Spirituality, Integrity and Counterproductive Work Behaviours among Employees

of Selected Islamic Organisations in Malaysia

Professor Dr Junaidah Hashim
Department of Business Administration,
Kulliyyah of Economics & Management Sciences
INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA
Jalan Gombak, 53100 Kuala Lumpur
MALAYSIA
junaidahh@iium.edu.my
This research examines the mediating effect of integrity on spirituality and
organisation performance. A total of 1203 employees responded to the survey. Measures
used were Human Spirituality Scale (Wheat, 1991), workplace spirituality (Petchsawang
and Duchon, 2009), counterproductive work behaviour (Gruys and Sackett, 2003), and
the Substance, Production loss, and Interpersonal Problem Inventory (SPI). The findings
failed to support the hypothesised model.
Keywords: Spirituality, Integrity, Islam, Counterproductive Work Behaviour

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Background of the Study

Over the last decade, there is a steady increase of interest in spirituality at work
issues among management researchers and practitioners (Giacalone and Jurkiewicz,
2003a; Karakas, 2010). The growing interest in spirituality is evident in corporations
and business world as well. Although the literature and interest on spirituality at work is
growing rapidly; there is confusion around how spirituality influences organisational
performance.
Furthermore, most of the previous studies examined the effects of
spirituality on organisational performance not in term of profitability or productivity
increase; but on some indicators such as spirituality enhances employee well being,
spirituality provides employees a sense of purpose and meaning at work, and spirituality
provides employees a sense of interconnectedness and community; and these in turn
support organisational performance. There are some authors who claimed that there was a
positive and causal relationship between spirituality and productivity (Enander, 2000;
Thompson, 2000), but the validity of those claims were questionable since they were
either theoretical or lacked supporting data (Valasek, 2009).
Practitioners are seeking to understand the topic of spirituality at work and
business leaders in general are desirous to leverage spirituality as a means to promote
ethical compliance and improve workplace behaviours (Smith, 2006). Workplace
behaviours such as counterproductive work behaviour (CWB) have always been an issue
for employers because of its widespread nature (Lanyon and Goodstein, 2004). CWB at
work is clearly a major social and economic issue for both employers and society. The
cost of CWB in terms of dollars and hour lost is virtually incalculable. Personal
attributes such as integrity has always been used to explain the counterproductive work
behaviour. Integrity is the foundation of all true goodness and greatness. Hence, the
1

concept of integrity has arisen often in discussions of spirituality (Arrizza, 2006).

Integrity summons the courage for the spirituality expression at work. Integrity is not
only the realm of ethical conduct but also an individuals sense of wholeness (Watson,
2001).
The objective of this research is to determine if and how spirituality affect
integrity which in turn influences organisation performance. Organisation performance
is measured in terms of the occurrence of CWB. While most employees spend their
working time in ways which benefit the organisation, a substantial portion is involved in
behaviours which are disruptive or damaging to the organisation, including theft,
absenteeism, production slow-downs and sabotage.
This research is significant and unique. Organisational research tends to focus on
the positive-normative behaviour of individuals such as increasing job satisfaction,
organisational commitment, and production levels (Impelman, 2006). The darker side of
organisational behaviour has not received the same attention. Researchers, however, are
beginning to focus on these critical behaviours that leave a profound effect on the
organisation and its individual members. Following recent trends in scientific literature,
this research conceptualises spirituality and integrity as different constructs that measure
different behaviours.
Spirituality has generally been assumed to have an effect on individual behaviour,
but much of the research has failed to define variables in a theoretical context and thus
much of the literature in this area was inconsistent and has merited suggestions that the
relationship between spirituality and anti-social and deviant variables is spurious.
Clearly, a theoretical model must be proposed when studying spirituality and behaviour
outcomes. This will lead to more valid, consistent, and replicable measures of spirituality
that provide a better understanding of the role of spiritual constructs in influencing
individual behaviours. This research is intended, theoretically and quantitatively, to
delineate the social mechanisms leading from spirituality to deviance behaviours,
explaining the relationships between spirituality, integrity and deviance behaviours
among employees.
2.0

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1

Related Theories
Spillover theory (Wilensky, 1960) provides the theoretical foundation for this
study. The spillover theory, as proposed by Wilensky (1960), asserts that individuals
(employees) do not live compartmentalised lives. All beings are whole and integrated,
which implies that attitudes, actions, beliefs, and activities in one domain spill over into
another domain (p. 544). Wilensky (1960) further argued that failure to recognise the
spillover effect would create fragmented individuals, organisations, and societies (pp.
544-545). Furthermore, Bruce and Plocha (1999) stated, The ancient Celts believed that
spirituality is not separated from who one is or what one does (p. 326). Taken together,
Bruce and Plocha (1999) and Wilensky (1960) statements support the idea that an
individuals work and personal lives are naturally connected.
Organisational context is an important element of the present study. Cappelli and
Sherer (1991) noted that context was the surrounding that illuminates a phenomenon.
Johns (2006) depicts context as constraints on or opportunities for behaviour and attitudes
in organisations settings that can serve as a main effect or moderator of organisational
2

behaviour at another level of analysis. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1973, 1977) and
social exchange theory (Gould, 1979; Levinson, 1965) also support the role of context on
individual behaviour. Social learning theory is based upon the proposition that individual
behaviour is learned via a continuous reciprocal interaction with contextual influences.
Social exchange theory describes the reciprocity that occurs between the context and the
individual. The communality between these theories is the dependence on context to
stimulate behavioural action.
2.2

