This article was downloaded by: [COMSATS Institute of Information Technology]

On: 26 July 2014, At: 21:17

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Management, Spirituality &
Religion
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmsr20
The interactive effects of spirituality
and trait cynicism on citizenship and
counterproductive work behaviors
Matrecia S.L. James
a
, Angela K. Miles
b
& Terry Mullins
c
a
Jacksonville University , Jacksonville, Florida, USA
b
North Carolina A&T State University , Greensboro, North
Carolina, USA
c
University of North Carolina at Greensboro , Greensboro, North
Carolina, USA
Published online: 01 Jul 2011.
To cite this article: Matrecia S.L. James , Angela K. Miles & Terry Mullins (2011) The interactive
effects of spirituality and trait cynicism on citizenship and counterproductive work behaviors,
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 8:2, 165-182, DOI: 10.1080/14766086.2011.581814
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2011.581814
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
O
M
S
A
T
S

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
]

a
t

2
1
:
1
7

2
6

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

The interactive effects of spirituality and trait cynicism on
citizenship and counterproductive work behaviors
Matrecia S.L. James
a
*, Angela K. Miles
b
and Terry Mullins
c
a
Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, Florida, USA;
b
North Carolina A&T State
University, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA;
c
University of North Carolina at
Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
Spirituality is increasingly recognized and accepted as part of the total
employee and the general work environment. The following study exam-
ined spirituality as a moderator between an employee personality trait (cyn-
icism) and discretionary job performance dimensions (citizenship behavior
and counterproductive work behavior). This exploration integrates the liter-
ature on spirituality, cynicism and performance by probing the relationship
between negative personality traits and performance while considering the
interactive effects of cynicism and spirituality. Specically, trait cynicism
was predicted to have a direct impact on performance. Results did not sup-
port this prediction. However, as expected, there was a signicant interac-
tion between cynicism and spirituality such that there were signicant
differences in the performance of highly spiritual cynics and those low in
spirituality. Implications are discussed.
Keywords: spirituality; workplace spirituality; employee spirituality; cyni-
cism; trait cynicism; discretionary performance
Spirituality and management, once thought to be incompatible, have become
intertwined (Beneel 2003). Practitioners and academics now recognize that
promoting spirituality in the workplace can be realized in ways that improve
employee commitment and organizational performance (Rego and Cunha
2008). Herein this study, spirituality in the workplace is considered at the
individual level and is not intended to imply that the workplace itself is spiri-
tual. It is asserted that if appropriately managed, spirituality in the workplace
may serve as a personal control that helps individuals gage their behavior at
work. Past research suggests that spirituality in the workplace can mitigate or
remove injuries to employee mental health, vassalage, personal humiliation and
dehumanizing practices (Hancock 1997; Brown 2003; Mitroff 2003; Rego and
Cunha 2008).
Other researchers (Maltby et al. 1999) argued that spirituality may play an
important role in the promotion of self-esteem, which may then inuence
*Corresponding author. Email: mjames2@ju.edu
Journal of Management, Spirituality & ReligionAquatic Insects
Vol. 8, No. 2, June 2011, 165182
ISSN 1476-6086 print/ISSN 1942-258X online
2011 Association of Management, Spirituality & Religion
DOI: 10.1080/14766086.2011.581814
http://www.informaworld.com
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
O
M
S
A
T
S

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
]

a
t

2
1
:
1
7

2
6

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

responses to stress in a positive way. Additionally, spirituality predicted well-
being and correlated with satisfaction and life indices (Fabricatore et al. 2000).
Scholars continued to explore the effects of spirituality by addressing and
examining how it participates in buffering the consequences of stress-related
outcomes (Calicchia and Graham 2006). Although strides have been made in
understanding worker spirituality, few studies have directly addressed spiritual-
ity as a key factor that inuences important work-related outcomes such as job
performance. This study concentrates on this opportunity.
According to the Society for Human Resource Managements Special
Expertise Panels 2007 Trend Report, human resource managers and diversity
professionals will be expected to develop and implement strategies that will
allow the accommodation of employees spiritual needs and expectations. The
challenge is to accomplish this without jeopardizing the organizations ability
to do business and to achieve operational excellence. With this in mind, this
study explores the impact of spirituality on the relationship between cynicism
and employee performance. Specically, the job performance dimensions
examined are citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. This exploratory
study is modeled with the intentions of providing a foundation for future
research and knowledge development related to the inuence of spirituality in
the workplace. Figure 1 depicts the relationships in the current study.
Literature review
Spirituality at work
Scholars are growing increasingly interested in spirituality as it manifests itself
in work settings. Mitroff and Denton (1999) provided an extensive examination
of the scope and depth of spirituality in the American workplace in their book,
A spiritual audit of corporate America: a hard look at spirituality, religion
and values in the workplace. At about the same time, Gallup and Jones (2000)
undertook a large study of the changing nature of spirituality in American
society. Somewhat earlier, a study by Bloch and Richmond (1998) identied
seven ingredients that connected spirituality and work: (1) change, (2) balance,
(3) energy, (4) community, (5) calling, (6) harmony, and (7) unity.
Subsequently, Bloch (2000) developed an instrument, the Salient Beliefs
Personality
Trait
Cynicism
Workplace
Spirituality
Job Performance
Citizenship Behavior
Counterproductive
Work Behavior
Figure 1. Model of cynicism spirituality and job performance relationships.
166 M.S.L. James et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
O
M
S
A
T
S

