You are on page 1of 22

Moderation effect on work spirituality and commitment relationship

Setyabudi Indartono Doctor Candidate, National Central University Taiwan. Lecturer of Management Department, Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia, Email : Setyabudi_indartono@uny.ac.id Siti Zulaikhah Wulandari Economic Faculty of Jendral Sudirman University, Indonesia Email : zulaikhaw@hotmail.com

Moderation effect on work spirituality and commitment relationship

ABSTRACT

As a common and important construct commitment, numerous studies have investigated factors that influence commitment. Few studies on employee commitment have able to explain its antecedents clearly. Workplace spirituality was indicated to be effect to commitment. However, previous study could not explain individual construct of workplace spirituality. This study was aimed to explore both workplace spirituality and commitment simultaneously, assessed in a single composite score of constructs and investigated moderation of gender on this relationship. The result shows that workplace spirituality positively related to commitment. Gender moderates the relationship between workplace spirituality and commitment. Implications of the findings and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Keywords: workplace spirituality, commitment, gender

2

the correlation between it dimensions and commitment fail to explain the integrated workplace in spirituality. the theoretical contribution is constrained. antecedents of commitment were observed based on these criteria. sense of community. Accordingly. culture.. such as individual characteristics. Thus. it is difficult to generalize such findings in different contexts (Lok and Crawford. emotional attachment and belief. Rashid et al.. the advance method to investigate the integrated single construct of workplace spirituality was invited. Therefore. Eaton. 2002). and human resource policy in practice (Lok and Crawford. Lok and Crawford. 2002. Even they used the concept of Milliman et al. work experiences. 2002. Previous studies on commitment indicated that workplace spirituality effected to commitment (Rego et al. Nevertheless. and ethical reasons of obligation to organization. Rashid et al. Numerous studies have investigated factors that influence commitment both at individual and organizational level. No consensus has been reached regarding consistent related factors that constitute commitment antecedents..e. 2003. recent conceptual critique of commitment model by Solinger at al (2008) invited further investigation on the consistencies of both empirical and theoretical approach of commitment antecedents. few studies on employee commitment were able to explain its antecedents clearly (Meyer et al. alternative investments. 2001). This study was aimed to explore both workplace spirituality and commitment simultaneously. Few personal characteristics. 2008).Moderation effect on work spirituality and commitment relationship Introduction As a common and important construct in behavioral studies. have been summarized as antecedents of commitment (Meyer et al. socialization experiences. Indeed. At the beginning Meyer et al. 2001. researchers have spent considerable effort attempting to develop and test the models of commitment antecedent. and organizational investment. Gifford et al. 2003). Accordingly. 2001. (1993) distinguished the constructs of commitment antecedents into three basic major forms i. 2003). (2003) included three workplace spirituality dimensions (meaningful work. Rashid et al. Hence. perceived economic value. 2002. value alignment). However. 2003.. The construct should be assessed in a single composite score 3 . Meyer et al. they study could involved the individual construct of workplace spirituality. researchers expect the antecedents of commitment to provide insights into employee’s commitment.

Furthermore.rather than different dimension. and help organizations to acknowledge the importance of community as a basis on which success. 2005). Workplace spirituality is also acknowledged as a way to recapture the trust between employer and employee. It contributes to organizational performance (Milliman etal. 2003b. It was indicated that male and female will have different response on the relationship between workplace spirituality and commitment. 2004). It is about employees who view them selves as spiritual beings whose souls need nourishment at work. 2000. Benefiel. 2000. can be achieved.. and a sense of connectedness to one another and to their workplace community.137). Strack et al. who experience a sense of purpose and meaning in their work. 2002. Relationship between work. Leaders who are more developed in terms of their spirituality are reported to be more effective (Cacioppe. even survival. 2003. 2003. this study investigated the gender related the commitment. facilitating their sense of being connected to others in a way that provides feelings of completeness and joy. but rather based on personal values and philosophy. the workplace spirituality can be defined as the “recognition that employees have an inner life which nourishes and is nourished by meaningful work taking place in the context of a community” (Ashmos and Duchon. Rego et al (2008) notes that spirituality at work is not about religion or about getting people converted to a specific belief system. Fry et al.1999. Theoretical background and hypotheses Workplace Spirituality As a controversial topic. 2003. 2004). Giacalone and Jurkiewicz.. Garcia-Zamor. 2003. Jurkiewicz and Giacalone.. Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2003) suggested a different definition of workplace spirituality. SandersIII et al. They argued that workplace spirituality as a frame work of organizational values evidenced in the culture that promote employees’ experience of transcendence through the work process. the abuses of workers and other actions that breached psychological contracts (Jurkiewicz and Giacalone. allegedly lost with the alienation generated by the dehumanized practices that accompanied the massive processes of downsizing. Fry. organizations and spirituality are argued created an artificial distinction between mind or spirit and body or material and immaterial. However.. 4 . p.

