THE MEDIATING ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: A STUDY OF
WORKPLACE SPIRITUALITY AND EMPLOYEE RETENTION IN INDIAN INDUSTRIES
Lalatendu Kesari Jena, PhD Sajeet Pradhan, PhD
The issue of increasing retention and reducing turnover is of paramount importance in organizational life.Workplace spiritualitymay act as a potential solution for employee attraction and retention mechanisms. To investigate this question, the researchers collected data from 761 executives working with various public- and private-sector industries across India. The findings of the study show a positive association between workplace spirituality and employee retention, whereas partial mediation was observed between workplace spirituality and employee retention.
INTRODUCTION
The most valuable asset in today’s knowledge age is having a stable workforce that consists of capable and committed employees. In this age of head-hunting, Erickson and Gratton (2007) have stated that employers are expected to provide a “signature experience” to their employees throughout their professional careers to cultivate a com- mitted organizational workforce. To achieve this it has been proposed that organizations need to have high- involvement employee practices (Chand & Koul, 2012) that can build a positive workplace experience (Altaf &
Awan, 2011) for attracting and retaining its employee re- sources (Boxall & Macky, 2009; Pashak & Laughter, 2012).
An important challenge for today’s HR professional is to identify appropriate developmental strategies that can inspire commitment and retention of employees. One prominent way to address this is in the form of creating
“positive workplace experiences,” which in turn will sup- port the organization’s capability to achieve and preserve competitive advantage (Graddick, 1988; Aryee et al., 1998). In some of the empirical studies, we have found that an employee’s intention to remain as a member of the
organization is positively associated with the employee’s perception of the organization’s values and its dealings (Spector, 1997; Mitchell, Holtom, & Lee, 2001). It has also been validated in earlier studies that the organizations that prefer teamwork and give respect to their employees’ per- sonal needs are found to have increased commitment and retention levels (Heneman & Judge, 2003; Daniel, 2010).
Today’s knowledge employees are more educated and skillful than the workers of earlier eras, and they expect their job profile to be meaningful and gratifying. They pre- fer to have a higher standard of livelihood and wish to see better prospects and growth in their profession within a short time (Thomas, 2000). Therefore, this stands as a big challenge for today’s organization and its HR departments for attracting and retaining workers on the basis of pro- viding meaningful job assignments and providing them with a defined career path throughout their professional tenure.
Researchers have explored in earlier studies that the fundamental strategy applied by present-day organiza- tions for effective employee retention is a mix of extrinsic and intrinsic reward patterns (Halil & Cem, 2010; Hafiza
et al., 2011). Intrinsic rewards include healthy perfor- mance assessments, participation in strategic decision- making processes, and opportunities for learning and development. Extrinsic rewards include salary increases, fringe benefits, bonuses, commissions, and promotion.
Some of the research findings have revealed that the majority of managerial professionals employed in man- ufacturing and service industries consider money to be an important factor for retention (Kay & Evans, l999;
Herman, 1999; Kreisman, 2002). However, there is an equal number of research findings that has publicized the fact that the total reward system should include both intrinsic and extrinsic factors (Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996; Mumford, 2000; Janssen, 2000) for influencing individual performance and retention.
It is believed that intrinsic rewards are tied to the psy- chological satisfaction that employees acquire from being given meaningful work assignments and executing those assignments as required. The definition of workplace spir- ituality proposed by Pradhan, Jena, and Soto (2017) out- lined the concept of spiritual orientation in the workplace,
where work transcends the transactional boundaries to create a spiritual connectedness among employ- ees, experiencing a meaningful work profile while guiding one’s alignment of values to organizational goals” (p. 47).
Along with meaningful engagement, employees derive satisfaction from an immediate work environment that can provide them with a sense of belonging with their co-workers (Miller et al., 2001). Many studies have sup- ported findings that show that strong relationships with peers and colleagues resulting from meaningful work as- signments constitute an effective strategy for retaining em- ployees. In addition to intrinsic and extrinsic reward pat- terns, today’s professionals are seeking a collaborative at- mosphere to live with their peers and colleagues in an or- ganizational setup (O’Malley, 2000). In fact, some of the research findings have stated that coworker support and acknowledgment for work achievements are vital to retain a skilled workforce (Trice & Beyer, 1993). One such exclu- sive study has shown that engineering professionals em- ployed in manufacturing industries depend on the work- place as a primary source of social relationships (Thomas, 2000). Therefore, these findings can provide insight to em- ployers and HR staff for devising appropriate strategies for retention of their workforce.
Following this introduction, we present our theoretical background and hypotheses. In the methods section, we discuss our sample, variables, analysis, and results. Finally,
we discuss our findings in terms of their theoretical and practical implications.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS
Increasing retention and reducing turnover are of paramount importance in organizational life (Michaud, 2000; Bussin, 2002). Organizations are expected to pro- vide employee-focused practices aimed at creating a positive work experience for attracting and retaining employees (Boxall & Macky, 2009). Being embedded with the work environment creates a kind of “community syn- drome,” because links to community play an important role in social expression while enhancing the self-esteem of employees. In this connection, Wrzeniewski, Dutton, and Debebe (2003) found that employees who are em- bedded with their job derive meaning from their assigned role, perceive their work as a “calling,” and feel they are part of the organization.
A spiritual work climate enables expression of the
“whole” person, which binds employees with their col- leagues and supervisors (Pradhan & Jena, 2016). Ashmos and Duchon (2000) defined spirituality at work as “the recognition that employees have an inner life that nour- ishes and is nourished by meaningful work that takes place in the context of community” (p. 137). This defini- tion highlights three important dimensions of spirituality at the workplace: inner self, meaningful work, and sense of community. Inner self refers to an employee’s inner (spiritual) needs, which are as important as the physical, emotional, and social needs of an employee (Duchon &
Plowman, 2005).