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
]

a
t

2
1
:
1
7

2
6

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

Review, to measure spirituality in the workplace. Grant, ONeil and Stephens
(2004) found that employees commonly discussed spirituality informally in the
workplace and personally used spirituality as part of their work efforts.
Dent et al. (2005) conducted a literature review of 87 scholarly articles on
leadership and spirituality. They found that most studies linked spirituality and
religion. In addition, the articles reviewed tended to suggest (and some found)
a link between spirituality and productivity. Duchon and Plowman (2005) con-
ducted an empirical study on the impact of spirituality on work unit perfor-
mance and found a positive relationship. They also found that leaders played
an important role in creating an environment that fostered spirituality.
Pielstick (2005) argued that there are important differences between religion
and spirituality. Mitroff and Denton (1999) showed that most people are capa-
ble of and comfortable with drawing distinctions between religions on the one
hand and spirituality on the other. For the purposes of this study, we are inter-
ested in exploring spirituality, not religion. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that
many individuals rely on their personal religious traditions to inform and
enrich their spirituality.
Religions attempt to discover the relationship between God (or the ultimate
power or value in the universe) and human beings. Religions, according to
Pielstick (2005, p. 160), are dened by their belief systems, including creeds,
rules, dogma, doctrine, principles, teachings, theologies and/or philosophies.
Rather than concentrating on the nature and theological underpinnings of spe-
cic belief systems, spirituality focuses on living in accord with a higher pur-
pose, nding meaning in life, creating inner wholeness, seeking connectedness
with others, and achieving self-transcendence toward the ultimate value one
perceives (Schneiders 1989; Gibbons 2000).
At the individual level, spirituality in the workplace can be viewed as the
infusion of ones own spiritual ideas and values into the work setting. This
idea of spirituality in the workplace translates into an application of individual
employee spirituality and can be explained as the collection of personal spiri-
tual values that inuence worker interactions and outcomes (Kolodinsky et al.
2007). Furthermore, building on the conceptualization of Marques (2005),
spirituality is viewed as an experience of interconnectedness involved in work
process that enhances overall performance.
Hypotheses development
Trait cynicism and job performance
Cynicism is a well-established personality trait (Butcher et al. 1990) as well as
a situation-specic reaction to certain organizational events (Stanley et al.
2005). The current study focuses on trait cynicism, which conceptualizes cyni-
cism as a personality variable that is not situationally specic and does not
focus on a specic object (Hochwarter et al. 2004). Specically, trait cynicism
is dened as a ubiquitous personality characteristic represented by frustration,
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 167
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
O
M
S
A
T
S

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
]

a
t

2
1
:
1
7

2
6

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

disappointment, and contempt for others, including a natural distrust of the
motives that prompt actor behavior that is not malleable to situational cues
(Cook and Medley 1954; Wrightsman 1974; Dean et al. 1998; Hochwarter
et al. 2004).
Typically, trait cynics contend that management is out to take advantage of
their contribution at work (Kanter and Mirvis 1989), and that it is likely that
the ordinary employee will have his or her contribution trivialized. For
instance, it has been argued that trait cynics are convinced that managers will
withhold organizational rewards that are entitled to them (Guastello et al.
1992). Pessimistic feelings and views such as these can be expected to have a
negative impact on performance, especially discretionary performance.
Trait cynicism is often coupled with disillusionment and frustration, and the
view that other groups or entities are deceitful and malevolent (Andersson
1996). Furthermore, individuals who are highly cynical are not naturally prone
to engage in voluntary helping behaviors, but instead are inclined to react
antagonistically and underutilize their skills (Hochwarter et al. 2004). Consid-
ering the proclivity of trait cynics, organizational citizenship behaviors and
(counterproductive) work behaviors were chosen as work performance out-
comes.
Dalal (2005) argued that both organizational citizenship behavior and coun-
terproductive work performance should be included as part of the denition of
job performance. Using meta-analysis techniques, Dalal found a modest nega-
tive relationship (p = 0.32) between organizational citizenship behavior and
counterproductive work performance. In a meta-analysis updating Organ and
Ryans study, Borman et al. (2001) found even higher correlations for the
links. Additionally, organizational citizenship and counterproductive behavior
have been found to have opposite effects on organizations. Podsakoff and col-
leagues (1997) consider organizational citizenship as helpful, while Fox et al.
(2001) deem counterproductive behavior harmful.
Organizational citizenship behavior is dened as employee efforts that go
beyond the call of duty (Bolino and Turnley 2003) to voluntarily engage in
beneciary behaviors that are not directly recognized by the formal reward sys-
tem (Organ 1988; Fudchuk 2007). Studies have positively linked organiza-
tional behavior to work group performance (Podsakoff et al. 1997) and the
overall performance of the organization (Koys 2001). Past researchers further
argued that superior efforts by employees on behalf of the organization create
a strategic advantage that is difcult for competitors to overcome (Bolino and
Turnley 2003).
In contrast, counterproductive work behavior is described as a voluntary
behavior that violates signicant organizational norms, and, in doing so, threat-
ens the well-being of the organization, employees, or both (James 2005). These
are behaviors that damage an organization by either directly disturbing its
property or operation or upsetting employees to the degree that their job ef-
ciency is reduced (Fox et al. 2001; Fudchuk 2007). Some examples of counter-
productive work behaviors are theft, sabotage, submitting sub-par work, taking
168 M.S.L. James et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
O
M
S
A
T
S