Human Spirituality and Workplace Spirituality

Tepper (2003) defines spirituality as the extent to which an individual is
motivated to find sacred meaning and purpose to his or her existence. Mitroff and
Denton (1999a, p. 83) describes spirituality as "the basic feeling of being connected with
one's complete self, others, and the entire universe. If a single word best captures the
meaning of spirituality and the vital role that it plays in people's lives, that word is
interconnectedness." Spirituality does not necessarily have to be associated with a
specific religion. Irrespective of the tradition or religion one draws upon, spirituality
requires an individual willingness to explore oneself (Collins and Kakabadse, 2006).
Workplace spirituality as defined by Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2003b) is a
framework of organisational values evidenced in the culture that promotes employees
experience of transcendence through the work process, facilitating their sense of being
connected to others in a way that provides feelings of completeness and joy. This view
focuses on organisational aspects and through them seeks to induce employee
experiences of spirituality at work. This approach focuses on several organisational
features such as spiritual values, business plans and goals, and HRM practices that are
supportive of these values. Based on extensive review of workplace spirituality
definition, Petchsawang and Duchon (2009) identified five themes in spirituality at work:
connection, compassion, mindfulness, meaningful work and transcendence.
Spirituality in the workplace may manifest itself in several ways, but at two
different levels: the individual and the organisational. At the first level, the people
involved are spiritual ones who may have had concerns about the adequacy of their
workplace for their spiritual life even before accepting employment. At the second level,
the organisation emphasises spirituality in order to improve productivity. They try to
connect faith and work ethics (Garcia-Zamar, 2003). Human spirituality encompasses
the individual values brought to the workplace (Kolodinsky et al., 2008).
Some researchers argue that spirituality can be used to improve organisational
performance and spirituality research should demonstrate spiritualitys links with
productivity and profitability (Ashmos and Duchon, 2000; Bierly et al., 2000; Delbecq,
1999; Fry, 2005; Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, 2003; Giacalone et al.,
2005; Korac-Kakabadse and Korac-Kakabadse, 1997; Mitroff and Denton, 1999b).
Additional research reveals that organisations that have voluntary spirituality
programmes have had higher profits and success (Dehler and Welsh, 1994; Konz and
Ryan, 1999; Mitroff and Denton, 1999b; Turner, 1999). There is little evidence of an
interaction between personal spiritual values and organisational spiritual values for the
workers consequence examined in their study.

2.3

Spirituality and Integrity

To what extent if any does spirituality influence integrity? How integrity in turn
influences CWB? According to Arrizza (2006) the word integrity includes words such as
honesty, soundness and wholeness. Honesty basically refers to being truthful to ones
self and others about everything including cheating, deceiving, and stealing. Soundness
refers to the rightness or correctness on ones position. Wholeness refers to a sense of
completeness. Arrizza (2006) further defined being spiritual is essentially the same as
being in integrity. In addition, Miles et al. (2005) asserted that spirituality is linked to
good moral habits, virtue, honesty, loyalty, trustworthiness and integrity among its
practitioners.
Bird (2006), argued that certain situation will determine whether an individual is
likely to engage in CWB or act without integrity. For example, an individual might never
consider stealing from a relative or friend, but contemplate theft from the workplace, if
given the right opportunity. Mumford et al. (2001) argued integrity is to be a function of
certain characteristics possessed by an individual. As such, personality traits are also
relevant factors in CWB, and an entire integrity test industry has grown around the idea
that personality tests can predict these behaviours (Fox et al., 2001). Scott (2007), found
the connection between integrity and spirituality in three threads: individual experiences
were tied to general elements of the human condition; a dynamic that encourages the
creation of a unique self, and living out that unique creation with engagement and
acceptance.
2.4

Counterproductive Work Behaviour (CWB)

To what extent spirituality influence CWB? The literature search did not give
much input on CWB per se. However, there is growing evidence in spirituality research
that workplace spirituality programmes result in positive individual level outcomes for
employees such as increased joy, serenity, job satisfaction, and commitment (Fry, 2003,
2005; Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, 2003b; Krishnakumar and Neck, 2002; Paloutzian et al.,
2003; Reave, 2005). There is also evidence that these programmes improve
organisational productivity and reduce absenteeism and turnover (Fry, 2003, 2005;
Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, 2003b). Interestingly, Han et al. (2010) examined the effects
of spiritual training programme on counterproductive work behaviour in China and they
found that the programme has encouraged honest, warm and harmonious relationships in
the workplace.
There has been extensive research on religiosity and crime and drug/alcohol
abuse; however, the assumption that religiosity and spirituality are protective factors
against deviant behaviour has been criticised as spurious and requires empirical
validation (Allen, 2009). Robert and Jarrett (2011) argued that god-fearing, church-going
people are not necessarily make better employees. He further argued that religious or
spiritual people are not necessarily more honest and responsible. In fact, he found that
organisational and interpersonal deviance in the workplace correlate with religiosity.
Although an individuals spirituality has important impacts on many attitudes and
behaviours, much empirical research in the psychology and sociology of religion also
indicates that religiosity and spirituality does not automatically lead to ethical behaviours
(Weaver and Agle, 2002).
Fox et al. (2001) defined CWB as behaviour that is intended to have a detrimental
effect on organisations and their members. Gruys and Sackett (2003) added that these
behaviours are viewed by organisation as contrary to its legitimate interests. It can
4

