENANCE CHILDCARE WORKER MANAGER AUDITOR BUSINESS OWNER SECURITY GUARD HOUSEKEEPER SECURITY GUARD CHEF WAITER BARTENDER CASHIER TEACHER DELIVERY DRIVER NURSE AID HOSTESS COOK MAILMAN MAILMAN GOVERNMENT WORKER GOVERNMENT WORKER ADMINISTRATOR 40S 20S 20S 20S 20S 30S 50S 40S 40S 30S 20S 60S TEENS 40s TEENS 50S 30S 40S 20S 40S 60S 30S 20S 40S 20S 30S 20S 20S 30S 40S 50S 30S 60S 20S 30S Table 5 Costa Rica Value Analysis COSTA RICA SAMPLE OBSERVATION BENEVOLENCE Retail store manager made sure that customer request for a particular item was handled quickly. QUESTIONNAIRE Even temperament was an expectation for most employers. 58 FOCUS GROUP Employees shared gifts of candy from customers with co-workers in break room. Businesses advertised “It is important for my children and to handle multigrandchildren to see generational parties. me at work.” A sick child was given References to others preference seating in were more common order to attain medical than references to self. help. References to family were common in discussions. INTEGRITY Employees adhered to “I try to do the right scheduled breaks even thing.” though the manager was absent. JUSTICE Waiters and waitresses assisted each other when the restaurant was busy. Theme park employees worked in pairs to assist guests. Employees openly discussed organizational culture with each other and researchers. “We see men and women treated equally at work.” GENERATIVITY HUMANISM MUTUALITY RECEPTIVITY RESPONSIBILITY RESPECT TRUST ‘My co-workers make my job worthwhile.” Employees expressed sentiments of fairness that dominated the workplace. “At my workplace, we The focus was not accomplish much as a on the individual, but rather on the group. team.” Employees were cordial with employees from other companies in business exchanges. Workers enforced the “I take my job at the pool hours at the hotel. cash register seriously because the company could go out of business if I do not.” Tour guide took “Respect is an customers to certain important part of being gift shops to show a professional.” mutual respect. Experienced employees helped new employee with complicated tasks. Working in small teams seemed to facilitate acceptance among employees. Discussions about workplace safety showed responsibility among employees. Newer employees yielded the floor to experienced employees for comments. Theme park workers “I trust my manager to No respondents gained customers’ trust make good decisions.” expressed any concerns about trust on during a zip line tour. the job. In the Costa Rican sample, there was strong evidence of similar interpretation of most values on the part of the hotel employees consistently across the respondents. This may be the result of strong corporate cultures in the small, tourist-focused country. Of all of the regions studied, this region had the most evidence of cooperation and communication amongst service workers through mentions of trade associations and job-related organizations. Benevolence was exhibited by participants on a formal level rather than an informal level on several occasions. Many professional courtesies were extended to guests having special functions within the industries, such as birthday 59 celebrations and wedding receptions at hotels and resorts. Some employees cited the company motto: “customers first” to clients on the job, and it was reiterated during the interviews. For the workers, generativity focused on connections between all generations, to include the current generation in the workforce as well as its predecessors and successors. This was evidenced by the employees who brought family members to the job site, either children or elderly parents. In some smaller businesses, these family members also worked for the employer. In this sample, the humanism value was often referred to in a distant sense. One example noted on the survey is the common phrase in Costa Rica known as “pura vida.” This term has several translations, which came up during the interviews. Some respondents said the translation into English was “pure life,” while others said it meant “full of life” or “this is living.” This sentiment was known by all of the respondents and seen as a positive reflection of Costa Rican culture. Integrity was seen as a personal value for many employees. They felt personally responsible for matching their words and actions. This value was evident when an employee left surveys with another employee when he had to leave early. Justice was consistently expressed as an ideal but not yet achieved state among many respondents. It was the lowest value on the 5 point scale for this group. They expected their workplace to be fair but few perceived that it was. The most common sentiment was that upper classes and managers received benefits that were not available to the lower classes or average workers. Respondents did not have significant comments when asked about male versus female equality, indicating that this was not a major issue at work. Mutuality was seen as the mutual relationships amongst the employees as well as the relationships between the employees and the customers. The receptivity