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
]

a
t

2
1
:
1
7

2
6

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

sick leave when not ill, gossiping, blaming coworkers and other retaliatory
activities (Fudchuk 2007).
Because traits cynics often report heightened levels of mistrust toward other
individuals and groups (Hardy and Smith 1988), we would presume that, rela-
tive to their low-trait cynic counterparts, high-trait cynics would engage in less
citizenship behavior and more counterproductive behavior. Thus, the following
predictions are made.
Hypothesis 1: Trait cynicism will be negatively related to organizational citizen-
ship behaviors.
Hypothesis 2: Trait cynicism will be positively related to counterproductive work
behaviors.
Spirituality as an interactive component
Fundamental reasoning leads to a simple yet profound argument: in order for
cynics to reach higher performance, positive elements in the organization are
needed to facilitate positive interactions and cooperation with coworkers and to
discourage negative behaviors. It is posited here that spirituality at work will
serve as the intervening factor that increases desirable behaviors, while dimin-
ishing undesirable actions.
Past studies have shown that spirituality plays a signicant role in the lives
of individuals (Fabricatore et al. 2000; Kim and Seidlitz 2002). A few studies
have even examined spirituality as a moderator between stress and related out-
comes. For example, Fabricatore et al. (2000) found that personal spirituality
moderated the relationship between stressors and satisfaction. The ndings
indicated that spirituality is a resource for maintaining life satisfaction even in
stressful situations (Fabricatore et al. 2000). The ndings from Kim and Seid-
litz (2002) further suggest that spirituality might also buffer the physical effects
of stress.
According to the Institute for Management Excellence (2008), spirituality is
positive energy that allows people to be creative, adapt to change, have respect
for others, enjoy what they are doing and work well with other people. Also,
the Institute states that the opposite negative energy leads to counterproductive
behaviors, such as withdrawing talents, communicating without respect, ght-
ing, arguing and resisting change. Additionally, Schneider and Mannell (2006)
describe spirituality as a coping mechanism that serves as a powerful resource
in the prevision of comfort, peace and resolution. Although spirituality as a
coping mechanism has been explored most extensively in the healthcare eld,
ndings from these studies provide valuable information about its common
effects. One study, in this area, showed that spiritual beliefs were associated
with increased perception of social support, higher life satisfaction and percep-
tion of life quality (Spinale et al. 2008). More generally, it has been suggested
that spirituality practices help individuals cope with distress (Klaassen et al.
2009).
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 169
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
O
M
S
A
T
S

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
]

a
t

2
1
:
1
7

2
6

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

Another study (Sorajjkool et al. 2008), identied relationships between spir-
ituality, disconnection and depression. Participants, in that qualitative study,
indicated that spirituality plays an important role in coping with the pain of
depression and assists people in the process of coming to terms with ones
own circumstances. This is especially relevant to our research since disconnec-
tion and frustration are common characteristics of cynics (Abraham 2000).
We build upon and extend the concepts of these studies by further sug-
gesting that spirituality might also inuence the kind of behavior in which
individuals engage. As suggested by Kim and Seidlitz (2002), we believe that
spiritual people may be less distracted by problems or less likely to exagger-
ate them, alternatively viewing difculties as meaningful and useful occur-
rences in life. We further believe that spirituality is a crucial element that
helps cynics cope with the dark moods, frustration and negative outlook by
serving as a source of strength and offering hope. It is possible that the posi-
tive effects of spirituality abide within spiritual cynics and help them cope
with, and possible even guard against, feelings of despair, frustration and
hopelessness that is typically associated with trait cynics. In addition, spiritu-
ality may provide focus and direction to the cynical persons life that is
unshaken by their belief that others are deceitful and cannot be trusted. More-
over, it is believed that spirituality helps to transcend the negativity usually
associated with cynicism and facilitates more positive interpersonal interac-
tions and reactions in the workplace. Thereby, it is not expected that spiritual-
ity in the workplace and trait cynicism will be negatively related. Thus, it is
suggested that boosting the acceptance of spirituality in the workplace may
be one way to help increase citizenship and decrease counterproductive work
behaviors among cynical employees. Hence, the following hypotheses are
offered.
Hypothesis 3: Spirituality will interact with trait cynicism and predict organiza-
tional citizenship behaviors such that organizational citizenship behaviors will
be highest for trait cynical individuals when spirituality is high.
Hypothesis 4: Spirituality will interact with trait cynicism and predict counter-
productive work behaviors such that counterproductive work behaviors will be
lowest for trait cynical individuals when spirituality is high.
Methods
A eld study using employees in their natural work environment was con-
ducted to test the linkages proposed in the model offered in this study (see
Figure 1). Employees in 17 schools of a single school district were asked to
participate voluntarily in the completion of a questionnaire to assess the mea-
sures involved in testing the research model. This section describes the data
collection procedures, participants, instruments, and data analysis techniques
used.
170 M.S.L. James et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
O
M
S
A
T
S