include overt acts such as aggression and theft or more passive acts, such as purposely
failing to follow instructions or doing work incorrectly. CWB has been conceptualized in
a number of ways, including organisational aggression (Neuman and Baron, 1998; Fox
and Spector, 1999), antisocial behaviour (Giacalone and Greenberg, 1997), delinquency
(Hogan and Hogan, 1989), deviance (Hollinger, 1986; Robinson and Bennett, 1995),
retaliation (Skarlicki and Folger, 1997), revenge (Bies, Tripp, and Kramer, 1997), and
mobbing/bullying (Knorz and Zapf, 1996). A more recent study by Gruys and Sackett
(2003) investigated a broader CWB by examining eleven categories of CWB: theft and
related behaviour; destruction of property; misuse of information; misuse of time and
resources; unsafe behaviour; poor attendance; poor quality work; alcohol use; drug use;
inappropriate verbal actions; and inappropriate physical actions.
Counterproductive behaviour at work is clearly a major social and economic issue
for both employers and society. The problem of employee theft of merchandise
(sometimes termed shrinkage) and cash is an enormous one. Estimates of the total annual
cost of such losses range from $40 billion to $120 billion (Buss, 1993; Camera and
Schneider, 1994). Further, the annual cost of workplace deviance such as violence is
estimated at over $4 billion (Bensimon, 1994), and the overall cost of a wide range of
workplace deviance ranges from $6 billion to $120 billion annually. Regardless of how
seriously one takes these estimates, the magnitude of the problem should be self-evident.
The common theme is that these behaviours are harmful to the organisation by directly
affecting its functioning or property, or by hurting employees in a way that will reduce
their effectiveness. A number of researchers (Fox and Spector, 1999; Robinson and
Bennett, 1995) have found evidence that perceptions of CWBs and/or relations of CWBs
to individual and organisational variables allow us to distinguish two categories of
behaviours: those targeting the organisation and those targeting other persons in the
organisation.
The foregoing discussion provides a framework for understanding the ways in
which spirituality can influence integrity and good behaviours. Thus the following
hypotheses are developed:
H1: There is a relationship between human spirituality and integrity.
H2: Individuals integrity influences counterproductive work behaviour.
H3: There is a relationship between workplace spirituality and integrity.
H4: There is a relationship between integrity and counterproductive work behaviour.
H5: There is an interactive effect of human spirituality and workplace spirituality on
integrity.

Human spirituality
Integrity

Counterproductive Work
Behaviours

Workplace spirituality

Fig. 1: Conceptual Framework of the Study

3.0

METHODOLOGY

3.1

Sampling Procedures
Several prominent Islamic organisations in Malaysia were selected for this
research. These organisations were selected because they deal with either Islamic
products or services and employ majority of Muslim employees. In addition the
organisations practice values management styles and emphasise on religion requirement.
In total, there are more than 100,000 employees in these organisations.
Stratified random sampling was employed where employees were selected from
the management category as well as from supporting staff category who are proficient in
English. This is because the survey was prepared in English although translation in
Bahasa Malaysia was also provided in the survey form. To achieve 99 per cent
confidence level, the sample size needed is 1200 in total.
3.3

Measurement
The questionnaire developed for this study comprises 5 parts. Part A surveyed the
individual employees spirituality level. Individual spirituality was measured using
Human Spirituality Scale (HSS) (Wheat, 1991), a measure developed to assess
substantive individual attributes constituting one spiritual values. Previous work
(Belaire and Young, 2000; Kolodinsky et al., 2007) showed that this measure was
successful in assessing an individuals spirituality. The reliability reported by Wheat
(1991) was = 0.89. The HSS is a 21-item instrument with Likert-type scaling, ranging
from 1 (never) to 5 (constantly). For some items, the scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Meanwhile, Part B asked about workplace spirituality.
Workplace spirituality was measured by adopting a scale from Petchsawang and Duchon
(2009). The scale has 37 items which cover five factor definition of spirituality in the
workplace in Asian context: (a) connection, (b) compassion, (c) mindfulness, (d)
meaningful work, and (e) transcendence. The items used a five-point Likert scale where 1
= strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.
Part C of the questionnaire asked about counterproductive work behaviour of the
employees. The measures were adapted from dimensionality of counterproductive work
behaviour by Gruys and Sackett (2003). There are 66 behaviours included in the study.
The behaviours list was then sorted into 10 separate categories of CWB based on the
similarity of content. Ten classifications of behaviour were asked to the employees to rate
themselves whether they would engage in the behaviour. The classifications are (a) theft
and related behaviour, (b) destruction of property, (c) misuse of information, (d) misuse
of time resources, (e) unsafe behaviour, (f) poor attendance, (g) poor quality work, (h)
drug use, (i) inappropriate verbal actions, (j) inappropriate physical actions. The items on
alcohol use were omitted to suit the nature of the sample. Participants were asked to rate
whether they would engage in each of the counterproductive behaviours on fivepoint
scale with 1 being anchored with No matter what the circumstances, I would not engage
in the behaviour and 5 being anchored with In a wide variety of circumstances, I would
engage in the behaviour. Participants were asked to respond according to the
assumption that they will have the opportunity in their workplace to engage in all of the
listed behaviours.
Meanwhile, for Part D, the employees integrity was tested using the Substance,
Production loss, and Interpersonal Problem Inventory (SPI). It is a measure of overt
integrity. The measure includes 39 questions regarding an individuals level of integrity
6

and the likelihood of engaging in various counterproductive behaviours. The measure

used a five-point Likert scale. The reliability of the SPI Inventory has also been assessed
and found to be a highly reliable instrument of measurement (Bird, 2006). Lastly, Part E
surveyed the employees demographic background such as gender, level of education,
age, ethnic group, duration of working in the company, staff category, religion, and
previous attendance in any religious school.
3.4