The second dimension ismeaningful work,whereby ev- ery individual seeks meaning in his or her work. In other words, work should have a compelling meaning for the individual that goes beyond mere sustenance or organi- zational survival. If work is perceived as grand and sig- nificant, the individual derives a feeling of wholeness or completeness by doing it (Overell, 2008). In the context of the organization, it is perceived that workplace spiritu- ality may act as a potential weapon for attracting and re- taining employees. At the same time, there is a dearth of studies for defining the key constituents of such proposi- tions; hence, focused research is warranted on what drives human resource effectiveness and especially employee re- tention. Therefore, we posit the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Workplace spirituality positively influences employee retention.
Employee retention is defined as the intent of an em- ployee to continue with the organization. An employee’s intention to remain a part of the organization and to
continue one’s job is associated with perception of having a meaningful job assignment and a defined career path (Aryee et al., 1998; Mitchell et al., 2001). The best employ- ees are found to be retained when there is promotion and sustenance of citizenship behavior within the organiza- tion (Podsakoff et al., 2000). This is because a high level of pro-social behaviors generates group cohesiveness, which was found to decrease voluntary turnover among employ- ees (Chen et al., 1998). On the topic of belongingness, Mitroff and Denton (1999) stated, “if a single word best captures the meaning of spirituality at workplace, that word is interconnectedness” (p. 86). Promotion of social networking creates the glue of togetherness and expounds the decisions of engaging in citizenship behavior.
While in theory it seems reasonable to state that spir- ituality combined with citizenship behavior promotes re- tention, there is little evidence for that in the empirical lit- erature. A number of studies have been made to clarify the association between citizenship behavior and the dimen- sions of retention apart from “intention to leave” which was largely overlooked (Thau et al., 2004). It was argued that future research must develop the connection between citizenship behavior and the decision of employees to quit their job (Organ et al., 2006). Based on this argument, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Organizational citizenship behavior medi- ates the relationship between workplace spirituality and employee retention.
METHODS Sample
The respondents of the present study were employed by private- and public-sector establishments engaged in manufacturing and service activities in India. Respon- dents were recruited through convenience and snowball sampling procedures (Atkinson & Flint, 2001).
The convenience sample was recruited from organiza- tions with which the researchers had a professional rela- tionship through prior field visits. From these organiza- tions, researchers recruited executives with varied qualifi- cation levels and experiences, including different depart- ments and hierarchy. All respondents had at least two years of work experience in the present organization ranging from junior and middle to senior levels. Out of 538 sur- vey questionnaires distributed during face-to-face inter- actions, 490 were returned. After rejecting the incomplete questionnaires (74), 416 (77.3%) were retained for this study.
To increase the diversity of our survey, the snowball strategy involved soliciting participation and referrals
through a Google survey, Linkedin, and personal emails.
For referrals, we asked respondents to forward the survey solicitation email and questionnaire to their contacts who are executives employed in targeted organizations.
After two-and-one-half months of continuous follow-up, the researchers received 345 responses. The total num- ber of completed surveys from both convenience and snowball sources was 761. Sample details are presented in Table 1.
Materials
Three scales were used in the survey: workplace spiri- tuality, employee retention, and organization citizenship behavior (see Appendix A). All items of respective scales were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree) with a middle response 3 (neutral).
Workplace Spirituality
For developing a parsimonious scale to assess workplace spirituality Pradhan, Jena, and Soto (2017) followed rele- vant psychometric theory (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
The content experts consisting of 16 professors and 3 doc- toral scholars were asked to evaluate the instrument in terms of its representativeness, comprehensiveness, and clarity (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Content validity ratio (CVR), as proposed by Lawshe (1975), was used to assess the content expert judgments. As a result of CVR anal- ysis, 6 items were discarded due to disagreement among experts, and finally 38 items with CVR value higher than 0.49 were retained in the scale.
An exploratory study of the items retained through CVR was conducted. The primary purpose of the study was to measure the extent to which the instrument was able to provide data sufficiency that satisfies the objec- tive of the research (Hunt et al., 1982). Exploratory-factor analysis using SPSS with principal-component extraction and varimax rotation was carried out with 361 sample re- spondents to evaluate the internal consistency of the scale and dimensionality of the construct (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Fabrigar et al., 1999).
The final measurement model consisted of four latent variables with their indicators as spiritual orientation (12 indicators, e.g., “my spiritual values guide my decision at work”), compassion (5 indicators, e.g., “I put conscious efforts to bring a viable solution to others’ problems”), meaningful work (9 indicators, e.g., “My work gives me sufficient satisfaction and personal meaning”), and alignment of values (8 indicators, e.g., “Individual and organization’s mission and vision are interconnected”).
Response description against each item was given on a 5- point Likert-type scale ranging from 5 (strongly agree) to
TABLE 1 | CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLE SIZE (N=761)
SL.NO. DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES NO. PERCENTAGE MEAN(IN YRS.)
1 Age 761 - 36.4
2 Gender Male 488 64.2
Female 273 35.8
3 Education Graduate 289 37.9
Post-graduate 472 62.1
4 Sectors Public 370 48.6
Private 391 51.4
5 Manufacturing Industries Public 229 30.0
Private 213 27.9
6 Service Industries Public 141 18.6
Private 178 23.5
7 Years of Experience Less than 5 Yrs. 160 21.0
More than 5 Yrs. 602 79.0
8 Levels of Executives Junior 292 38.3
Middle 260 34.2
Senior 209 27.5
1 (strongly disagree). Interpretation of the scale was based on an assessment of the average sample score and the level of dispersion around the average. The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale in the exploratory study with 361 samples was .78, fulfilling the reliability criteria of alpha coefficient of more than .70 (Nunnally, 1967; Garson, 2005).