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
]

a
t

2
1
:
1
7

2
6

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

Participants and procedures
Approval to conduct the current research was obtained from the superintendent
and 17 individual principals in a rural school district in the Southeastern region
of the United States. The school district provided a comprehensive list of all
employees allowing access to its principals, teachers, teachers aides, and other
school staff members. Administrators in this district also allowed access to
archival data related to school and individual employee performance.
The questionnaires were coded so that an employees response could be
matched to archival data related to school and the individual employees per-
formance. Surveys were used to gather data from employees. Specically, data
were gathered on the following variables needed to test the hypotheses
outlined in this study: trait cynicism, spirituality, citizenship behavior, and
workplace deviance. Additionally, the following controls were gathered from
employee respondents: trust, positive affect (PA), negative affect (NA), posi-
tion, work experience, age, gender, education, and race.
Participants
A total of 1000 surveys were delivered to employees in 17 schools of the par-
ticipating school district. Responses were obtained from 360 of these individu-
als, for a 36% response rate. Of the 360 respondents, 78.9% were female,
18.1% were male and 3% did not respond to this question. The racial composi-
tion of the sample was 17.8% African American, 1.1% Asian, 0.3% Hispanic,
75.3% White, and 5.5% Other. Additionally, 49.9% of the respondents were
teachers, 45.6% were non-instructional staff members and 4.5% did not
respond to this question. Demographic information obtained from the school
district indicates that these percentages are representative of the research popu-
lation.
Control variables
In order to reduce variance caused by other factors that are extraneous to the
focus of this study, gender, education, tenure (years in the eld of education),
position and organizational uniqueness (the sample was taken from 17 schools
in a single district) were incorporated. Organizational uniqueness was included
to account for the distinctiveness of each school environment. Gender, educa-
tion, tenure and position are normal controls for management research. Age
and race were also entered as control variables, both have been examined in
previous cynicism research (Andersson 1996). All variables were self report
with the exception of organizational uniqueness which was based upon organi-
zation assignment. Additionally, the inclusion of NA and PA was based largely
on the argument that an individuals affective disposition can impact the way
in which anxiety-provoking stimuli are interpreted and appraised (George
1992). As evidence, Martin et al. (2000) reported that neuroticism (a construct
with considerable conceptual overlap with NA) was associated with cynical
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 171
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
O
M
S
A
T
S

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
]

a
t

2
1
:
1
7

2
6

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

cognitions. More information is provided in the measures section where the
affective disposition measure is described.
Organizational cynicism was also controlled. This construct represents an
employee attitude related to ones employing organization, characterized by
negative beliefs, feelings, and related behaviors, developed as a result of expe-
riences and is subject to change based on new and different encounters.
Typically, organizational cynicism is characterized by disillusionment and frus-
tration, with negative feelings toward and distrust of the organization (Bateman
et al. 1992; Andersson 1996; Andersson and Bateman 1997; Reichers et al.
1997; Dean et al. 1998; Johnson and OLeary-Kelly 2003). Because such a
negative work attitude can be expected to impact job performance, this
characteristic is viewed as a factor that might distort the interaction between
trait cynicism and spirituality. Furthermore, Kanter and Mirvis (1989) sug-
gested that trait cynicism, and cynicism toward work or organizations in partic-
ular, is realistically related. Thus, analogous to Hochwater and colleagues
(2004), organizational cynicism is included as a control variable.
Measures
Trait cynicism
Individual cynicism was measured using a six-item scale developed by Mirvis
and Kanter (1992; a = .82). A ve-point response format (1 = strongly dis-
agree to 5 = strongly agree) was used. A sample item from this scale is: In
general, most people are not honest by nature.
General spirituality
General spiritual orientation was measured using a ve-item scale developed
by Conner et al. (2003). For the purpose of this study, the unit of analysis was
at the individual level. The scale demonstrated an internal consistency of .80
in the initial study population. A ve-point response format (1 = strongly dis-
agree to 5 = strongly agree) was used. In this sample, the scale demonstrated
an internal consistency of .91. I believe in life having a purpose is a sample
item from this scale.
Citizenship behavior
Four items, taken from the scale by Settoon and Mossholder (2002), were used
to assess person-focused citizenship behavior. The four items with the highest
factor on the task dimension loadings were used. A ve-point response format,
with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5), as end-points was used. The
coefcient alpha reliability for this scale was .93. An item included in this
scale is I assist coworkers with heavy workloads even though it is not part of
my job.
172 M.S.L. James et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
O
M
S
A
T
S

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
]

a
t

2
1
:
1
7

2
6

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

Counterproductive work behavior
Eight items, adopted from the 45-item Counterproductive Work Behavior
Checklist by Fox et al. (2001), were used to assess the frequency of
employee involvement in activities dysfunctional to the organization. A
ve-point response format with never (1) and everyday (5) as end-points
was used. An example of an activity included was Did something to
make someone look bad. The internal consistency for this scale was
.84.
Organizational cynicism
Organizational cynicism was measured using a scale developed by Dean et al.
(1998). This measure consists of 14 items and utilized a 5-point response for-
mat with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5) as end-points. In the
present study, the coefcient alpha for this scale was .92. A sample item is
When my school district says its going to do something, I wonder if it will
really happen.
Affective disposition
Negative (NA; a = .82) and positive (PA; a = .90) affect were measured using
a scale developed by Watson et al. (1988; PANAS); that offers 10 positive and
10 negative emotions. Individuals were asked to respond to adjectives such as
distressed, scared, and jittery for NA and interested, proud, and active for PA.
Each scale used a ve-point response format that ranged from very slightly or
not at all (1) to extremely (5).
Data analysis techniques
The hypotheses were tested by hierarchical moderated regression analyses.
Specically, moderated regression analyses were conducted to determine
the inuence of spirituality on the relationships between cynicism and job
performance (i.e. citizenship behavior, counterproductive work behavior).
In the rst step, the demographic variables (i.e. age, gender, educational
level, race, tenure, and position), organizational uniqueness, and affective
disposition (i.e. negative and positive affect) were entered as controls.
The predictor variables were centered and entered in step two, and the
interaction term computed using centered predictor variables were included
in the nal step. A t-test of the b
3
and F-test of the DR
2
were used to
test the interaction effect. Signicance was indicated by a signicant beta
weight for the interaction term (Tate 1998) or a signicant increase in
the variance explained (Cohen and Cohen 1983; Tate 1998) in the third
step.
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 173
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
O
M
S
A
T
S

