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....