It was included three levels of analysis: individual. (2003). such as Job Satisfaction. Organizational scientists have developed many nuanced definitions of organizational commitment. positive work-unit values) and two for the organization level (organizational values. defined as the degree to which an employee experiences a 'sense of oneness' with their organization. sense of community explains all the attitudes and value alignment explains commitment and intention to quit. and numerous scales to measure them. defined as an employee's feelings about their job. intentions to leave. Moreover. They extracted seven factors/dimensions for the individual level (conditions for community. Even empirical studies of workplace spirituality and commitment relationship has been indicated. two for the work-team level (work-unit community. contemplation). It can be contrasted with other work-related attitudes. however previous studies dealing with the topic have often simplistically. the employee's psychological attachment to the organization. and organizational-based self-esteem. meaning at work. and Organizational identification. It is represents the degree to which people experience a deep sense of meaning and purpose at work (The meaningful work dimension). job involvement. value alignment) explain five work attitudes: affective organizational commitment. Beyond this general sense. work team and organization. The value alignment dimension measures whether or not individuals experience a strong sense of alignment between their personal values and the organization’s mission and purpose. Workplace spirituality and organizational commitment Organizational commitment in the fields of Organizational Behavior and Industrial/Organizational Psychology is. people see them selves as connected to each other and that there is some type of relationship between one’s inner self and the inner self of other people (The sense of community). They found that meaningful work dimension explains affective commitment. It is important to be explored the different psychological climates. personal responsibility. (2003) examined how three workplace spirituality dimensions (meaningful work. sense of community. 5 . Milliman et al. positive connections with other individuals. blocks to spirituality. Milliman et al. individual and the organization). workplace spirituality has been developed by Ashmos and Duchon (2000) and Milliman et al. intrinsic work satisfaction. (2003) selected only the three dimensions mentioned above. inner life. in a general sense.Conceptually.

is that when people perceive their work place as facilitating the satisfaction of their spiritual needs and the search for meaning at work. An employee who is affectively committed strongly identifies with the goals of the organization and desires to remain a part of the organization. The topic has attracted a great deal of attention from both scholars and practitioners. Wide interest of commitment studies are possibly due to the impact on a wide range of attitudes and behaviors with organizational relevance. action and emotion. The employee remains a member of the organization because he/she "has to". developed before the person joins the organization through family or other socialization processes. Organizational commitment can be defined as a psychological state that characterizes an employee’s relationship with the organization and reduces the likelihood that he/she will leave it (Allen and Meyer. For example. the organization may have invested resources in training an employee who then feels a 'moral' obligation to put forth effort on the job and stay with the organization to 'repay the debt. The concept of a gendered organization signifies that advantage and disadvantage. including economic costs (such as pension accruals) and social costs (friendship ties with co-workers) that would be incurred. Normative Commitment: The individual commits to and remains with an organization because of feelings of obligation. These feelings may derive from many sources. meaning and identity are patterned through and in 6 .' It may also reflect an internalized norm. they increase their commitment. Continuance Commitment: The individual commits to the organization because he/she perceives high costs of losing organizational membership. 2000). that one should be loyal to one's organization. then. This employee commits to the organization because he/she "wants to". exploitation and control.Exemplary of this work is Meyer & Allen's model of commitment. The employee stays with the organization because he/she "ought to". According to Meyer and Allen's (1991) three-component model of commitment. which can characterize an employee’s commitment to the organization? Affective Commitment: AC is defined as the employee's positive emotional attachment to the organization. which was developed to integrate numerous definitions of commitment that had proliferated in the literature. Hypothesis-1: Workers’ workplace spirituality is positively related to their commitment. This study and thus predicts.

what is perceived or 7 . Bernardi. Gender has been used in social studies to provide explanations for different effects on outcomes. 2008). Popoola. Organizations cannot therefore be adequately understood unless gender is acknowledged as a fundamental element of structure.. male and female. 2006) and that the constructions of masculinity and femininity. 1991). absenteeism. females were known to be more expressive than male. Lysonski and Gaidis. This requires that gendered assumptions are made visible and challenged (Rapoport etal. Ndubisi (2006) indicated the study to support gender differences in decision-making processes. that shape and are shaped by organizational processes and everyday practices are understood (Benschop and Verloo. Baghat et al. expressive behaviors. others showed that gender has no significant correlation with organizational commitment among white workers (Ahmad and Abubakar. such as financial decisionmaking. For example. and motivational response on the job (Haswell et al. Researchers found that male and female employees have different sensitivity. p. (2009).146). retirement decisions. preference for work schedule. which in turn had affect on their attitude and behavior at work (MeyersLevy and Maheswaran. 2003). 1999. 1981. Bailyn. indicate that a significant relationship existed between gender and organizational commitment of workers in public sector organizations. It was found to have different effects several contexts ranging from interpersonal relationships to household decision-making (Qualls. 2008). and this was manifested in their socioemotional behavior. 1997). He pointed out organizations consist of relations between people and can never be gender neutral. culture and practice (Britton. 1991. 1987. Whipple and Swords.. 1990. 2004). and that female were more committed to their organizations than male (Angle and Perry. Opayemi. 2006). 1992. 2002. However.terms of a distinction between male and female (Acker. Sunday O.