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
]

a
t

2
1
:
1
7

2
6

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

T
a
b
l
e
1
.
M
e
a
n
s
,
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
m
o
n
g
s
t
u
d
y
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
.
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
M
S
D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
.
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
5
.
1
2
2
.
3
3
2
.
T
e
n
u
r
e
1
5
.
7
4
8
.
6
8

.
1
1
3
.
A
g
e
4
5
.
1
2
9
.
2
2

.
0
9
.
6
7
4
.
R
a
c
e
3
.
4
8
1
.
1
7

.
1
7

.
0
3
.
0
0
5
.
G
e
n
d
e
r
1
.
8
1
.
3
9

.
1
7
.
1
4
.
1
6
.
0
4
6
.
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
1
.
9
6
1
.
2
1

.
0
9
.
0
7
.
1
7

.
1
4

.
0
3
7
.
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
3
.
0
0
1
.
2
5

.
0
2
.
2
7
.
1
8
.
1
9

.
0
6

.
1
4
8
.
N
A
1
.
6
3
.
6
1
.
1
9

.
0
6

.
1
9

.
0
4

.
0
3

.
0
9

.
0
2
9
.
P
A
3
.
7
0
.
5
5

.
0
9
.
0
6
.
1
2
.
0
5
.
0
6
.
0
1
.
1
2

.
3
4
1
0
.
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
y
n
i
c
i
s
m
2
.
7
6
.
7
9

.
0
3
.
1
1
.
0
2

.
0
5
.
0
8
.
0
4
.
0
0
.
3
2

.
1
0
1
1
.
T
r
a
i
t
c
y
n
i
c
i
s
m
2
.
9
3
.
7
6
.
2
8

.
1
3

.
1
6

.
2
6

.
0
9
.
0
7

.
1
2
.
3
8

.
1
8
.
4
8
1
2
.
S
p
i
r
i
t
u
a
l
i
t
y
4
.
6
.
6
4

.
0
2
.
0
6
.
0
4
.
0
9
.
1
1

.
0
4
.
0
4
.
1
1
.
1
6

.
0
4

.
0
0
N
=
3
3
4
.
r
>
.
1
1
,
p
<
.
0
5
.
r
>
.
1
6
,
p
<
.
0
1
.
174 M.S.L. James et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
O
M
S
A
T
S

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
]

a
t

2
1
:
1
7

2
6

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

T
a
b
l
e
2
.
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
o
f
h
i
e
r
a
r
c
h
i
c
a
l
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
d
r
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
.
a
D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
h
i
p
C
o
u
n
t
e
r
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
e
w
o
r
k
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
S
t
e
p
1
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
s
:
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
.
0
0
.
0
0
T
e
n
u
r
e
.
0
1
.
0
1
t
A
g
e

.
0
1

.
0
0
R
a
c
e
.
0
5

.
0
1
G
e
n
d
e
r
.
2
3

.
0
3
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

.
0
3
.
0
5

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

.
0
9

.
0
4

N
A

.
1
4
.
2
8

P
A
.
2
1

.
0
4
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
y
n
i
c
i
s
m

.
0
5

.
0
8

S
t
e
p
2
M
a
i
n
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
:
T
r
a
i
t
c
y
n
i
c
i
s
m

.
0
3
.
0
0

S
p
i
r
i
t
u
a
l
i
t
y

.
1
3

.
1
4

S
t
e
p
3
I
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
s
:
T
r
a
i
t
c
y
n
i
c
i
s
m
S
p
i
r
i
t
u
a
l
i
t
y
.
1
4

.
0
8

R
2
.
1
1
.
2
7
D
R
2
.
0
1

.
0
1

D
F
4
.
1
0

3
.
7
7

a
R
2
,
D
R
2
a
n
d
D
F
a
r
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e

n
a
l
s
t
e
p
(
n
=
3
3
4
)
.

p
6
.
0
5
;

p
6
.
0
1
;

p
6
.
0
0
1
.
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 175
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
O
M
S
A
T
S

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
]

a
t

2
1
:
1
7

2
6

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

Results
Hypothesis 1 posited that trait cynicism is negatively related to organizational
citizenship behavior. Results indicated that this relationship was negative but
not signicant. Hypothesis 2 posited that trait cynicism is positively related to
counterproductive work behavior. Likewise, data did not support this predic-
tion. Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations among study variables
are presented in Table 1.
3.51
3.56
3.61
3.66
3.71
3.76
3.81
Low High
C
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
h
i
p

Low
Workplace
Spirituality
Avg
Workplace
Spirituality
High
Workplace
Spirituality
Trait Cynicism
Figure 2. The interactive effects of trait cynicism and spirituality on organizational
citizenship behavior.
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
Low High
C
W
B