Employee Retention
We used an 11-item retention scale developed by Kyndt, Dochy, Michielsen, and Moeyaert (2009) for this study.
Out of 11 items, items numbers 5, 7, 8, and 11 are nega- tively keyed for controlling the acquiescence response bias (i.e., the tendency to respond affirmatively to items regard- less of their content). The scores of the respective items were reversed at the time of processing the data. Exam- ples of the sample items include, “If I wanted to do an- other job or function, I would look first at the possibilities within this company” and “If I received an attractive job offer from another company, I would take the job.” The study carried out by Kyndt and colleagues explains 49.13%
of the variance at Cronbach alpha of .91.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)
Extra-role behavior data were gathered at the individual level by means of self-report. The scale proposed by Pod- sakoff and MacKenzie (1997) was used because it was de- veloped to capture all five dimensions oforganizational cit- izenship behavior. This scale consists of 24 items that mea- sure the different dimensions of OCB, such as altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy, civic virtue, and sportsman- ship. Scale 1 to 5 measures the altruism dimension (exam- ple of sample item: “I willingly help others who have work- related problems.”), items 6 to 10 measure the conscien- tiousness dimension (example of sample item: “I believe in giving an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay.”).
Similarly, the courtesy dimension is measured by items 11 to 15 (example of sample item: “I am mindful of how my behavior affects other people’s jobs.”). Items 16 to 20 are reverse-scored, measuring the sportsmanship dimen- sion (a sample item is “I consume a lot of time complain- ing about trivial matters.”) and civic virtue is measured by items 21 to 24 (a sample item is “I keep abreast of changes in the organization.”). The scores of the negative-scored
items of the sportsmanship dimension were reversed at the time of analysis. The Cronbach alpha of the study was found to be .71, fulfilling the reliability criterion of al- pha coefficient as more than .70 (Nunnally, 1967; Garson, 2005).
Data Analysis
A confirmatory-factor analysis was conducted on all the seven constructs. Initially, all the constructs failed to achieve the requisite level of fitness. Hence, all the constructs were revised by examining their stan- dardized residuals, modification indices, and the stan- dardized factor loading to achieve acceptable level of fitness.
Modification indices having values greater than 4 were taken into account. Items having standardized factor load- ing less than .35 were removed (Hatcher, 1994). Standard- ized residual covariance above 4.0 was eliminated from the model whereas values between 2.5 and 4.0 were scruti- nized closely (Hair et al., 1998). For specification of the latent constructs, the loading for one of the indicators of each of the constructs was fixed to 1.0 in the model to create a scale for the latent construct. Following the above-mentioned steps, model re-specification was done to achieve an acceptable level of model fit.
RESULTS
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for Workplace Spirituality
Workplace spirituality (WS) has four factors: spiritual orientation, compassion, meaningful work, and align- ment of values. The initial standardized CFA for the four-factor WS model with 30 items is shown in Figure 1. The absolute goodness-of-fit measures for the initial measurement models are tabulated in Table 2. The initial measurement model values (𝜒2=3186.29,𝜒2/df=7.98, GFI=.76, TLI=.69, CFI=.72, RMSEA=.09) did not offer acceptable results for a well-fitting model. Certain items were deleted because they had either high stan- dardized residual covariance, large modification index, or low factor loading. After modification the fit indices of the final CFA 14 (see Figure 2) model has improved (𝜒2 =397.95,𝜒2/df=3.52, GFI=.94, TLI=.92, CFI= .93, RMSEA =.05) and meets the values of requisite fit indices.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Employee Retention
The measurement scale of employee retention (ER) has 11 items, and all the items are treated as one factor. The initial standardized CFA for one factor ER model with 11 items is
FIGURE 1. INITIAL STANDARDIZED CFA FOR 4-FACTOR WS WITH 30 ITEMS
shown in Figure 3. The absolute goodness-of-fit measures for the measurement models are tabulated in Table 3. The initial measurement model values (𝜒2 =719.98,𝜒2/df= 20.57, GFI=.84, TLI =.66, CFI=.73, RMSEA =.16) did not offer acceptable results for a well-fitting model.
Few items were deleted given that they had either high standardized residual covariance or a large modification index or both. After modification, the fit indices of the final CFA 5 model had improved (𝜒2 =30.95, 𝜒2/df = 3.44, GFI=.98, TLI=.96, CFI=.97, RMSEA=.05), and it now meets the values of requisite fit indices.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Organizational citizenship behavior has five factors:
altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy, sportsmanlike
TABLE 2 | GOODNESS-OF-FIT RESULTS FOR WS GOODNESS-OF-FIT RESULTS
MODEL 𝜒2 𝜒2/df p GFI TLI CFI RMSEA ITEMS DELETED REASON FOR DELETION
CFA1(Initial) 3186.29 7.98 .01 .76 .69 .72 .09 – –
CFA2 2571.85 6.93 .01 .79 .74 .76 .08 WS15 HSRC
CFA3 2147.59 6.24 .01 .81 .77 .79 .08 WS2 HSRC
CFA4 1803.77 5.67 .01 .83 .78 .80 .07 WS30 LMI
CFA5 1496.03 5.10 .01 .86 .81 .83 .07 WS6 LMI
CFA6 1369.53 5.09 .01 .86 .82 .84 .07 WS5 HSRC
CFA7 1210.64 4.92 .01 .87 .83 .85 .07 WS10 HSRC
CFA8 1093.02 4.88 .01 .88 .84 .86 .07 WS27 HSRC
CFA9 951.01 4.68 .01 .89 .85 .87 .07 WS1 HSRC, LMI
CFA10 793.09 4.33 .01 .91 .87 .89 .06 WS23 LMI
CFA11 664.08 4.04 .01 .91 .88 .90 .06 WS18 LMI, LFL
CFA12 581.99 3.98 .01 .92 .90 .91 .06 WS16 HSRC
CFA13 474.64 3.67 .01 .93 .91 .92 .05 WS29 LFL
CFA14 (Final) 397.95 2.52 .01 .94 .92 .93 .05 WS12 LMI
Note: HSRC=High standardized residual covariance, LMI=Large modification index, LFL=Low factor loading; p<.01 in all cases
behavior, and civic virtue. The initial standardized CFA for the five-factor OCB model with 24 items is shown in Figure 5. The absolute goodness-of-fit measures for the measurement models are tabulated in Table 4. The initial measurement model’s values (𝜒2=3173.07,𝜒2/df
=13.11, GFI=.73, TLI=.60, CFI=.65, RMSEA=.12) did not offer acceptable results for a well-fitting model.