The result of data collection shows that 150 respondents out of 325 completed the survey. emotional expression.processed as being "ethical". It is plausible to use gender to explore the different effect of work spirituality on commitment. Average age and work experience for respondents were approximately 30. Furthermore four (2. Hence.2% response rate. gender salience research related to workplace spirituality has been limited. hypothesized as follows: Hypothesis-2: gender moderates workplace spirituality and commitment relationship --------------------------------------------Insert figure 1 about here --------------------------------------------- Methods Samples This study collected sample data from various businesses. therefore.63 years respectively. Although the effects of gender on human interaction have been studied in the social psychology literature. peer influence on female been shown to be high in gender studies.42 years old and work for 4. It is therefore.7%) of the respondents graduated 8 . attributes important in determining self-esteem. and communication or conversational style. is reason to expect that gender will moderate the influence of subjective norm on behavioral intention. representing an overall 46.

Measurement development Items were either developed by the authors or obtained from previous research. Measure validation 4. 128 (85.888). prior to testing the hypotheses. Independent variables Workplace Spirituality was measured using 13 items taken from Milliman et al.837). The sample question asked to the participants was “My organization respects my inner life”.from high school. In accordance with the two-step procedure suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988).3%) held a graduate degree and 70 (46. (2003). and the individual items were averaged (Cronbach’s alpha =. Dependent variable Commitment was measured using 12 items taken from Meyer et al 1993 adopted by Chinen and Enomoto. 18 (12%) held a diploma. 2004. content. Initial specification search led to deletion of some of the items in the 9 . A Five-point likert-type scale was used.7%) of respondents were male.1. After a review of wording. 50 item sets were retained for inclusion in the instrument. and the individual items were averaged (Cronbach’s alpha =. Results 4. Responses were made on a 5-point Likert-type scale with scale anchors ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was adopted to test for the quality and adequacy of the measurement model.1. confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to examine reliability. The sample question asked to the participants was “I feel a strong sense of belonging to company”. and so forth. convergent and discriminant validity of the multi-item construct measures.1. A Five-point likert-type scale was used.

0.530 0.822 AV SSC NC CC AC A confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS 7. Goodness-of-fit of the model are represented by the following values of RMSEA 0. 1992.0 was conducted to test the measurement model.08 indicate a good fit of the model to the data (Hu & Bentler.720 0. and TLI =.510 0.846 0.constructs scale in order to provide acceptable fit. --------------------------------------------Insert table 1 about here --------------------------------------------- Table 1 Loading factor of construct TCS TSC1 TSC2 TSC3 TSC4 TSC5 AV1 AV2 AV3 AV4 AV5 SCC1 SCC2 SCC3 NC1 NC3 CC1 CC2 CC3 CC4 AC1 AC2 AC3 0.746 0. 1999.856.651 0. 10 . The chi-squared (df=111) χ2 = 287.01.657 0.103 and RMR = 0.812 0. The value of CFI=.872 0. NFI = .849 0. RMR values of less than .949 0.) was 2.931 0. measurement model did not exceed 3 (Marsh and Hovecar 1985). IFI=0. Browne & Cudeck. the result of CFA indicated a satisfactory fit for the measurement model.59 therefore.435 was significant (p <0.868 0. The ratio of chi-square to degree of freedom (df. Bollen 1989).584 0. Steiger.423 0. Selected statistics for the final overall-model assessment show acceptable fit of the measurement model. 1990).844.896.058. According to Marcoulides and schumacker’s (1996) standard of fitting.479 0.577 0.630 0.898.429 0.410 0.723 0.