.
Low
Worplace
spirituality
Avg
Worplace
spirituality
High
Worplace
spirituality
Trait Cynicism
Figure 3. The interactive effects of trait cynicism and spirituality on counterproductive
work behavior.
176 M.S.L. James et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
O
M
S
A
T
S

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
]

a
t

2
1
:
1
7

2
6

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

Hypotheses 3 and 4 tested whether trait cynical individuals behaved differ-
ently because of their level of spirituality. Specically, hypothesis 3 predicted
that the interaction between trait cynicism and spirituality would be related to
changes in an individuals citizenship behavior and hypothesis 4 predicted that
the interaction between trait cynicism and spirituality would be related to an
individuals propensity to engage in counterproductive behavior. Support was
found for both moderated relationships. Table 2 gives these results. The results
indicate signicant interactive effects on citizenship behavior (b = .14, DR
2
=
01, p 6 .05) and counterproductive work behavior (b = .08, DR
2
= .01, p 6
.05). As shown in Figure 2, there was a positive relationship between trait cyn-
icism and organizational citizenship for those with a high level of spirituality
and a negative relationship between trait cynicism and organizational
citizenship for those with a low level of spirituality. Figure 3 further shows a
negative relationship between trait cynicism and counterproductive work
behavior when spirituality is high and a reverse relationship when spirituality
is low. The results of this study indicate that spirituality does make a difference
in the workplace.
Discussion
Although we did not nd the expected relationship between cynicism and
organizational citizenship and counterproductive work behaviors, the ndings
in this study coincide with past research that indicated that trait cynicism was
not signicant in independently explaining organizational citizenship behavior
(Abraham 2000). It is believed that this study further serves as support for the
powerful ability of spirituality to inuence performance in ways that individual
personality traits do not.
Spirituality is viewed as an individual characteristic that has the potential
to transform otherwise negative workplace relationships into more positive
situations. This view point corresponds with Fudchuk (2007), who suggested
that there are some work environments that can potentially negate counter-
productive work behaviors and foster citizenship behaviors. As shown in
this study, spirituality can motivate people to assist others. Even those with
high trait cynicism can nd it in themselves to help others at work.
Although trait cynical individuals may be prone to perceive and react to
negativity in the environment, those who were highly spiritual refrained
from counterproductive activities at work and engaged in more citizenship
behavior.
As expected, when spirituality was at low levels, there was a negative rela-
tionship between trait cynicism and organization citizenship behavior. When
spirituality was at high levels, the negative relationship between trait cynicism
and citizenship behavior was not detected. With respect to counterproductive
behavior, spirituality had the opposite effect. Trait cynicism and low spirituality
were positively associated with counterproductive behavior. However, trait cyn-
icism and high spirituality were negatively associated with counterproductive
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 177
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
O
M
S
A
T
S

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
]

a
t

2
1
:
1
7

2
6

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

behavior. Thus, this research suggests that variation in levels of spirituality can
make a profound difference in citizenship and workplace deviance behaviors.
The unexpected nding of the injurious outcome between low cynicism and
high spirituality also supports the possibility of varying spirituality levels and
provides for future research.
Implications
This study lls a void in the organizational and management literature in
which empirical studies on spirituality in the workplace have been scant. Our
study, consistent with previous research cited above, found potential benets
for managers and workers associated with spirituality in the workplace. Since
more organizational citizenship behavior and less counterproductive work
behavior are benecial to both employees and organizations, spirituality, even
in a secular workplace, can have a positive impact on organizational out-
comes.
Despite the dispositional nature of basic individual personality traits (i.e.
trait cynicism), employers can create more functional work environments by
accommodating and promoting spirituality in the workplace. Such an environ-
ment promotes connectedness, provides a sense of purpose, facilitates positive
relationships between coworkers and improves the functioning of the organiza-
tion. Moreover, it is asserted that people and organizations do well to the
extent that their interests match their values (Dorsey 1998). Thus, it would be
benecial for mangers to promote a model of business that allow employees,
in their daily work to remain true to their beliefs.
Limitations and directions for future research
The cross-sectional research design limits cause and effect inferences from the
study. A longitudinal study would likely provide more insight into the lasting
effects of individual spirituality in the workplace. The sample limits the gener-
alizability of the studys ndings. The data were gathered from a single organi-
zation in one region of the United States. Obtaining data from more
organizations, from different types of organizations and from organizations in
other sections of the country would have strengthened the generalizability of
the ndings. Additionally, this was a self-report study which could cause con-
cern for common method variance. However, this was felt to be minimized as
correlations were not uncharacteristically high. Different data sources and col-
lection methods are suitable for later studies. One other consideration is the
multitude of spirituality denitions across disciplines. To heighten clarity, study
denitions must be concise and denitive. Further research should investigate
the inuence that spirituality has on a wider range of variables. Studies exam-
ining the relationship between spirituality and variables such as organizational
politics, job satisfaction, job involvement, and job performance should prove
fruitful.
178 M.S.L. James et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
O
M
S
A
T
S