Reliability Analysis
Before the actual data was collected a pilot test was carried out. This is to see the
reliability of questionnaire. Reliability shows the accuracy or precision of the measuring
instrument, thus a pilot test seeks to answer whether the questionnaire consistently
measure whatever it measures. In this study, the pilot test was conducted by collecting
data of 40 respondents of which were not included in the sample. All the items in the
measurement were found reliable with Cronbach Coefficient ranging from 0.705-0.988.
Table 1 states the standardised Cronbach Coefficient values for the pilot test and the
actual data. All variables showed reliable results except one of the items in workplace
spirituality which is compassion that has been deleted from the actual analysis because its
Cronbach Coefficient was below 0.7 and it was not reliable to be included in the analysis.
Table 1: Pilot Test Reliability Statistics of Research Variables
Variables
Pilot (n = 40)
Actual (n = 1203)
Human spirituality
0.931
0.844
Workplace spirituality
0.943
0.871
(a) connection
0.910
0.815
(b) mindfulness
0.871
0.927
(c) meaningful work
0.890
0.705
(d) transcendence
0.894
0.777
Counter-productive work behaviour
0.983
0.988
(a) theft and related behaviour
0.934
0.949
(b) destruction of property
0.977
0.964
(c) misuse of information
0.905
0.942
(d) misuse of time resources
0.933
0.948
(e) unsafe behaviour
0.864
0.939
(f) poor attendance
0.920
0.923
(g) alcohol use
0.987
0.938
(h) drug use
0.890
0.956
(i) inappropriate verbal actions
0.953
0.939
(j) Inappropriate physical actions
0.975
0.966
Integrity
0.927
0.958

The process of analysing the variables in the questionnaire required all negative
statements to be recoded. Moreover, all statements were grouped according to their
variables and they were computed into total scores to find the mean scores of those
variables. For example, 36 statements from workplace spirituality were grouped into five
variables, which are connection, compassion, mindfulness, meaningful work, and
transcendence. These five variables were then computed as total scores for workplace
spirituality. Descriptive statistics, one sample test and correlation were performed.

4.0

FINDINGS

Respondents Background
The total number of respondents from 13 organisations surveyed for this study
was 1203 employees who came from various backgrounds. Table 2 shows the
demographic background of the respondents. The study was answered by females with
49.1 percent, another 43.9 percent was males, and the rest 7 percent of the respondents
did not indicate their genders. The respondents were from Malaysia which the ethnic
group comprises of Malay (86.4 percent), Chinese (3.1 percent), Indian (0.9 percent), and
others (1.1 percent). In term of duration of working experience, 31.2 percent of the
respondents had worked in the organisations for less than three years, 12 percent was
between four to five years, 16.9 percent was between six to 10 years, 11.5 percent was
between 11 to 15 years, 5.8 percent was between 16 to 20 years, 7.3 was between 21 to
30 years, and 0.8 percent worked there more than 30 years. Moreover, the supporting
staff category employees had mostly answered the questionnaire with 53.0 percent, 36.7
percent of the employees were from management category, and the rest 9.4 percent did
not indicate their staff category. The respondents were also asked whether they have
attended any religious school before and 59.9 percent said yes, 27.5 said no, and another
12.6 percent did not specify the answer.
4.1

Table 2: Respondents Demographic Background

Variables
Frequency
Gender:
Female
591
Male
528
Missing value(s)
84
Level of education:
Some high school or less
55
High school
311
Diploma
287
Degree
399
Professional degree
61
Missing value(s)
90
Age:
Up to 30 years old
423
31 to 40 years old
405
41 to 50 years old
195
51 and above
28
Missing value(s)
152
Ethnic group:
Malay
1039
Chinese
37
Indian
11
Other(s)
13
Missing value(s)
103
Religion:
Muslim
1059
Non-Muslims
55
Missing value(s)
89
Working experience in the company:
Less than or equal to 3 years
375
4 to 5 years
144
6 to 10 years
203
11 to 15 years
138
16 to 20 years
70

Percent
49.1
43.9
7.0
4.6
25.9
23.9
33.2
5.1
7.5
35.2
33.7
16.2
2.3
12.6
84.4
3.1
0.9
1.1
8.6
88.0
4.6
7.4
31.2
12.0
16.9
11.5
5.8

21 to 30 years
More than 30 years
Missing value(s)
Job function:
Management category
Supporting staff category
Missing value(s)
Attendance in any religious school before:
Yes
No
Missing value(s)

88
10
175

7.3
0.8
14.5

441
649
113

36.7
53.9
9.4

721
331
151

59.9
27.5
12.6

4.2

Spirituality, Integrity, and CWB

As shown in Table 3, the respondents demonstrated a moderate mean scores of
human spirituality (Mean = 3.8892), slightly lower mean score of workplace spirituality
(Mean 3.5269), and a moderate mean score of integrity (Mean = 3.7426), and quite low
mean scores of CWB (Mean = 1.3044). Further analysis of one sample t-test was done to
test these mean scores against the expected mean (test value of 4) for human spirituality,
workplace spirituality and integrity. For CWB, since the items are negative statements, it
used a test value of 2. The mean scores of human spirituality was lower than the
expected mean (t = -8.433; df = 1200; p = 0.000). Similarly for workplace spirituality,
the mean scores was very much lower than expected (t = -30.295; df = 1195; p = 0.000).
For integrity, the difference in mean score was lower as well (t = -9.732; df = 1200; p =
0.000). For CWB, the respondents also demonstrated lower mean scores than expected (t
= -38.865; df = 1195; p = 0.000).
Table 3: Mean Scores and One-Sample t-test of the Variables
Variables
Mean
Std. Dev.
t-value
df
p-value
Human spirituality
3.889
0.455
-8.433
1200
0.000*
Workplace spirituality
3.527
0.540
-30.295
1195
0.000*
(a) connection
3.809
0.710
-9.314
1202
0.000*
(b) mindfulness
2.729
1.001
-43.926
1197
0.000*
(c) meaningful work
3.776
0.630
-12.322
1200
0.000*
(d) transcendence
3.801
0.657
-10.513
1202
0.000*
CWB
1.304
0.619
-38.865
1195
0.000*
(a) theft and related behaviour
1.371
0.736
-29.634
1201
0.000*
(b) destruction of property
1.270
0.744
-34.048
1202
0.000*
(c) misuse of information
1.337
0.765
-30.096
1202
0.000*
(d) misuse of time resources
1.492
0.718
-24.559
1202
0.000*
(e) unsafe behaviour
1.365
0.766
-28.727
1202
0.000*
(f) poor attendance
1.350
0.748
-30.329
1201
0.000*
(g) alcohol use
1.208
0.668
-41.086
1201
0.000*
(h) drug use
1.179
0.605
-47.060
1200
0.000*
(i) inappropriate verbal actions
1.296
0.656
-37.228
1199
0.000*
(j) Inappropriate physical actions
1.180
0.590
-48.231
1202
0.000*
Integrity
3.743
0.917
-9.732
1200
0.000*
(Notes: *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed))
(Notes 1: Scale for workplace spirituality; 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree); test value=4
(Notes 2: Scale for CWB; 1 = No matter what the circumstances, I would not engage in the behaviour
and 5 = In a wide variety of circumstances, I would engage in the behaviour.); test value=2