Variance extracted is not only the average percentage of variation explained among the items.467** . Normative Commitment 6. In other words.831 .529** .884** .902 .406** . The Cronbach’s α of construct is shown in table 2.902.831 are all greater than 0.543** . Team Sense of Community 2. Variance extracted is computed as the total of all squared standardized factor loadings divided by the number of items.436** .356** . 11 . --------------------------------------------Insert table 2 about here --------------------------------------------- Table 2 Correlation and Crobach α 1 1.832.513** .573** . Alignment value=0. Commitment .829. Cronbach’s α of Normative Commitment= 0. Workplace Spirituality 5.743 . it is the average squared factor loading. Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggested that variance extracted of 0.7.811 .50 shown in table 3. Hence. Convergent validity is determined by the reliability of each construct and the averages variance extracted (AVE) of each construct. Affective Commitment= 0.356** . This study assessed reliability jointly for all items of a construct by computing the composite reliability and average variance extracted (Steenkamp and van Trijp 1991).Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is adopted to test for the quality and adequacy by investigating reliability.361** . the indicator variables of this study have a good convergent validity. Table 4 shows AVE exceeding correlations in all squared multiple correlations. Meaningful work 4.511** .772** .829 . Continuance Commitment 7. internal consistency of each measurement construct has been achieved. but also a summary measure of convergence among a set of items representing a latent construct.240** .793** .473** .421** .599** . Team sense of community=0. 1988). 1991).764** .351** . convergent validity.240** .01 level (2-tailed).338** .323** .5 or higher than squared multiple correlations is good. Affective Commitment 8.365** .673** 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ** Correlation is significant at the 0. Alignment Value 3. Cronbach’s α is the most widely used criteria to measure the reliability of the items for each construct (Cronbach’s. Meaningful work=0. Continuance Commitment= 0. AVE values exceed the . and discriminant validity (Anderson and Garbing.412** .843** .832 .743. Therefore.811.371** .

tells us that the two constructs overlap greatly and they are likely measuring the same thing. reliability.17 13.833 0.560 10.--------------------------------------------Insert table 3 about here --------------------------------------------Table 3 Convergent Validity and Reliability Team Sense of Community TSC4 TSC3 TSC2 AV5 AV4 AV3 AV2 SCC3 SCC2 SCC1 NC3 NC1 CC4 CC2 CC1 AC3 AC2 AC1 Estimate 0.461 9.777 0.837 0.469 0.595 6.833 0.633 Normative Commitment Continuance Commitment 0.776 Discriminant validity describes the degree to which the operationalization is not similar to (diverges from) other operationalizations that it theoretically should not be similar to.82 10. convergent validity. rxx is the reliability of x.563 α 0. the results shown in table 4.08 8.756 1.28 Affective Commitment 0.854 0.799 12. Therefore.ryy A result greater than .736 0.831 0. A successful evaluation of discriminant validity shows that a test of a concept is not highly correlated with other tests designed to measure theoretically different concepts.754 T value 9.645 0.890 0.626 0.678 0.902 0.423 0.808 0.924 0. demonstrated adequate unidimensionality.743 0.696 0.811 0.662 0. however. and ryy is the reliability of y: rxy rxx .000 0.815 0. and discriminant validity.782 0.692 0.772 0.879 1.829 0.700 0.600 0.73 Meaningful work 0.129 SMC 0. --------------------------------------------Insert table 4 about here --------------------------------------------- 12 .597 0.660 0.947 0.630 0.639 9.444 0.446 0.832 AVE 0.679 0. It is possible to calculate the extent of which the two scales overlap by using the following formula where rxy is correlation between x and y.488 0.865 8.489 0.655 Alignment Value 0.85.010 0.86 11.

123 0. Within the context of higher-order 13 .591 3 0. this specification could prove to be appropriate.292 6. it appears that the first-order factors act as both independent and dependent variables (Byrne. However.595 0. square correlation. In instances however where first-order factors exhibit moderate correlations.1. and Discriminate Validity 1 1.412 0.127 0. such was in fact the case where all fit indices here failed to pass muster.721 3. The second model posits uncorrelated latent variables that are related to their respective observed variables. This study tests the model of commitment. retention of such a model would not resolve the issue of discriminant validity. a measurement model specification such as the one represented by Model 3 would be advisable. Alignment value 0. In situations where first-order factors are poorly correlated. if a variable has an arrow pointing to it then it is targeted as a dependent variable and it will maintain such status throughout. In addition.439 4.633 0.776 Discriminate validity are shown on the left side AVE value 4. Continuance Commitment 0.487 4 0. Indeed. workplace spirituality and commitment) that is related to first-order factors/facets that in turn are related to the respective observed variables. Meaningful work 0.178 0.459 5.454 0. Team sense of community 0.358 0. The first model of workplace Spirituality specifies that all 10 items are each reflective of one latent variable. Competing model issues Based on Koufteros (2009). an orthogonal specification for the relationships between latent variables would be expected to produce poor model fit.601 0.Table 4 Average Variance Extracted. In Structural Equation Modeling.164 0.654 0.114 0. A variable can either operate as a dependent variable or an independent variable but not both (Byrne. Normative Commitment 0.393 0.133 0. Affective Commitment 0. The test indicates that chi-square per degree of freedom is above 3 and also other fit indices indicates model fit.130 0. the used model was found from the competing modeling of second order construct.218 0. Model 3 was similar to Model 2 except for the fact that the latent variables were free to correlate. 1998).104 0.e. 1998).655 2.2..406 AVE value are shown in parentheses 2 0.280 6 0.057 0. multicollinearity emerges. The model fit was quite acceptable as all fit indices met respective criteria.630 0. Model 4 presents a second-order factor (i.294 0.127 0.495 5 0.560 0.453 0. In view of the strong correlations between the latent variables.261 0.058 0. when first-order factors are highly correlated. At a first glance.