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
]

a
t

2
1
:
1
7

2
6

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

Conclusion
This study provides empirical evidence that supports the view that spirituality
plays a signicant role in organizations and inuences important job related
outcomes. By improving the spiritual climate and accepting employee spiritual-
ity, organizational leaders can promote citizenship behavior, defend against
counterproductive behavior; and thereby, increase individual and organizational
performance. Evidence suggests that in an organization that allows workers to
embrace their spirituality, misconduct and its perverse consequences are less
likely, and employees are often more cooperative and willing to do more than
what is formally required of them.
Notes on contributors
Matrecia S.L. James (PhD, Florida State University) is currently an Associate
Professor of Management in the Davis College of Business at Jacksonville University.
Dr. Jamess teaching interests include Leadership, Organizational Behavior, Business
Ethics, and Organizational Design and Change Management. Her research centers on
cynicism in organizations, social inuence, spirituality in the workplace, and
leadership. Her work has been published in numerous journals and conference
proceedings. She was previously employed in the retail, and personnel development
industries. Additionally, Dr. James has developed and facilitated a number of
leadership development seminars, organizational development practicums, and
individual enhancement workshops.
Angela K. Miles (PhD, Florida State University) is currently an Associate Professor of
Management at North Carolina A&T State University where she teaches Human
Resource Management and Organizational Behavior. Her research is focused on
organizational stress, ofce ergonomics, quality of work life issues (spirituality) and
employment law. Dr. Miles is published in numerous journals and conference
proceedings and is the recipient of several conference best paper awards. She was
previously employed in the banking, automotive and telecommunications industries.
Terry W. Mullins (PhD, University of Houston) is a member of the faculty in the
Joseph M. Bryan School of Business and Economics at the University of North
Carolina at Greensboro. He teaches courses in Organizational Behavior, Leadership
and Strategic Management. His research interests include human resources strategies
and organizational effectiveness. Dr. Mullins has served as dean of three business
schools and consulted with a variety of companies ranging from start-ups to Fortune
500 Companies.
References
Abraham, R., 2000. Organizational cynicism bases and consequences. Genetic, Social
and General Psychology Monographs, 126, 269292.
Andersson, L., 1996. Employee cynicism: an examination using a contract violation
framework. Human Relations, 49, 13951418.
Anderrson, L. and Bateman, T.S., 1997. Cynicism in the work place: some causes and
effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 449470.
Bateman, T.S., Sakano, T. and Fujita, M., 1992. Roger, me, and my attitude: lm pro-
paganda and cynicism toward corporate leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
77, 786771.
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 179
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
O
M
S
A
T
S

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
]

a
t

2
1
:
1
7

2
6

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

Beneel, M., 2003. Mapping the terrain of spirituality in organizations research. Jour-
nal of Organizational Change Management, 16 (4), 367377.
Bloch, D.P., 2000. The Salient Beliefs Review: a new instrument for connecting spirit
and work. Career Planning and Adult Development Journal, 15, 7181.
Bloch, D.R. and Richmond, L.J., 1998. SoulWork: nding the work you love, loving
the work you have. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Borman, W.C., Penner, L.A., Allen, T.D and Motowidlo, S.J, 2001. Personality predic-
tors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
9, 5269.
Bolino, M.C. and Turley, W.H., 2003. Going the extra mile: cultivating and managing
employee citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Executive, 17, 6071.
Brown, R.B., 2003. Organizational spirituality: the skeptics version. Organizaion, 2,
393400.
Butcher, J.N., Graham, J.R., Williams, C.L. and Ben-Porath, Y.S., 1990. Development
and use of the MMPI-2 content scales. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press.
Calicchia, J.A. and Graham, L.B., 2006. Assessing the relationship between spiritual-
ity, life stressors, and social resources: buffers of stress in graduate students. North
American Journal of Psychology, 8, 307320.
Cohen, J. and Cohen, P., 1983. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cook, W.W. and Medley, D.M., 1954. Proposed hostility and parasaic virtue scales for
the MMPI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38, 414418.
Connor, K.M., Davidson, J.R.T. and Lee, L., 2003. Spirituality, resilience, and anger
in survivors of violent trauma: a community survey. Journal of Traumatic Stress,
16, 487494.
Dalal, R.S., 2005. A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizen-
ship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 90, 12411255.
Dean, J., Brandes, P. and Dharwadkar, R., 1998. Organizational cynicism. Academy of
Management Review, 23, 341352.
Dent, E.B., Higgins, M.E. and Wharff, D.M., 2005. Spirituality and leadership: an
empirical review of denitions, distinction, and embedded assumptions. Leadership
Quarterly, 16, 625653.
Dorsey, D., 1998. The new spirit of work. Fast Company, 16, 211220.
Duchon, D. and Plowman, D.A., 2005. Nurturing the spirit at work: impact on work
unit performance. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 807833.
Fabricatore, A.N., Handa, P.J. and Fenzel, L.M., 2000. Personal spirituality as a mod-
erator between stressors and subjective well-being. Journal of Psychology and The-
ology, 28, 221228.
Fox, S., Spector, P.E. and Miles, D., 2001. Counterproductive work behavior (CWB)
in response to job stressors and organizational justice: some mediator and modera-
tor tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291309.
Fudchuk, K.M., 2007. Work environments that negate counterproductive behaviors
and foster organizational citizenship: research-based recommendations for manag-
ers. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 10, 2746.
Gallup, G.Jr. and Jones, T., 2000. The next American spirituality: nding God in the
twenty-rst century. Colorado Springs, CO: Cook.
George, J., 1992. The role of personality on organizational life: issues and evidence.
Journal of Management, 18, 185213.
Gibbons, P., 2000. Spirituality at work: a pre-theoretical review. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Birkbeck College, University of London.
180 M.S.L. James et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
O
M
S
A
T
S