Certain items were deleted because they had high stan- dardized residual covariance, low factor loading, and a large modification index. After modification the fit in- dices of the final CFA 9 model (see Figure 6) has improved (𝜒2 =266.94,𝜒2/df=2.84, GFI=.95, TLI=.94, CFI= .95, RMSEA =.04) and meets the values of requisite fit indices.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Convergent validity is achieved when there is relatively high loading among indicators specified to measure a common underlying factor (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).
Table 5 presents the CFA results, which include standard- ized factor loading, standard error, critical ratio, item reliability of each indicator, and the overall construct or
composite reliability. Each indicator shows statistically significant factor loading with greater than or nearer to the recommended level of .50 (at .01 levels), suggesting convergent validity.
Next, the item reliability (also called as squared mul- tiple correlation) in the CFA model was examined.
Most of the squared multiple correlation values in the measurement model met the recommended criteria cut-off of .40 (Taylor & Todd, 1995). This specifies that most of the latent constructs in the present study ac- counted for sufficient variance in each indicator (Table 5). However, items WS-7 and WS-26 did not meet the .40 cut-off. These items were retained because they were crucial indicators and the composite reliability, content validity associated with these items was high (Hair et al., 2006).
A series of𝜒2difference tests were conducted, and the results are shown in Table 6. The results indicated that the differences in chi-square between the fixed and free solu- tions were significant. A significant difference between the models provides sufficient evidence of discriminant va- lidity as the lower𝜒2value for the unconstrained model
FIGURE 2. FINAL STANDARDIZED CFA FOR 4-FACTOR WS WITH 17 ITEMS
indicates achievement of discriminant validity (Anderson
& Gerbing, 1988).
Correlation Findings and Analysis of Hypothesis Testing
Mean, S.D., and correlation for the variables are shown in Table 7. The present study has followed the recommenda- tion made by Kline (2005) for interpreting the size of the effect of standardized path coefficients. The standardized path coefficient with absolute value of less than .10 indi- cates a small effect, values within .30 specify medium ef- fect, and values with more than .50 indicate a large effect (Kline, 2005).
Hypothesis 1 was examined to report the influences of workplace spirituality (WS) on employee retention (ER).
The construct workplace spirituality (WS) carries a signif- icant positive relationship with employee retention (ER) (H1:𝛽=.69, C.R=11.74, p<.001). Hence the hypothesis between workplace spirituality and employee retention is supported.
Structural equation modeling (also called covariance structure analysis) was used to test the indirect effect of citizenship behavior among the dimensions of workplace spirituality and employee retention of human resource effectiveness. The mediation of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) was found to carry significant relation- ship among workplace spirituality (WS) and employee retention (ER) (H2:𝛽 =.53, C.R=16.07, p<.001) (see Figure 7). We have also tested the mediating role of orga- nizational citizenship behavior based on the suggestions of Preacher and Hayes (2004) to find more proximal end points (Table 8).
FIGURE 3. INITIAL STANDARDIZED CFA FOR SINGLE-FACTOR ER WITH 11 ITEMS
Thezscore (4.45) was found to be greater than 2.32 (Preacher & Hayes, 2004), and the indirect effect is consid- ered to be significant at the .01 level. Hence, for the present study the findings are consistent with the possibility that organizational citizenship behavior is a mediator between workplace spirituality and employee retention. Workplace spirituality mediated with OCB is found to be partially mediating between workplace spirituality and employee retention. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported.