00 113.48 121. --------------------------------------------Insert table 5 about here --------------------------------------------- Table 5 Alternative measurement model structures Goodness of fit indices for alternative models of factor structure Model 1 One first order factor Model 2 Four first order factorsuncorrelated Model 3 Four first order factors-correlated Model 4 Four first order factors.one second order factors 117.1.39 . if in example all items/manifest constructs of normative.9 32 3.29 Commitment .90 .081 .98 209.90 .06 . then it would be difficult to ascertain the 14 .81 .96 35 6.86 . continuance and affective commitment as reflective items of a single first order construct of commitment.89 . the first-ordered factors are conceptualized as dependent variables.12 327.23 . In other words.85 .91 .81 .92 .79 .84 .93 .48 .77 .63 .03 32 3.83 .3.083 59.73 . High order constructs issues A higher-order model (Koufteros.91 .89 .27 20 6.61 .93 .13 59. If all items are bundled together (through just one first-order latent variable for example).24 35 8.modeling.89 20 16. 2009) can be posited and can relate the manifest variables to their respective first-order latent variables which can then be related to their secondorder latent variable(s).53 . This implies that their variances and covariance are not estimable within the model.23 17 3.93 .68 Workplace Spirituality Chi-square Df Chi-square /df Normed-fit index (NFI) Normed-fit index (NNFI) Comparative fit index (CFI) Standardized root mean square residual (RMR) Chi-square Df Chi-square /df Normed-fit index (NFI) Normed-fit index (NNFI) Comparative fit index (CFI) Standardized root mean square residual (RMR) 314.89 .91 .21 . 1994) and the contribution of various content domains to the final scale score will not be known. the explication of the resultant construct is incomplete (Gerbing et al.23 17 3.081 4.48 0. The contribution of each dimension to a higher-level construct can be assessed and delineated as compared to bundling all items together in a single composite score.

the model then could be used to test further research hypothesis. Higher order models are reflective of the body of literature that posits and tests higherorder models (e.. the non-norm fit index (NNFI). The model used was selected from structural model evaluated. and the standardized root mean square residual.86. 1988. Rindskopf and Rose. 2000. Rindskopf and Rose (1988) suggested that at least each first order has two measure.contribution of each domain on the overall construct. 2003.23)/df (17)= 3..91.129. Arnau and Thompson. Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.91. Somers et al. Relative Fit Index (RFI) = 0. Lai.89. and Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) = 0. the comparative fit index (CFI). Selected statistics for the final overallmodel assessment shows acceptable fit of the measurement model. the norm fit index (NFI).48. Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0. If the model fits the data adequately.g. Higher order model is been chosen if various fit indices are plausible such as chi-square per degrees of freedom. Incremental Fit Index (IFI) = 0. 15 . Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) = 0. Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) = 0.93.93. Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) = 0. Normed Fit Index (NFI) = 0.81. 2006).060. The data fit included: chisquare value (59. --------------------------------------------Insert figure 2 about here --------------------------------------------- Figure 2 shows the second order of commitment.

rAffective=. Hypothesis 1 was that conditions of workplace spirituality are positively related to commitment.01). The standardized regression weights on the default model second ordered found that workplace spirituality effected positively to commitment (γ =. the results revealed that hypothesis 1 is supported.338**.92.822.76.063.502 was significant (p <0.13. Alignment value are positively related to commitment (rnormative=.01).86. rAffective=.323**.573**. Workplace Spirituality is positively related to commitment (r =.90. The data fit included: chi-square value (117.240**. correlation and regression analysis was used. p<. Normed Fit Index (NFI) = 0.01. The ratio of chi-square to degree of freedom (df. and Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) = 0. As shown in Table 6.421**.01). Goodness-offit of the model are represented by the following values of RMSEA 0.Second order of workplace spirituality shows acceptable fit of the measurement model.885.849. Steiger. According to Marcoulides and schumacker’s (1996) standard of fitting.062. The value of CFI=. rAffective=. RMR values of less than .0. Meaningful work are positively related to commitment (rnormative=.511**. p<.779. Table 6 presents the results of estimation of the main effect and the moderating effects of employee’s gender. Relative Fit Index (RFI) = 0. rcontinuance=. rcontinuance=. Hence. Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) = 0.01).86. Incremental Fit Index (IFI) = 0. p<. Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) = 0.778. Bollen 1989). p<.744.02)/df (34)= 3. Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) = 0.92. NFI = . TLI =. rcontinuance=. IFI=0.356**. Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0. Browne & Cudeck.356**. gender moderating effects on the 16 . the result of structural model of fit indicated a satisfactory fit for the measurement model. 1992. Hypothesis testing In order to test the antecedent of effect of workplace spirituality on commitment.68. 1999. Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0. Table 2 showed that Team Sense of Community are positively related to commitment (rnormative=.882.106 and RMR = 0. Hierarchical moderated regression analysis was conducted to test the mediating effect of employee’s gender. and Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) = 0.08 indicate a good fit of the model to the data (Hu & Bentler.89. The results indicated that the moderating effect of employee’s gender was significant. p<. Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) = 0. A Structural analysis shows the chi-squared (df=119) χ2 = 318. 1990).351**.676.361**.) was 2.01).