Meanwhile, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7 show the correlation

coefficient scores of the variables. Table 5 shows that human spirituality and workplace
spirituality have moderate positive and significant relationship (r = 0.630, p = 0.000).
This means that employees who are spiritual do exercise workplace spirituality. Further
9

in the table it shows the details relationship of human spirituality with each of workplace
spirituality dimensions.
Table 4: Mean, Standard Deviation, and Correlation Analysis of Human Spirituality and Workplace
Spirituality Variables
Mean
Std.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Variables
Dev.
1. Human spirituality
3.889
0.455
2. Workplace spirituality
3.527
0.540
0.630**
3. Connection
3.809
0.710
0.635**
4. Mindfulness
2.729
1.001
0.335**
5. Meaningful work
3.776
0.630
0.428**
6. Transcendence
3.801
0.657
0.470**
Notes: **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

4.3

Hypothesis Testing
Table 5 show that human spirituality has negligible relationship with CWB (r =
0.049; p = 0.091). Similarly, the relationship between human spirituality and integrity is
negligible and is not statistically significant (r = -0.041, p = 0.154). For workplace
spirituality, it has a very low positive relationship with CWB (r = 0.238, p = 0.000) and it
is significant. However, workplace spirituality has a very low negative and significant
relationship with integrity (r = -0.113, p = 0.000). Finally, the relationship between
integrity and CWB is very low and it is negative (r = -0.176, p = 0.000). The results in
Table 6 further showed the relationship of integrity with each dimension of workplace
spirituality.
Table 5: Mean, Standard Deviation, and
Correlation Analysis of Human Spirituality and Integrity Variables
Mean
Std.
1
2
3
Variables
Dev.
1. Human spirituality
3.889
0.455
2.Workplace spirituality
3.527
0.540
0.630**
3. CWB
1.304
0.619
0.049
0.238**
4. Integrity
3.743
0.917
-0.041**
-0.113**
-0.176**
Notes: **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 6: Mean, Standard Deviation, and Correlation Analysis of Workplace Spirituality and
Integrity Variables
Mean
Std. Dev.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Variables
1. Integrity
3.743
0.917
2. Workplace
3.527
0.540
-0.113**
spirituality
3. Connection
3.809
0.710
-0.059*
4. Mindfulness
2.729
1.001
-0.388**
5. Meaningful work
3.776
0.630
0.175**
6. Transcendence
3.801
0.657
0.107**
Notes: **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

In order to test whether human spirituality and workplace spirituality are related
to counterproductive work behaviour, mediated by integrity variable, structural equation
modelling analysis approach for data analysis and evaluation of the fit of the
hypothesised measurement was applied. To test multiple fit indices, fit statistics such as
overall model chi-square measure (X), comparative fit index (CFI), and root-mean10

square error of approximation (RMSEA) were utilised. According to Hu and Bentler

(1999), to test the parsimony adjusted fit indices for the overall model fit, CFI must be
more than or equal to 0.96 and RMSEA must be less than or equal to 0.06. Moreover, pvalue of the chi-square must also be higher than 0.05 to achieve a fit model.
Before conducting the analysis of structural equation modelling, factor analysis
had to be conducted first to group the questionnaires statements so that they accurately
measure the variables. Figure 2 shows the full diagram of the analysis after factor
analysis was conducted. As a result of factor analysis, the items in workplace spirituality
and counterproductive work behaviour variables remained unchanged, whereas for
human spirituality, it was divided into three items; Human1, Human2, and Human3. For
integrity variable, the new items constructed are Integrity1, Integrity2, Integrity3,
Integrity4, and Integrity5.
Table 7 shows the results of the model. The overall results indicate that the
hypothesised model did not achieve a fit model (p-value = 0.000; CFI = 0.731; RMSEA =
0.165), thus the role of integrity as a mediator, linking human spirituality and workplace
spirituality with counterproductive work behaviour is not supported. This is according to
the results that demonstrate the p-value to be less than 0.000, CFI to be less than or equal
to 0.96 and RMSEA to be more than or equal to 0.06.
Table 7: Results of Structural Equation Modelling
Mediating Model