value took on several different meanings among the workers. For some, it represented acceptance of guests, whereas for others it represented an acceptance of themselves among co-workers. Respect was understood to be respect for customers as well as respect for superiors or colleagues. This value was strongly evident in the larger society, with its emphasis on a rich landscape, environmentalism and respect for all life forms. Responsibility was primarily viewed as duties on the job. Some examples that came up repeatedly were safety requirements for operating moving vehicles. This value also manifest as a duty to fellow co-workers. For example, one respondent noted that she felt responsible for repaying a colleague for the time that the colleague had filled in for her to take care of personal business. Trust was described as an expectation on the job, and this sample scored the highest on this value. None of the respondents had negative comments about trust. Therefore, the Costa Rican participants showed a range of interpretations of workplace values. The qualitative inquiry method allowed for follow-up and clarification of their beliefs. United States Sample Table 6 includes the list of participants from the United States. Table 7 includes the United States Values Analysis. 60 Table 6 Respondent Descriptions and Coding United States Sample RESPONDENT GENDER POSITION US1 US2 US3 US4 US5 US6 US7 US8 US9 US10 US11 US12 US13 US14 US15 US16 US17 US18 US19 US20 US21 US22 US23 US24 US25 US26 US27 US28 US29 US30 US31 US32 US33 US34 US35 US36 US37 US38 US39 US40 M F M F F M F M F F M F M F F F F M M M F M F M F F M M M M F F F M F M F F M F COOK RETAIL SALES BANKER SEAMSTRESS PHONE OPERATOR SANITATION OFFICE HELPER CONSTRUCTION HAIRDRESSER ACCOUNTANT BANKER BANKER RETAIL SALES RETAIL SALES COUNSELOR COUNSELOR CHILDCARE POLICE POLICE SECURITY OFFICER ENGINEER ENGINEER ADMINISTRATOR PRINCIPAL TEACHER TEACHER’S AIDE JANITOR LANDSCAPER AUTO TECH AUTO TECH MAID WAITRESS BARTENDER MANAGER BUSINESS OWNER DRIVER RETAIL CLERK MILITARY PERSONNEL MILITARY PERSONNEL DATA ENTRY 61 AGE 60S 30S 20S 50S TEENS 50S 20S 30S 50S 30S 30S 40S 30S 20S 60S 50S TEENS 30S 20S 50S 40S 30S 30S 40S 40S 50S 40S 30S 40S 30S 20S 20S 30S 20S 30S 50S 40S 30S 30S 20S Table 7 United States Values Analysis UNITED STATES SAMPLE VALUE OBSERVATION BENEVOLENCE Worker helped guest locate relative living in the area. QUESTIONNAIRE Employees donate sick leave for one who ran out. GENERATIVITY Experienced Hotel offered local historical information. employees mentor newer employees. HUMANISM Hotel participated in recycling program on water saving. Employee told guests not to use broken gym equipment. Employees had 1st come 1st serve policy on food and drink during breaks. Hotels called local hotels for lodging when they were full. All guests greeted in the same way. INTEGRITY JUSTICE MUTUALITY RECEPTIVITY RESPECT RESPONSIBILITY TRUST Employees participated in charity function. Employee did not take “Honesty is very extra complementary important to me.” time awarded to them. Full time and part time “We are all treated the same at work.” workers wanted the same benefits. Many employees belong to local trade association. Weight loss support groups met on premises. Disabled and Guests with small handicapped children were given rollaway beds, cribs. employees and workers had accommodations. Employee would not Groundskeepers completed jobs out of let children use the pool unsupervised. site of guests. Worker watched children for guests at daycare camp. FOCUS GROUP “I am friendly with my colleagues. My best friends are my coworkers.” “I try to show the newer employees how to serve guests professionally.” “We collect money for charity.” Employee delivered a paycheck for another one. “We are part of the tourism community. We work with others.” “All ages, genders and races are included.” “We respect everyone.” “I can cover the night shift if my co-worker needs to be off.” “My shift leader took on the role of manager when my manager had to leave the premises for an emergency.” The U. S. sample showed the greatest variation in values ratings among the service employees. This is likely the result of the diversity of the population. Benevolence was expressed in this sample on a personal level. One employee was observed helping a guest locate a relative who lived in the local vicinity. Another worker commented that he donated sick leave to a co-worker who had exhausted this benefit. Generativity was seen in experienced employees who mentored newer employees on the job and during personal time before and after shifts. However, 62 this value ranked the lowest for the sample, perhaps relating to the concepts of individualism and short-term time orientation discussed by Hofstede and Hofstede (2005). Humanism was evident through camraderie in forms such as company baseball teams and charity fundraisers. Some employees spoke eagerly about an annual run/walk that they participated in as a team to raise money for charity. Integrity was a value displayed to varying degrees by employees. In one example, an employee notified a