--------------------------------------------Insert figure 3 about here --------------------------------------------- Figure 3 Moderation of gender on workplace spirituality-commitment correlation 0.50 male Female 0. ** p < . --------------------------------------------Insert table 6 about here --------------------------------------------- Table 6 Moderation of Gender on workplace spirituality-commitment correlation Commitment R .404 -0.351 26.192* .266 Commitment 0.50 Workplace Spirituality 17 .021 .092 High -0. male employees demonstrate higher commitment compared with their counterpart.05 . When workplace spirituality is high.329 35.00 Low -0.146 β in regression Step 1 Step2 -. -. The findings supported Hypotheses-2.338 0.573** .994** .010 . female employees demonstrate higher commitment compared with male employees.01.573** -.296** .966** Figure 3 provides graphical representation of the moderating effects of gender.relationship between workplace spirituality and commitment. The graphs show that when workplace spirituality is low.450** Workplace Spirituality (WS) Gender WS * Gender R2 F ΔR2 F change * p < .337 4.

The workplace spirituality construct was successfully represents the Milliman et al (2003) model. Meaningful work. and value alignment of workplace spirituality was significant on normative. and found that male and female employees have different sensitivity. expressive behaviors. Each construct manifest their dimension as the first ordered latent variable. become more explainable. the hypothesis of workplace spirituality has positively related on commitment. employee’s remains a member of the organization. motivational response on the job. Accordingly. Both dependent and independent construct analyzed shows that there are significant correlation between first ordered and second ordered constructs of workplace spirituality and commitment as single composite form or it dimensionality. Moderation effect of gender consistently provides evidence that organizations consist of relations between people and can never be gender neutral (Acker. sense of 18 . model of workplace spirituality included meaningful work. and decision-making processes. Table 2 provides inter-correlation among first ordered and second ordered constructs. 1991). The individuals experience a strong sense of alignment between their personal values and the organization’s mission and purpose are positively significant related to the employee's positive emotional attachment to the organization. It was mean that the degree to which people experience a deep sense of meaning and purpose at work is positively related to the employee's positive emotional attachment to the organization. sense of community. Workplace spirituality and commitment construct is bundled from it items as a single composite score. and affective commitment is plausible to be reflected by on single construct. and dimension of commitment proposed by Allen Meyer (1991) included normative. and value alignment. Hence. and their feelings of obligation. and their feelings of obligation. sense of community. When employee felt low on meaningful work. and their feelings of obligation. commitment. People see them selves as connected to each other and that there is some type of relationship between one’s inner self and the inner self of other people significantly related to the employee's positive emotional attachment to the organization.Conclusion Discussion Extending approach of higher order of workplace spirituality and commitment has successfully investigated single construct of workplace spirituality related to single construct of commitment. continuance and affective commitment. continuance. employee’s remains a member of the organization. employee’s remains a member of the organization.

the higher order model by Koufteros (2009) used to bundling items measured together in a single composite score and to ascertain the contribution of each domain on the overall construct. This study allows us to rule out employee perception of workplace spirituality and commitment. variance and covariance estimable of the model. It is not only examined in cross-cultural. Limitation and future research direction Notwithstanding these contributions. male employees demonstrate higher commitment compared with their counterpart. to examine reliability. and value alignment. Although gender was found to express the relationship between workplace spirituality to commitment. 1988). and commitment consist of normative. Workplace spirituality included meaningful work. These procedures are needed to avoid validation bias of measurements. Additional longitudinal study on workplace spirituality change is needed to compare this finding. It is also useful to explain the prediction of commitment changes and conclusion. the validation process of this study includes the test of the quality and adequacy of the measurement model (suggested by procedure of Anderson and Gerbing. but also in comparisons of participants with different levels 19 .community. Measurement equivalence is now more than ever a general concern in organizational studies. convergent and discriminant validity of the multi-item construct measures. Procedure of competing modeling used to test the correlation between latent variables. However. higher sense of community and strong sense of alignment between their personal values and the organization’s mission and purpose. Furthermore. if the work more meaningful. competing modeling and higher ordered issues. female employees express higher commitment compared with male employees. highly suggested to be validate for confirmatory factor analysis. sense of community. this study has its limitations. However. Implication The current study expanded previous perspective on the investigation of workplace spirituality and commitment. and value alignment. the measures include dimension formed the construct suggested to be test in advance. other psychological attachment variables can be invited to explain these relationships. Accordingly. Compare to the previous investigations. resolve the issue of discriminant validity and multicolinearity. continuance and affective. it is an open question as to whether these results can be applied on different broader coverage.