X
6914.734

df
205

p-value
0.000

CFI
0.731

RMSEA
0.165

Fig. 2: Path Analysis Illustrating the Relationship among Human Spirituality,

Workplace Spirituality, Integrity, and Counter-productive Work Behaviour

11

5.0

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This study aims to find out the individual and workplace spirituality of employees
in Islamic organisations in Malaysia. Further, it aims to determine if and how spirituality
affect integrity which in turn influences organisation performance in term on the
occurrence of counterproductive work behaviour.
The results showed that the
employees have moderate level of individual spirituality, workplace spirituality and
integrity.
The results further show that the employees would not engage in
counterproductive work behaviour. In addition, the current findings suggested that
individual spirituality has negligible relationship with CWB and also with integrity.
While the relationship between workplace spirituality and CWB is very low and
significant. However, workplace spirituality has a very low negative and significant
relationship with integrity. The findings further revealed that the relationship between
integrity and CWB is very low and it is negative.
It is interesting to note that the relationship analysis showed negligible
relationship and the overall results indicate that the hypothesised model did not achieve a
fit model (p-value = 0.000; CFI = 0.731; RMSEA = 0.165), thus the role of integrity as a
mediator, linking human spirituality and workplace spirituality with counterproductive
work behaviour is not supported. The present study seems in line with Kolodinsky et al.
(2008). In their study, Kolodinsky et al. (2008), found there was little evidence of an
interaction between personal spiritual values and organisational spiritual values for the
worker consequences they examined such as job involvement, organisational
identification, and rewards satisfaction. In addition, Weaver and Agle (2002) commented
that although an individuals spirituality has important impacts on many attitudes and
behaviours, much empirical research in the psychology and sociology of religion also
indicates that religiosity and spirituality does not automatically lead to ethical behaviours.
Moreover, Robert and Jarrett (2011) argued that is not necessary for god-fearing, churchgoing people make better employees. He further argued that it is not necessary that the
religious or spiritual more honest and responsible? In fact, he found that organisational
and interpersonal deviance in the workplace correlate with religiosity.
The findings of the present study have important implications. The findings
suggest that employees of Islamic organisations in Malaysia are spiritual and integrity.
However, their spirituality scores are not as high as expected by the researcher. As
argued by Cappelli and Sherer (1991), context is the surrounding that illuminates a
phenomenon. As an organisation that deals with and practices Islamic values
management, it expects its employees to demonstrate high scores of spirituality and
integrity. The perception that all employees of Islamic organisations are spiritual and
integrity, however, is not necessarily true in reality. Although, the board of directors of
all these organisations are Muslims, the workplace spirituality seems disappointing. As
pointed by Geh and Tan (2009), the most apparent implication of workplace spirituality is
to do with leadership. Cacioppe (2000) argues that leaders have a central role in the
evolution of integrating spirituality at work and instilling a sense of the spiritual realm at
the individual, team, and organisational level. This study is the first of its kind as other
previous have studied spirituality (Kolodinsky, 2008) but not on Muslim sample. It
definitely extends the existing body of knowledge. It provides evidence that spirituality
does not confined to particular religion and negative work behaviours are not necessarily
associated with either spirituality or integrity.

12

The perception that all employees of Islamic organisations are spiritual and
integrity, however, is not necessarily true in reality. They admitted that they would still
engage in CWB, but very minimum. This study is the first of its kind as previous studies
have studied spirituality (Kolodinsky, 2008) but not on Muslim sample. It definitely
extends the existing body of knowledge. It provides evidence that spirituality does not
confined to particular religion and negative work behaviours are slightly associated with
workplace spirituality. As pointed by Geh and Tan (2009), the most apparent implication
of workplace spirituality is to do with leadership. Cacioppe (2000) argued that leaders
have a central role in the evolution of integrating spirituality at work and instilling a
sense of the spiritual realm at the individual, team, and organisational level.
For the organisation that are keen to incorporate spirituality into all aspects of
work, explicit efforts must be made to structure the work day and office environment to
offer opportunities for employees to find a place of reflection and silence, both
individually and collectively. Human resource policies can also be adjusted to be made
more accommodating in terms of allowing employees to take contemplative breaks
during the day. Other effort is by encouraging employees to attend relevant spiritual talks
by dishing out appropriate fringe benefits such as time off work or additional leave days.
Human spirituality is revered, respected, and accepted as an element of life
inside, as well as outside of work. This manifests through an integrity work behaviour,
but not necessarily contributes to organisational performance. There is little doubt that it
is difficult to change people's character in terms of personality traits such as spirituality
and belief. It is not sufficient for employers to point out the benefits of behavioural
change. Some employees may not be willing to do the hard work required for integrity
change. Their individual greed and flawed characters might dispose them to unethical
behaviour. But organisational culture may also play a role. If the opportunity presents
itself and the risk of not getting caught is low, if the organisation does not foster an
integrity climate, then chances are fairly good that CWB will take place. This
organisational explanation of governmental mischief, then, sees such conduct as less the
function of individual, psychological disposition and more the result of institutional
dysfunction. Therefore, the organisation should conduct an integrity audit to redesign
work settings, create proper incentive systems, and modify patterns of interaction among
employees. Such an audit would identify sensitive situations that may tempt an individual
to act unethically.
Spiritual needs are fulfilled by a recognition and acceptance of individual
responsibility for the common good, by understanding the interconnectedness of all life,
and by serving humanity and the planet. Therefore, when one speaks about bringing
spirituality into the workplace, he or she is talking about changing organisational culture
by transforming leadership and employees so that humanistic practices and policies
become an integral part of an organisation's day-to-day function. There has been ample
empirical evidence that spirituality in the workplace creates a new organisational culture
in which employees feel happier and perform better. Employees also may feel that
belonging to a work community, which is an important aspect of spirituality, will help
them when things get rough in the future. Furthermore, a culture of sharing and caring
eventually will reach all of the organisation's stakeholders: suppliers, customers, and
shareholders.

13

Limitations of this study include probable loss of meaning through interpretation

and translation. In addition, many of the respondents commented the survey was too long
and took a lot of their time. Thus they may have not actually responded to the survey
properly. For future research, it would be interesting to examine other moderating effects
of employees personality such personal values and religiosity on spirituality with other
organisational outcomes such as with employees commitment and performance.
Knowing these moderators is necessary for understanding how and why spirituality is
important.
6. REFERENCES
Allen, T. M. (2009), Religiosity, Spirituality, and Substance Abuse, Master of Science
Thesis, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Ashmos, D. P. and Duchon, D. (2000), Spirituality at work: a conceptualization and
measure, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 134145.
Arrizza,

N.