customer about faulty exercise equipment, so that the customer would not get hurt. A quote that summarizes the prevailing sentiment regarding the justice value was “We are all treated the same at work.” Some of the Americans interpreted justice in gender terms but some of them interpreted this value in terms of equitable work. Mutuality was often expressed via the local community. In the interviews, employees stated that they were members of a business association that met regularly with other service workers. Mutuality was also observed when restaurant employees would call other restaurants in a friendly gesture to find space for potential guests when the restaurant was full. In terms of receptivity, respondents made an effort to treat all customers the same way. This sample scored the highest on the receptivity value. Employees pointed to corporate language that reinforced the concept of accepting others in a diverse environment. Respect was observed when employees assisted customers who were disabled or handicapped. Accommodations such as large elevators, ramps and large bathrooms with handlebars and phones were evidence of this value on the part of managers. Gym employees showed responsibility by not allowing children under the age of 18 to swim in the pool alone. A quote from a janitor that related to trust and responsibility was “my shift leader took on the role of the manager when my manager had to leave the premises for an emergency.” The U.S. employees were very willing to talk about their own values and the values in their workplaces. Group consensus took longer to achieve in the interviews than individual comments. Therefore, across the 3 samples, using the 3 different methods of data collection allowed for a holistic approach to worker perceptions of workplace values. These observations and comments provide insights into the service workers’ sentiments, which could not be gained from pure quantitative analysis alone. Hence, the qualitative analysis techniques utilized provide a rich information base upon which to study the service workers’ perceptions, values and behaviors on the job. 6. Discussion Common workplace values have become a critical part of organizational culture and organizational success. In this study, the samples demonstrate evidence of each of the 10 values that make up the Values Framework of Jurkiewicz and Giacalone (2004). Yet, there was some divergence in the ways that the workers displayed the values, supporting the findings of White (2006). In each sample, the employees’ value interpretations vary. To illustrate, some interpreted the value of justice on the basis of gender, while others interpreted the value of justice on the 63 basis of legality. The respondents showed varying definitions of the values. For some, justice was an individual concept and for others, it was a team concept. The employees showed differing levels of commitment to each value. Some felt that trust was an absolute ultimatum, regardless of the situation. Others communicated that trust was important, but it was situation dependent. Also, the workers demonstrated that the values can be considered in different contexts; certain values applied to family, and additional values applied to business. Several participants showed a more personal commitment to a value, while others demonstrated a more professional commitment to a value. Some organizations reiterated values through their mission statements, while others did not. Some managers’ management styles reinforced the issues of workplace values directly, yet other managers addressed this issue indirectly. Culture played a role in the manifestation of workplace values. In China, the respondents showed a preference towards collectivism and group success. While in the United States, they demonstrated a tendency toward individualism and individual success. In Costa Rica, the participants exhibited traditional gender roles, embodying the masculinity-femininity dichotomy. The Costa Rican workers displayed pride in their strong cultural heritage. The Americans showed more interest in innovation and technology. The Chinese employees were focused on efficiency and effectiveness on the job. These employees seemed to be more task oriented, while the Costa Ricans and Americans seemed to be more relationship oriented. The Americans showed less desire for managerial direction, while the Costa Ricans and Chinese expressed the need for supervision and guidance. These findings correlate with many of Hofstede and Hofstede’s (2005) cultural dimension classifications for each country. The respondents showed evidence of behaviors, statements, and work outcomes to support the Values Framework. This was an expected result of the study. Yet, as the research progressed, several themes emerged. The themes of self-expression, cooperation and loyalty were revealed. The groups illustrated the importance of self-expression both personally and professionally. This theme was evident in the evaluation of the values of benevolence, generativity, humanism and respect. In each sample, participants added their personal touch or flair on their