796-818 20 .6. of different sexes. (2003b). 237–246 Ashmos.pp. “The measurement and antecedents of affective. “The association between training and organizational commitment among white workers in Malaysia”.4. J. D. and Helmes.pp.(1990). Refferences Acker.63. or workers’ demographic backgrounds. different values and characteristics of workers should become future attractive investigations. Psychological bulletin. pp. (2006).7 No. “Irreconcilable foes? The discourse of spirituality and the discourse of organizational science”. “An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness”. Thompson. Vol. in experimental versus control groups. Ahmad.2. Hence. pp.Vol. 7(3).P. Kluwer. pp.9 No.J. The sub conditions of workplace spirituality on profit versus non-profit organizations.J.J. M.4. (2003a). Vol. International Journal of Training and Development. pp. (2000). Bailyn. M.L.H. “Spirituality at work: a conceptualization and measure”. (2000). MA.D. Gender and Society... Vol.D. continuance and normative commitment to the organization”. 1999) solves the standardization problem by performing a systematic comparison of all pairs of factor loadings across groups. N.J.Z. Breaking the Mold: Redesigning Work for Productive and Satisfying Lives. (1990). and in comparisons between self-and supervisor-ratings of performance. and Abu bakar. K. M.‘‘Gendered organizational logic: policy and practice in men’s and women’s prisons’’. and Meyer. jobs.R. It was strongly predicted to relate to commitment differently.E.P. J. and Meyer. J.Vol. Vol. R. NY Benefiel. Jackson at Seventy. R. Norwell. 103.1-13. Hofstadter’s dimensions.367-77 Britton.10No.134-45.285-314. Journal of Organizational Change Management. from different industries. Assessment.C. different occupation and task. D. ILR Press.16No. Ithaca. pp. Administrative Science Quarterly. (2000). (1997).(2003). “Construct validation in organizational behavior research: the case of organizational commitment”. different country and culture. 411-423 Angle . pp. Organization. pp.383-91 Benefiel. bodies: a theory of gendered organizations’’.166-85 Allen. Journal of Management Inquiry.(1981). Structural equation modeling in practice: A Review and recommended two step approach. private versus public sectors.(Eds).139-58. Gender and Society. R. Arnau. N. L.P. Anderson.C. B. and Perry. examine the equivalence approach is the extended procedure (Cheung. Problems and Solutions in Human Assessment: Honoring Douglas N. (1988)..Vol.Vol. Journal of Occupational Psychology.3.1-18 Allen.‘‘Hierarchies. “Mapping the terrain of spirituality in organizations research”.of academic achievement.11 No. and home versus host country of strategic perspectives.26. Gerbing. Second-order confirmatory factor analysis of the WAIS-III. and Duchon.2.. and D. in Goffin.