(2006),

Integrity

and

core

human

values,

available

at:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Integrity-and-Core-Human-Values&id=3124867

Belaire, C. and Young, J. S. (2000), Influences of spirituality on counselor selection,

Counseling and Values, Vol. 44, pp. 189197.
Bandura, A. (1973), Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey.
Bandura, A. (1977), Social Learning Theory, General Learning Press, New York.
Bensimon, H. F. (1994), Crisis and disaster management: violations in the workplace,
Training and Development, Vol. 28, pp. 2732.
Bierly, P., Kessler, E. and Christensen, E. (2000), Organizational learning, knowledge
and wisdom, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vo. 13 No. 6,
pp.595618.
Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M. and Kramer, R. M. (1997), At the breaking point: cognitive and
social dynamics of revenge in organizations, In R. A. Giacalone and J. Greenberg
(Eds.), Antisocial Behavior in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1836.
Bird, K. (2006), Integrity in the workplace: an analysis of personality, integrity, and
occupation, Master of Science Thesis, California State University.
Bruce, W. and Plocha, E. F. (1999), Reflections on maintaining spirituality in
government workplace: What it means and how to do it, International Journal of
Organization Theory & Behavior, Vol. 2 No. (3/4), pp. 325-347. available at
http://pracademics.com/toc-ijotb.html#v2_3-4
Buss, D. (1993), Ways to curtail employee theft, Nations Business, 3638.

14

Cacioppe, R. (2000), Creating spirit at work: re-visioning organization development and

leadership part I, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 21
No. 1, pp. 4854.
Camera, W. and Schneider, D. L. (1994), Integrity tests: facts and unresolved issues,
American Psychologist, Vol. 49, 112119.
Capelli, P. and Sherer, P. D. (1991), The missing role of context in OB: The need for a
meso-level approach, In Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT. pp. 55-110.
Chan, K. W. and Wyatt, T. A. (2007), Quality of work life: a study of employees in
Shanghai, China, Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 501-517.
doi:10.1080/13602380701250681.
Collins, P. and Kakabadse, N. K. (2006), Perils of religion: need for spirituality in the
public sphere, Public Administration and Development, Vol. 26, 109121.
Dehler, G. E. and Welsh, M. A. (1994), Spirituality and organizational transformation,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 1726.
Delbecq, A. (1999), Christian spirituality and contemporary business leadership,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 345349.
Dent, E. B., Higgins, M. E. and Wharff, D. M. (2005), Spirituality and leadership: an
empirical review of definitions, distinctions, and embedded assumptions,
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 625653.
Enander, J. O. (2000), Prayer groups on company time, Industrial Distribution, Vol. 89
No. 2, p.78.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Beliefs, Attitudes, Intention, Behavior. AddisonWesley, Reading, MA.
Fornaciari, C., Dean, K. L. and McGee, J. J. (2003), Research in spirituality, religion,
and work: walking the line between relevance and legitimacy, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 378395.
Fox, S. and Spector, P. E. (1999), A model of work frustration-aggression, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 915931.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E. and Miles, D. (2001), Counterproductive work behavior (CWB)
in response to job stressors and organizational justice: some mediator and
moderator tests for autonomy and emotions, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol.
59,
pp.
291309.
doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803, available online at
http://www.idealibrary.com on.
Fry, L. W. (2003), Toward a theory of spiritual leadership, Leadership Quarterly, Vol.
14 No. 6, pp. 693727.

15

Fry, L. W. (2005), Toward a theory of ethical and spiritual well-being, and corporate
social responsibility through spiritual leadership, in R. Giacalone, C. Jurkiewicz
and C. Dunn (eds.), Positive Psychology in Business Ethics and Corporate
Responsibility, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, pp. 4783.
Garcia-Zamor, Jean-Claude (2003), Workplace spirituality and organizational
performance, Public Administration Review, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 355363.
Geh, E. and Tan, G. (2009), Spirituality at work in a changing world: managerial and
research implications, Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion. Vol. 6 No.
4, pp. 287300 DOI: 10.1080/14766080903290093
Giacalone, R. A., and Carol L. Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003a), Right from wrong: the
influence of spirituality on perceptions of unethical business practices, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 8597.
Giacalone, R. A. and Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003b), Toward a science of workplace
spirituality, in R. A. Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, C. L. (eds.), Handbook of
Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance, M.E. Sharpe Publishers,
Armonk, NY, pp. 328.
Giacalone, R. A., Jurkiewicz, C. L. and Fry, L. W. (2005), From advocacy to science:
the next steps in workplace spirituality research, Handbook of Psychology and
Religion, Sage Publication, Newbury Park, CA.
Giacalone, R. A. and Greenberg, J. (Eds.). (1997), Antisocial Behavior in Organizations.
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Gibbons, P. (2000), Spirituality at work: definitions, measures, assumptions, and
validity claims, in J. Biberman and M. Whitty (eds.), Work and Spirit: A Reader of
New Spiritual Paradigms for Organizations, University of Scranton Press,
Scranton, PA, pp. 111131.
Gould, S. (1979), An equity-exchange model of organizational involvement, Academy
of
Management Review, Vol. 4, pp. 53-62.
Gruys, M. L. and Sackett, P. L. (2003), Investigating the dimensionality of
counterproductive work behaviour, International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 30-42.
Han, Y., Lu, X. and Li, Z. (2010), In search of excellence: spiritual training program and
junior managers' counterproductive work behavior in China: Guangxi State Farm
Group grows moral managers of the future - course seeks to combat
"counterproductive" work behaviour, Human Resource Management International
Digest, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 10-12.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternations, Structural Equation
Modeling, Vol. 6, 155.