FIGURE 4. FINAL STANDARDIZED CFA FOR SINGLE-FACTOR ER WITH 6 ITEMS
DISCUSSION
The outcomes of the study indicate a significant asso- ciation between workplace spirituality and employee retention. Previous researchers (Marques, 2005; Reave, 2005) have reported similar findings—that is, that organi- zational spiritual values are related to job satisfaction, mo- tivation to perform, and retention. Tuck (2012) stated that a spiritually enhanced workplace leads to enhancement of productivity, retention of employees, and customer loyalty. One of the important indicators of retention is employees’ identification with and commitment to their organization (Curtis & Wright, 2001). The study supports
TABLE 3 | GOODNESS-OF-FIT RESULTS FOR ER GOODNESS-OF-FIT RESULTS
MODEL 𝜒2 𝜒2/df P GFI TLI CFI RMSEA ITEMS DELETED REASON FOR DELETION
CFA1(Initial) 719.98 20.57 .01 .84 .66 .73 .17 – –
CFA2 303.11 11.22 .01 .91 .79 .84 .11 ER2 LMI
CFA3 198.42 9.92 .01 .94 .84 .89 .10 ER7 HSRC
CFA4 103.37 7.38 .01 .96 .90 .93 .09 ER5 HSRC, LMI
CFA5 30.95 2.44 .01 .98 .96 .97 .05 ER10 LMI
Note: HSRC=High standardized residual covariance, LMI=Large modification index, p<.01 in all the cases
FIGURE 5. INITIAL STANDARDIZED CFA FOR 5-FACTOR
OCB WITH 24 ITEMS FIGURE 6. FINAL STANDARDIZED CFA FOR 5-FACTOR OCB WITH 16 ITEMS
TABLE 4 | GOODNESS-OF-FIT RESULTS FOR OCB GOODNESS-OF-FIT RESULTS
MODEL 𝜒2 𝜒2/DF P GFI TLI CFI RMSEA ITEMS DELETED REASON FOR DELETION
CFA1(Initial) 3173.07 13.11 .01 .73 .60 .65 .12 – –
CFA2 2475.57 11.25 .01 .77 .66 .70 .11 OCB10 LMI
CFA3 1947.75 9.78 .01 .81 .71 .75 .10 OCB5 HSRC, LMI
CFA4 1487.27 8.30 .01 .85 .75 .78 .09 OCB16 HSRC
CFA5 1184.59 7.40 .01 .87 .78 .81 .09 OCB9 LMI
CFA6 783.69 5.51 .01 .90 .84 .87 .07 OCB22 LFL
CFA7 563.52 4.50 .01 .92 .88 .90 .06 OCB19 LMI, LFL
CFA8 364.21 3.34 .01 .94 .92 .94 .05 OCB3 HSRC
CFA9 (Final) 266.94 2.84 .01 .95 .94 .95 .04 OCB18 LMI
Note: HSRC=High standardized residual covariance, LMI=Large modification index, LFL=Low factor loading; p<.01 in all the cases
There is a conspicuous dearth of studies that explore the mediating effect of extra-role behavior in the context of workplace behavior. As such there is no research that has amalgamated OCB with the workplace spirituality factors in a single framework to analyze its consequences.
Therefore, one of the most important findings in the present study was
demonstrating the mediating role of citizenship behavior among workplace spirituality and employee retention.
the findings of Hytter (2007) that identification, attach- ment, and commitment have a significant influence on employee retention. A positive perception of the job and the employer instills the hope for continued commitment and hence stimulates employees to want to be retained (Birt et al., 2004). Earlier studies have confirmed that admiration, encouragement, care, and opportunity for career enhancement enhance employee retention (Taylor, 2004; Butcher & Kritsonis, 2007) whereas a healthy pro- fessional and work–life balance provides employee health and well-being for long-term association with the emply- ees’ respective organizations (Walker, 2001; Hytter, 2007).
A high-involvement work system promotes an environ- ment for attraction and retention of talent (Zatzick & Iver- son, 2006); therefore, the respondents of the present study focused on developing a distinctive good-employment approach. The study supports the idea that employee retention is very much dependent on “who are hired, why they are hired, and how they are going to be man- aged” (Herman, 1999, p. 124). However, the respondents
This study has shed light on workplace spirituality as it results in employees’ cognitive and emotional association with their respective
organizations, which
subsequently reinforces their devotion with a strong sense of fulfillment.
of the present study express the belief that, “traditional strategies for employee retention are unsuited to a world where talent runs free” (Cappelli, 2000, p. 105). Therefore, the job description, on-the-job training (Tulgan, 2001), performance-related pay (Cappelli, 2000), communica- tion and involvement (Ruch, 2000), assigning challenging work (Harpur, 2002), encouraging a sense of belonging (Mitchell , Holtom, & Lee, 2001), and recognition for in- dividual contributions (Forrest, 1999) are some of the in- fluential factors for modern-day employee retention.
This finding emphasizes that learning and development programs shape an employee’s career advancement and re- tention rate. This observation supports the earlier empir- ical findings of Eisen et al. (2005), which state that train- ing programs correlate with a 70% increase in employee- retention rate. The present study explored job flexibility as a potent weapon for improving productivity and re- tention, which is in line with the findings of Prenda and Stahl (2001). In addition, spiritual practices by organiza- tions enhance the happiness index and in turn boost the employee-retention rate (Withers, 2001).