International Journal of Human– Computer Studies. The Leadership Quarterly.. Sunil.. 145-167. pp.859–885. J. pp. C. Organizational Commitment. L. J. 926–938. S. Lawrence Earlbaum Associated. “Spiritual leadership and army transformation: theory. C. pp. R. methodological study-A Personal retrospective.A. Freeman. C.. J. (1994). New York. and Smith. Babbar. “A values frame work for measuring the impact of workplace spirituality on organizational performance”. Mehdi.Y. No. 39-50 Fry. 1. and Giacalone. J. Structural Equation Modeling: Basic Concepts. 2002. An Essay on the History and Future of Reliability from the Perspective of Replications. Giacalone.5. Journal of Healthcare Management.14 No. Journal of Educational Measurement.NJ.. 20-52. K. Vol.. 13-26.. pp. Continuance. 633–652 Lai. 2009. Application. The Relationship between Hospital Unit Culture and Nurses’ Quality of Work Life. and Hill. 47(1). and Topolnytsky. L. R. 42(2).1. International Journal Production Economics. 1993. Hamilton. 20(4). Garcia . M. Sharpe. (2006). A large-scale second-order structural equation model of the influence of management participation on organizational planning benefits. P. B. 1991. Lok. D. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol.63 No. Claes.2. S. J. and Crawford. (2004).. L. and Perceived Performance. and Programming.L. 2002.835-62. D. Affective. 61. L. Correlates. (2003).P. Public Administration Review. If You Can Use Them: Flexibility Policies. Kaighobadi. E. 21 . Antecedents of Organizational Commitment and the Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction.Byrne. pp. Journal of Vocational Behavior. Vitucci. 16(8). 1981. R. David F.. Vol. (1998). Herscovitch. (Eds) (2003). 78(4). and Jurkiewicz.. Zammuto. in Brennan. and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-analysis of Antecedents. M. Journal of Management.355-63 Gerbing. 38.693-727.. R.W. Journal of Marketing Research. Fry. C. measurement. A. Inc. Commitment to organizations and occupation: extension and test of a three component conceptualization. Industrial Relations. Mahwah.. and establishing a baseline”. L. 594-613. Leadership and Organization Development Journal.3.. “Workplace spirituality and organizational performance”. No. 2001.16 No. NY Gifford. Allen. Vol. Jurkiewicz.Zamor. Cacioppe. 2003. 64(9).538-551. N.L.. and Cedillo. J. and Consequences. Vol. “Creating spirit at work: re-visioning organization development and leadership–Part I”. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error..48-54.G. pp. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology.129-42. E. J. Xenophon.. 18.W.E. 120. Koufteros.. Larcker. 2001.. Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance.B.49 No. P.M. (2005). Fornell . The Leadership Quarterly. Assessment of employee’s perceptions of service quality and satisfaction with e business. D. “Toward a theory of spiritual leadership”. S. (2003)..6. Meyer.A.Vol. Vol.21 No. A paradigm for examining second-order factor models employing structural equation modeling. 4 Eaton.. (2000). F.J.W.A. Goodman. Meyer. B. Robert L. Stanley.J. Cronbach.

S. Cunha.4.. (1988). 1. 14 pgs Opayemi. The use of LISREL in validating marketing constructs.7 No. J.. Trickett. 23(1). M.. (2003).E.4.4. pp. 2003 The Influence of Corporate Culture and Organizational Commitment on Performance. confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument: replication within an ERP domain. Robert A. Karimi. Czaplewski. (2004). R.J. K.. Iss.12 No.. No. E.3-17. and Geroy. San Francisco. Arme ´nio. and Ferguson. Somers. Records Management Journal. M. 48. Journal of Organizational Change Management. M. Journal of Organizational Change Management. Some theory and applications of confirmatory second-order factor analysis. D.2.. J. T. 1991. Sambasivan.16 No.(2002). Wodd van. Beyond the Three-Component Model of Organizational Commitment. 708-728. & van Trijp. M.1. “Personal attributes and organizational commitment among Nigerian police officers”. 204 Rapoport. A.Milliman. Fletcher. 22 . No.21-31 Solinger. G. W. Omar N. Nelson Oly (2006) Effect of gender on customer loyalty: a relationship marketing approach. Beyond Work-Family Balance: Advancing Gender Equity and Workplace Performance. Jossey-Bass. Fottler. pp. 7083.9 No..Vol. African Journal for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. D. “Spirit and community at Southwest airlines: an investigation of a spiritual values-based model”..3. pp.. “Spirituality and effective leadership in healthcare: is there a combination?”. A. “Workplace spirituality and employee work attitudes: an exploratory empirical assessment”. Vol. pp. and Condemi.. and Johari.K. Roe. Journal of Applied Psychology. “From transactional to transcendental: toward and integrated theory of leadership”. M. and Sodomka. Iss.. pg. International Journal of Research Marketing. CA Rashid. J. 24. (1999). 34(3). Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. Bailyn.. 283-99. L. olffen. (2009). J. T. 595–621 Steenkamp. 51–67 Sanders. 19.E. J. Multivariate Behavioral Research.H. and Pruitt.M. 251-63 Popoola. Journal of Management Development. Journal of Organizational Change Management Vol.D. J. Ferguson. pp. Organizational commitment of records management personnel in Nigerian private universities.. pp.. Bradford. J. B. B. Vol. Marketing Intelligence & Planning..53-75 Rindskopf.J. 3. Sunday O. Frontiers of Health Services Management. 2008.. Wheatley. Rego. J. P. III. 1. Vol 93. 22(8). Decision Sciences. A.. Hopkins. Strack.18 No. Vol.21. (2002). Nelson. G. Z. Vol. Miguel Pinae (2008) Workplace spirituality and organizational commitment: an empirical study. H. Vol.221-33 Ndubisi. Milliman. Rose. (2003).426-47.D. p. 8 (4). Vol. (2003).