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
]

a
t

2
1
:
1
7

2
6

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

Grant, D., ONeil, K. and Stephens, L., 2004. Spirituality in the workplace: new
empirical directions in the study of the sacred. Sociology of Religion, 65, 265283.
Guastello, S., Rieke, M., Guastello, D. and Billings, S., 1992. A study of cynicism,
personality, and work values. The Journal of Psychology, 126, 3748.
Hancock, P.G., 1997. Citizenship or vassalage? Organizational membership in the age
of unseen. Organization, 4, 93444.
Hardy, J. and Smith, T., 1988. Cynical hostility and vulnerability to disease: social
support, life stress, and physiological response to conict. Health Psychology, 7,
447459.
Hochwarter, W.A., James, M.L., Johnson, D. and Ferris, G.R., 2004. The interactive
effects of politics perceptions and trait cynicism on work outcomes. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10, 4457.
Institute for Management Excellence, 2008. Available from: http://www.itstime.co
[Accessed June 2008].
James, M.S.L., 2005. Antecedents and consequences of cynicism in organizations: an
examination of the potential positive and negative effects on school systems.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University.
Johnson, J. and OLeary-Kelly, A., 2003. The effects of psychological contract breach
and organizational cynicism: not all social exchange violations are created equal.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 627647.
Kanter, D. and Mirvis, P., 1989. The cynical Americans. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Kim, Y. and Seidlitz, L., 2002. Spirituality moderates the effects of stress on emotional
and physical adjustment. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 13771390.
Klaassen, D.W., Graham, M.D. and Young, R.A., 2009. Spiritual/religious coping
activity: an action. Archive for the Psychology of Religions, 31, 333.
Kolodinsky, R.W., Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L., 2007. Workplace values and
outcomes: exploring personal, organizational, and interactive workplace spirituality.
Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 465480.
Koys, D.J., 2001. The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship
behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: a unit-level, longitudinal
study. Personnel Psychology, 54, 101114.
Maltby, J., Lewis, C.A. and Day, L., 1999. Religious orientation and psychological
well-being: the role of the frequency of personal prayer; religious orientation and
psychological well-being. British Journal of Health Psychology, 4, 363378.
Martin, R., Watson, D. and Wan, C., 2000. A three-factor model of trait anger: dimen-
sions of affect, behavior, and cognition. Journal of Personality, 68, 869897.
Marques, J., 2005. Socializing a capitalist world: redening the bottom line. Journal
of American Academy of Business, 7, 283287.
Mirvis, P. and Kanter, D., 1992. Beyond demography: a psychographic prole of the
workforce. Human Resource Management, 30, 4568.
Mitroff, I.I., 2003. Do not promote religion under the guise of spirituality. Organiza-
tion, 10, 375382.
Mitroff, I.I. and Denton, E.A., 1999. A spiritual audit of corporate America: a hard
look at spirituality, religion and values in the workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jos-
sey-Bass.
Organ, D.W., 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Pielstick, C.D., 2005. Teaching spiritual synchronicity in a business leadership class.
Journal of Management Education, 29 (1), 153168.
Podsakoff, P.M., Ahearne, M. and MacKenzie, S.B., 1997. Organizational citizenship
behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82 (2), 262270.
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 181
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
O
M
S
A
T
S

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
]

a
t

2
1
:
1
7

2
6

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

Rego, A. and Cunha, M.P., 2008. Workplace spirituality and organizational commit-
ment: an empirical study. Journal of Change Management, 21, 5366.
Reichers, A.E., Wanous, J.P. and Austin, J.T., 1997. Understanding and managing cyn-
icism about organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11, 4459.
Schneider, M.A. and Mannell, R.C., 2006. Spirituality as a coping mechanism. Issues
in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 29, 324.
Schneiders, S.M., 1989. Spirituality in the academy. Theological Studies, 50, 676697.
Settoon, R.P. and Mossholder, K.W., 2002. Relationship quality and relationship con-
text as antecedents of person- and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 255267.
Society for Human Resource Managements Special Expertise Panels 2007 Trend
Report.
Sorajjkool, S., Aja, V., Chilson, B., Ramirez-Johnson, J. and Earll, A., 2008. Discon-
nection, depression, and spirituality: a study of the role of spirituality and meaning
in the lives of individuals with severe depression. Pastoral Psychology, 56 (5),
521532.
Spinale, J., Cohen, S.D., Khetpal, P., Peterson, R.A., Clougherty, B., Puchalski, C.M.,
et al., 2008. Spirituality, social support, and survival in hemodialysis patients. Clin-
ical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 3, 16201627.
Stanley, D.J., Meyer, J.P. and Topolnytsky, L., 2005. Employee cynicism and resis-
tance to organizational change. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 429459.
Tate, R., 1998. An introduction to modeling outcomes in the behavioral and social sci-
ences. 2nd ed. Edina, MN: Burgess Publishing.
Watson, D., Clark, L. and Tellegen, A. 1988. Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scale. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 54, 465490.
Wrightsman, L., 1974. Assumptions about human nature: a social-psychology analysis.
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
182 M.S.L. James et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
O
M
S
A
T
S

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
]

a
t

2
1
:
1
7

2
6

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4