There is a conspicuous dearth of studies to explore the mediating role of extra-role behavior in the context of workplace behavior. As such there is no study that has amalgamated OCB with the workplace spiritual factors in a single framework to analyze its consequences. Therefore, one of the most important findings in the present study was demonstrating the mediating role of citizenship be- havior among workplace spirituality and employee reten- tion. Retention factors have a causal relationship with the alignment of one’s role with the organization’s goal. Al- truistic behavior facilitates a compassionate attitude that leads to healthy interpersonal relationships and a posi- tive work climate (Lee & Kims, 2010). Employees who
TABLE 5 | INDICATOR LOADINGS OF REVISED OVERALL MEASUREMENT MODEL
CONSTRUCT ITEMS
STANDARDIZED FACTOR LOADINGS
UNSTANDARDIZED FACTOR LOADINGS
STANDARD ERROR
CRITICAL RATIO
ITEM RELIABILITY
CONSTRUCT RELIABILITY Workplace Spirituality
(WS)
WS-3 .753 1.000 - - .69 86
WS-4 .668 .850 .053 15.97 .56
WS-7 .440 .455 .055 8.19 .37
WS-8 .412 .560 .057 9.79 .32
WS-9 .731 1.000 - - .61
WS-11 .799 1.143 .077 14.88 .75
WS-13 .686 1.000 - - .62
WS-14 .628 .973 .062 15.59 .51
WS-17 .755 1.070 .058 18.49 .70
WS-19 .641 .938 .059 15.94 .58
WS-20 .681 1.000 - - .62
WS-21 .769 1.045 .061 17.21 .73
WS-22 .781 1.177 .068 17.39 .74
WS-24 .810 1.189 .060 19.68 .78
WS-25 .768 1.147 .060 18.99 .70
WS-26 .421 .549 .054 10.16 .36
Employee Retention (ER) ER-1 .467 1.000 - - .38 74
ER-3 .701 1.631 .143 11.42 .62
ER-4 .837 2.075 .174 11.93 .81
ER-6 .692 1.755 .154 11.36 .66
ER-9 .448 .909 .101 9.02 .35
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)
OCB-1 .600 1.000 - - .49 84
OCB-2 .790 1.304 .085 15.34 .78
OCB-4 .751 1.138 .076 15.00 .72
OCB-6 .732 1.000 - .71
OCB-7 .716 1.101 .064 17.31 .69
OCB-8 .655 .952 .059 16.02 .53
(Continued)
TABLE 5 | Continued
CONSTRUCT ITEMS
STANDARDIZED FACTOR LOADINGS
UNSTANDARDIZED FACTOR LOADINGS
STANDARD ERROR
CRITICAL RATIO
ITEM RELIABILITY
CONSTRUCT RELIABILITY
OCB-11 .689 1.000 - - .56
OCB-12 .674 .927 .057 16.22 .54
OCB-13 .654 .980 .062 15.81 .52
OCB-14 .676 1.040 .066 16.28 .54
OCB-15 .637 1.022 .095 15.44 .51
OCB-17 .685 1.000 - - .56
OCB-20 .601 .924 .095 9.74 .49
OCB-21 .767 1.119 .058 19.26 .74
OCB-23 .761 1.000 - - .73
OCB-24 .819 1.185 .060 19.82 .80
TABLE 6 | DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY: CHI-SQUARE DIFFERENCE TEST FREELY ESTIMATED
(UNCONSTRAINED) FIXED(CONSTRAINED)
LINKS D.F 𝜒2 d.f 𝜒2 𝜒2DIFFERENCE Δd.f
WS–ER 26 211.42 27 425.76 214.34 1
WS–OCB 28 289.74 29 415.28 125.54 1
ER–OCB 22 163.21 23 321.64 158.43 1
TABLE 7 | FACTOR CORRELATION REPRESENTING INTERRELATIONSHIP AMONG THE VARIABLES
VARIABLE M SD 1 2 3
WS 3.61 .55 1
ER 3.63 .74 .50 1
OCB 3.83 .49 .58 .27 1
Note: All Pearson correlations are significant at p<.01; N=761
FIGURE 7. MEDIATING ROLE OF OCB BETWEEN WS AND ER
experience such a conducive work environment rarely wish to leave such organizations. The study has reported a partial mediation of citizenship behavior between work- place spirituality and employee retention. One plausible explanation is that the booming job market drives young employees to search for better opportunities that give them career opportunities and financial securities.
TABLE 8 | SUMMARY OF DIRECT, INDIRECT, AND TOTAL EFFECTS
WS Normal Theory Test for Indirect Effect (WS-OCB)
Variables Direct Indirect Total Effect Standard Error Z Score P
ER .61 .06 .68 .06 .01 4.45 .01
CONCLUSION
To conclude, this study has shed light on workplace spir- ituality as it results in employees’ cognitive and emotional association with their respective organizations, which subsequently reinforces their devotion with a strong sense of fulfillment. Therefore, the HR policies of the estab- lishment should be aligned with organizational spiritual values for realizing employees’ spiritual potential and growth throughout their careers. Suitable intervention mechanisms for instrumentalizing personal roles and or- ganizational goal fit will create an engaged and committed workforce.
References
Altaf, A., & Awan, M.A. (2011). Moderating effect of workplace spirituality on the relationship of job overloads and job satisfaction.Journal of Business Ethics,104(1), 93–99.
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.Psychology Bulletin,103(3), 411–423.
Aryee, S., Luk, V., & Stone, R. (1998). Family-responsive variables and retention-relevant outcomes among employed parents.Human Relations,51(1), 73–87.
Ashmos, D.P., & Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work: A conceptualization and measure.Journal of Management Inquiry,9(2), 134–145.
Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research strategies.
Retrieved from http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU33.pdf
Birt, M., Wallis, T., & Winternitz, G. (2004). Talent retention in a changing workplace: An investigation of variables considered important to South African talent.South African Journal of Business Management,35(2), 25–31.
Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2009). Research and theory on high-performance work systems: Progressing the high involvement system.Human Resource Management Journal, 19(1), 3–23.
Bussin, M. (2002).Retention strategies: Remuneration answers.
Johannesburg, South Africa: Knowledge Resources.
Butcher, J., & Kritsonis, W.A. (2007). Human resource management: Managerial efficacy in recruiting and retaining teachers.The Lamar University Electronic Journal of Student Research,5(2), 1–9.
Cappelli, P. (2000). A market driven approach to retaining talent.Harvard Business Review, 103–111.
Chand, P., & Koul, H. (2012). Workplace spirituality, organizational emotional ownership and job satisfaction as moderators in coping with job stress.Decision Making,9(10).
Retrieved from http://psrcentre.org/images/
extraimages/312133.pdf
Chen, X.P., Hui, C., & Sego, D.J. (1998). The role of organizational citizenship behavior in turnover:
Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses.
Journal of Applied Psychology,83(6), 922–931.
Costello, A.B., & Osborne, J.W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis.Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation,10(7), 1–9.
Curtis, S., & Wright, D. (2001). Retaining employees: The fast track to commitment.Management Research News,24(8), 59–64.
Daniel, J.L. (2010). The effect of workplace spirituality on team effectiveness.Journal of Management Development,29(5), 442–456.