work tasks and communications. The cooperation theme was manifest in the observations and discussions of the mutuality, trust and receptivity values. Collaborative efforts in each workplace highlighted the employees’ desire for mutual benefits. The loyalty theme was alluded to through the values of justice, responsibility and integrity. Employees were loyal to their co-workers and to their employers. These emergent themes will allow for interesting follow up studies in this area. 7. Conclusions This research provides evidence of the importance of workplace values for service workers. The respondents demonstrate that positive workplace outcomes depend on employees understanding and living the values of their employer. We believe that similar values are equally as important in other industries. Thus, managers must recognize, model and reward the values of their organizations 64 for employees. In this way, the workforce will be using workplace values to their greatest advantage in order to maximize company performance. The results lay a foundation for other scholars in additional studies. The limitations of this research include a small sample size and lack of statistical analysis. We plan to build upon this exploratory piece, and incorporate some of these concerns into related studies. Some possible directions for future research include reproducing the study in additional nations, including quantitative analysis, enlarging the sample size, and enhancing the evaluation on cultural dimensions. A few managerial implications emerge from the findings. First, workers exhibit some values more strongly than others; thus managers should be aware of positive value manifestation, as it may be linked to job satisfaction and other worker attitudes. Conversely negative value manifestation may be linked to job dissatisfaction and other negative job outcomes. Nonetheless, managers should ensure that employees’ personal values do not conflict with organizational values. This mismatch can be addressed via selection and training and development. Additionally, employee input regarding periodic training related to organizational values is suggested. Furthermore, managers should regularly examine worker values via both formal and informal mechanisms as values may change based upon internal or external events. Managers may benefit from understanding the influence of culture on value expression at work. Perez-Floriano et al. (2007) found that in a five country study, employees’ trust in management was related to job satisfaction. Therefore, it would be wise for managers to examine how employees’ cultural backgrounds impact their perceptions of workplace values. Ullman and Ravlin (1993) suggest that employers conduct organization-wide value profile analyses to determine which values are important in different divisions or units within a company. Their work links employee values to job satisfaction, organizational commitment and performance on the job. Thus there is a role that management initiatives can play in order to influence workplace beliefs and attitudes. Kolodinsky, Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2008) note that a match among individual employee values and organizational values will combine to produce workers feeling more involved in their jobs. Managers should investigate the relationships between these ideas and values among their subordinates in order to maximize productivity in their workplaces. By regularly communicating with employees about the topics of workplace values and culture, managers can create a comfortable environment where employees and customers achieve success. References Barrett, R. 1998. Liberating the corporate soul. Butterworth-Heinemann. Crawford, D. & Scaletta, T. 2006. The value of values – how to attract and retain productive employees with strategic values-focused management. CMA Management, August/September: 22-27. 65 Creswell, J. 1998. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Elizur, D. & Koslowsky M. 2001. Values and organizational commitment. International Journal of Manpower, 22(7): 593-599. Doz, Y. 2011. Qualitative research for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5): 582-590. Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532-550. Geare, A., Edgar, F., & McAndrew, I. 2009. Workplace values and beliefs: An empirical study of ideology, high commitment management and unionization. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(5): 1146-1171. Glazer, B. & Strauss, A. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. & Snyderman, B. 1959. The motivation to work. NY:Wiley. Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G. J. 2005. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill: New York. Jurkiewicz, C. and Giacalone, R. 2004. A values framework for measuring the impact of workplace spirituality on organizational performance, Journal of Business Ethics, 49(2): 129-146. Kolodinsky, R., Giacalone, R., & Jurkiewicz, C. 2008. Workplace values and outcomes: Exploring personal, organizational, and interactive workplace spirituality. Journal of Business Ethics, 81: 465-480....