16

Hogan, J. and Hogan, R. (1989), How to measure employee reliability, Journal of

Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 273279.
Hollinger, R. C. (1986), Acts against the workplace: social bonding and employee
deviance. Deviant Behavior, Vol. 7, pp. 5375.
Impelman, K. (2006), Predicting Counter-Productive Workplace Behavior: Item Level
Analysis of An Integrity Test, Master of Science Thesis, University of North
Texas, August 2006.
Johns, G. (2006), The essential impact of context on organizational behaviour,
Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 31No. 2, pp. 386-408.
Karakas, F. (2010), Spirituality and performance in organizations: a literature review,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 94, pp. 89106, DOI 10.1007/s10551-009-0251-5
Kolodinsky, R. W, Giacalone, R. A. and Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2008), Workplace values
and outcomes: exploring personal, organizational, and interactive workplace
spirituality, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 81, pp. 465480.
Konz, G. N. P. and Ryan, F. X. (1999), Maintaining an organizational spirituality: no
easy task, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12, pp. 200-210.
Knorz, C. and Zapf, D. (1996), Mobbing - an extreme form of social stressors in the
workplace, in Einarsen, S. Zapf, D. And Cooper, L. (eds) Developments in Theory,
Research, and Practice, Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL. p. 198.
Korac-Kakabadse, A. and Korac-Kakabadse, N. (1997), Best Practice in the Australian
Public Service (APS): an examination of discretionary leadership, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 187193.
Krishnakumar, S. and Neck, C. P. (2002), The what, why and how of
spirituality in the workplace, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 153164.
Lanyon, R. I. and Goodstein, L. D. (2004), Validity and reliability of a pre-employment
screening test: the counterproductive behavior index (CBI), Journal of Business
and Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 4, Summer, pp. 533-553.
Levinson, H. (1965), Reciprocation: the relationship between man and organization,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 9, pp. 370-390.
Lips-Wiersma, M. (2003), Making conscious choices in doing research on workplace
spirituality, Journal of Organisational Change Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp.
406425.
Luther, N. J. (2000), Understanding workplace deviance: an application of primary
socialization theory, Ph.D dissertation. Colorado State University.

17

Marcus, B. and Schuler, H. (2004), Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work:

a general perspective, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89, pp. 647660.
Marques, J., Dhiman, S. and King, R. (2005), Spirituality in the workplace: developing
an integral model and a comprehensive definition, Journal of American Academy
of
Business,
Vol.
7
No.
1,
pp.
81-91.
Retrieved
from
http://www.jaabc.com/journal.htm
McConkie, M. L. (2008), Spirituality and the public sector: an introduction,
International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 337-341.
doi:10.1080/01900690701590736
Miles, A. K., Sledge, S. and Coppage, S. (2005), Linking spirituality to workplace
performance: a qualitative study of the Brazilian Candomble, Academy of
Management Best Conference Paper, 2005 MSR: C1
Mitroff, I. and Denton, E. (1999a), A study of spirituality in the workplace, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 8392.
Mitroff, I. and Denton, E. (1999b), A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America: A Hard Look
at Spirituality, Religion, and Values in the Workplace. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
CA.
Mumford, M., Connelly, M., Helton, W., Strange, J. M., and Osburn, H. (2002), On the
construct validity of integrity tests: individuals and situational factors as predictors
of test performance, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 9, pp.
240-257.
Neuman, J. H. and Baron, R. A. (1998), Workplace violence and workplace aggression:
evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets,
Journal of Managements, Vol. 24, 391419.
Paloutzian, R. F., Emmons, R. A. and Keortge, S. G. (2003), Spiritual well-being,
spiritual intelligence, and healthy workplace policy, in R. A. Giacolone and C. L.
Jurkiewicz (eds.), Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational
Performance, M.E. Sharpe, New York, pp. 123137.
Petchsawang, P. and Duchon, D. (2009), Measuring workplace spirituality in an Asian
context, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 12 No. 4, September,
pp. 459468.
Reave, L. (2005), Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 655687. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07.003.
Robert, S. and Jarrett, T.(2011), Are spiritual people really less evil? A study exploring
the influence of spirituality on deviance in the workplace, available at
http://midwestacademy.org/Proceedings/2011/OB-ROBERTS_JARRETT-1320.pdf

18

Robinson, S. L. and Bennett, R. J. (1995), A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: a

multidimensional scaling study, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp.
555572.
Scott, D. J. (2007), Integrity and spirituality: a phenomenological examination of elders'
experiences, Ph.D Dissertation, Loyola College in Maryland, 3274284.
Skarlicki, D. P. and Folger, R. (1997), Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of
distributive, procedural, and interactional justice, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 82, pp. 434-443.
Smith, N. (2006). Workplace Spirituality, Axial Age Publishing, Peabody, MA.
Tepper, B. J. (2003), Organizational citizenship behavior and the spiritual employee, In
Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance, ed. R.A.
Giacalone and C.L. Jurkiewicz, M.E. Sharpe Armonk, NY, pp. 181190.
Thompson, W. D. (2000), Can you train people to be spiritual?, Training and
Development, Vol. 54 No. 12, pp. 1819.
Turner, J. (1999), Spirituality in the workplace, CA Magazine, Vol. 132 No. 10, pp. 4142.
Valasek, A. J. (2009), Examining the relationship of spirituality and religiosity to
individual productivity in the United States, Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral
University, 2009). Dissertation Abstract International, 177 pages; AAT 3353667.
(UMI No. 3353667).
Vardi, Y. and Weitz, E. (2004), Misbehavior in Organizations: Theory, Research, and
Management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ.
Watson, C. (2001), The search for soul in the workplace, Master of Arts Thesis, Royal
Roads University.
Weaver, G. R. and Agle, B. R. (2002), Religiosity and ethical behavior in organizations:
a symbolic interactionist perspective, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27
No. 1, pp. 7798.
Wheat, L. W. (1991), Development of a scale for the measurement of human
spirituality, Dissertation Abstracts International, 5209A, 3230.
Wilensky, H. L. (1960), Work, careers, and social integration, International Social
Science
Journal,
pp.
543-560.
available
at
http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0020-8701&site=1

19