Duchon, D., & Plowman, D.A. (2005). Nurturing the spirit at work: Impact on work unit performance.The Leadership Quarterly,16(5), 807–833.
Eisen, P., Jasinowski, J., & Kleineli, R. (2005). Skills gap report—A survey of the American manufacturing workforce.
Retrieved from http://www.deloitte.com
Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth?American Psychologist,51, 1153–1166.
Erickson, T.J., & Gratton, L. (2007). What it means to work here.Harvard Business Review,85(3), 104–112.
Fabrigar, L R., Wegener, D T., MacCallum, R.C., & Strahan, E.J.
(1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research.Psychological Methods,4(3), 272–
299.
Forrest, D. (1999).The foundation of employee retention.
Retrieved from http://www.keeping employees.com/White Papers/attitude
Garson, G.D. (2005).Structural equation modeling. Retrieved from http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/structur.htm Graddick, M.N. (1988).Corporate philosophies of employee development, career growth and human resource strategies: The role of the human resource professional in employee development.
(M. London & E.M. Mone, Eds.). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Hafiza, N.S., Shah, S.S, Jamsheed, H., & Zaman, K. (2011).
Relationship between rewards and employee’s motivation in the non-profit organizations of Pakistan.Business Intelligence Journal,4(2), 327–334.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998).
Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall International, Inc.
Hair, J.F., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R.
(2006).Multivariate data analysis(6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Halil, N., & Cem, T. (2010). An investigation of the role of justice in turnover intentions, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality industry.
International Journal of Hospitality Management,29, 33–41.
Harpur, A. (2002).Retention factors affecting knowledge workers in the financial services sector. Unpublished MBA project report.
Johannesburg, South Africa: University of the Witwatersrand.
Hatcher, L. (1994).A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling.
Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
Heneman, H.G., & Judge, T.A. (2003).Staffing organizations (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, Irwin.
Herman, R.E. (1999).Keeping good people—Strategies for solving the #1 problem facing business today. Winchester, VA:
Oakhill Press.
Hunt, S.D., Sparkman, R.D., & Wilcox. J. (1982). The pretest in survey research: Issues and preliminary findings.Journal of Marketing,19(2), 269–273.
Hytter, A. (2007). Retention strategies in France and Sweden.
The Irish Journal of Management,28(1), 59–79.
Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort–reward fairness and innovative work behavior.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,73(3), 287–302.
Kay, B., & Evans, J. (1999).Love ‘em or lose ‘em—Getting good people to stay. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Kline, R.B. (2005).Principles and practice of structural equation modeling(2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Kreisman, B.J. (2002).Identification of the drivers of employee dissatisfaction and turnover. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., Michielsen, M., & Moeyaert, B. (2009).
Employee retention: Organizational and personal perspectives.
Vocations and Learning,2(3), 195–215.
Lawshe, C.H. (1975). The quantitative approach to content validity.Personnel Psychology,28, 563–575.
Lee, K.Y., & Kims, S. (2010). The effects of commitment-based human resource management on organizational citizenship behaviors: The mediating role of psychological contract.World Journal of Management,2, 130–147.
Marques, J. (2005). HR’s crucial role in the establishment of spirituality in the workplace.Journal of American Academy of Business,7(2), 27–31.
Michaud, L. (2000). The value of retaining employees.Agency Sales Magazine,30(11), 25–27.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A.M. (1994).Qualitative data analysis.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Miller, N., Erickson, A., & Yust, B. (2001). Sense of place in the workplace: The relationship between personal objects and job satisfaction and motivation.Journal of Interior Design,27(1), 35–44.
Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., & Lee, T.W. (2001). How to keep your best employees: Developing an effective retention policy.
Academy of Management Executive,15(4), 96–107.
Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W., Sablynski, C.J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover.Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1102–1121.
Mitroff, I., & Denton, E.A. (1999). A study of spirituality in the workplace.Sloan Management Review,40(4), 83–92.
Mumford, M.D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation.Human Resource Management Review,10(3), 313–351.
Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994).Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Nunnally, J.C. (1967).Psychometric theory. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
O’Malley, M.N. (2000).Creating commitment—How to attract and retain talented employees by building relationships that last.
New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (2006).
Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Overell, S. (2008). Inwardness: The rise of meaningful work.
The Work Foundation: Provocation Series,4(2). Retrieved from http://www.theworkfoundation.com/assets/docs/publications/
32_ inwardness_final
Pashak, T.J., & Laughter, T.C. (2012). Measuring service mindedness and its relationship with spirituality and life satisfaction.College Student Journal,46, 183–192.
Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (1997). The impact of organizational citizenship in organizational performance:
Review and suggestion for future research.Human Performance,10, 133–151.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach, D.G.
(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research.Journal of Management,26(3), 513–563.
Pradhan, R.K., & Jena, L.K. (2016). Workplace spirituality and organizational commitment: Role of emotional intelligence among Indian banking professionals.Journal of Human Resource Management,19(1), 13–23.
Pradhan, R.K., Jena, L.K., & Soto, C.M. (2017). Workplace spirituality in Indian organizations: Construction of reliable and valid measurement scale.Business: Theory and Practice, 18(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2017.759.
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models.
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,36, 717–731.
Prenda, K., & Stahl, S. (2001). Peak job performance at any age:
The truth about older workers (electronic version).Business and Health,5(30), 22–34.
Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness.The Leadership Quarterly,16(5), 655–687.
Ruch, W. (2000). How to keep Gen X employees.Training &
Development, 40–45.
Spector, P.E. (1997).Job satisfaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taylor, C.R. (2004). Retention leadership.T&D,58(3), 40–45.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P.A. (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience.MIS Quarterly,19(4), 561–570.
Thau, S., Bennett, R.J., Stahlberg, D., & Werner, J.M. (2004).
Why should I be generous when I have valued and accessible alternatives? Alternative exchange partners and OCB.Journal of Organizational Behavior,25, 607–626.
Thomas, K.W. (2000).Intrinsic motivation at work—Building energy and commitment. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Trice, H.M., & Beyer, J.M. (1993).The cultures of work organizations. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tuck, I. (2012). A critical review of a spirituality intervention.
Western Journal of Nursing Research,34(6), 712–735.
Tulgan, B. (2001).Winning the talent wars. New York, NY:
Norton.
Walker, J.W. (2001). Zero defections?Human Resource Planning,24(1), 6–8.
Withers, P. (2001). Retention strategies that respond to worker values.Workforce,80(17), 37–44.
Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J.E., & Debebe, G. (2003).
Interpersonal sense making and the meaning of work.Research in Organizational Behavior,25, 93–135.
Zatzick, C.D., & Iverson, R.D. (2006). High-involvement management and workforce reduction: Competitive advantage or disadvantage?Academy of Management Journal,49(5), 999–1015.
Appendix A
Code Statement Details Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) WS1 Sometimes I experience a sense of
enlightenment for my job.
WS2 I feel I am guided by a supernatural power about my work.
WS3 I experience joy and happiness at work.
WS4 I experience a sense of gratification out of my work.
WS5 My connections with supreme power provide positive energy and guidance for my work.
WS6 There is no scope for spirituality at workplace.*
WS7 I do not receive any appreciation for my spiritual values at workplace.*
WS8 At times, I experience blissful moments at work.
WS9 Time just goes on for me while at work.
WS10 My spiritual values guide my decisions at work.
WS11 I experience high energy and vitality at work, which is difficult to explain.
WS12 I used to feel elevated for the work I do.
WS13 I can easily feel the distress of others.
WS14 I help others when they are in trouble.
WS15 I am concerned about my colleagues’ needs and requirements.
WS16 I put conscious efforts to bring a viable solution to others’ problems.
WS17 I enjoy the work to the fullest.
WS18 I used to maintain high spirit at work.
Code Statement Details Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) WS19 My work gives me sufficient
satisfaction and personal meaning.
WS20 I feel enthusiastic and energized by my work.
WS21 I am able to maintain work–life balance that makes me happy and healthy.
WS22 I experience a sense of personal fulfillment out of my work.
WS23 I enjoy keeping harmonious relationships with people at work.
WS24 I experience a kind of positive connection between my job and life.
WS25 My personal values are similar to the value systems of this organization.
WS26 My organization has a moral obligation for its employees.
WS27 Employees’ morale are taken due care in my organization to boost work spirit.
WS28 I feel being a part of organization’s goals.
WS29 My organization is concerned about the uplift of the poor.
WS30 Individual and organizations’
mission and vision are interconnected in my organization.
OCB1 I help others who have heavy workloads.
OCB2 I am always ready to lend a helping hand to those around me.
OCB3 I help others who have been absent.
OCB4 I willingly help others who have work-related problems.
OCB5 I help orient new people even though it is not required.
Code Statement Details Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) OCB6 I believe in giving an honest day’s
work for an honest day’s pay.
OCB7 I am one of the most conscientious employees.
OCB8 I obey company rules and regulations even when no one is watching.
OCB9 My attendance at work is above the norm.
OCB10 I do not take extra breaks.
OCB11 I take steps to try to prevent problems with other workers.
OCB12 I am mindful of how my behavior affects other people’s jobs.
OCB13 I consider the impact of my actions on co-workers.
OCB14 I try to avoid creating problems for co-workers.
OCB15 I do not abuse the rights of others.
OCB16 I am the classic “squeaky wheel”
that always needs greasing.*
OCB17 I consume a lot of time
complaining about trivial matters.*
OCB18 I tend to make “mountains out of molehills.”*
OCB19 I always find fault with what the organization is doing.*
OCB20 I always focus on what’s wrong, rather than the positive side.*
OCB21 I keep abreast of changes in the organization.
OCB22 I attend meetings that are not mandatory, but are considered important.
OCB23 I attend functions that are not required, but help the company image.
OCB24 I read and keep up with organization announcements, memos, and so on.
Code Statement Details Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) ER1 I’m planning to work for another
company within a period of three years.*
ER2 Within this company my work gives me satisfaction.
ER3 If I wanted to do another job or function, I would look first at the possibilities within this company.
ER4 I see a future for myself within this company.
ER5 It doesn’t matter if I’m working for this company or another, as long as I have work.*
ER6 If it were up to me, I will definitely be working for this company for the next five years.
ER7 If I could start over again, I would choose to work for another company.*
ER8 If I had received an attractive job offer from another company, I would have taken the job.*
ER9 The work I’m doing is very important to me.
ER10 I love working for this company.
ER11 I have checked out a job in another company previously.*
LALATENDU KESARI JENA, PhD, is working as an assistant professor (OB & HR) in the School of Human Re- source Management, Xavier Institute of Management, Xavier University, Bhubaneswar, India. He obtained his PhD from the Department of Humanities and Social Science, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India, through Senior Research Fellowship (SRF), University Grant Commission (UGC), India. He has more than 10 years of industry experience in human resources and has published articles in several national and international journals. His research interest includes workplace spirituality, HR effectiveness, employee engagement, performance management, organizational commitment, emotional intelligence, and positive psychology. He may be reached at [email protected]
SAJEET PRADHAN, PhD, is working as an assistant professor (OB & HR) in the International Manage- ment Institute, New Delhi, India. He obtained his PhD from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India. He has published research papers in several reputed international journals. His research interests include transformational leadership, toxic emotions, sexual harassment, and abusive supervision. He may be reached at [email protected]
