FAITH AT WORK SCALE

Monty L. Lynn

Michael J. Naughton

Steve VanderVeen

ABSTRACT. Workplace spirituality research has sidestepped

religion by focusing on the function of belief

rather than its substance. Although establishing a unified

foundation for research, the functional approach cannot

shed light on issues of workplace pluralism, individual or

institutional faith-work integration, or the institutional

roles of religion in economic activity. To remedy this, we

revisit definitions of spirituality and argue for the place of

a belief-based approach to workplace religion. Additionally,

we describe the construction of a 15-item

measure of workplace religion informed by Judaism and

Christianity – the Faith at Work Scale (FWS). A stratified

random sample (

assisted in refining the FWS which exhibits a single factor

structure (Eigenvalue = 8.88; variance accounted for =

59.22%) that is internally consistent (Cronbach’s

n = 234) of managers and professionals

a

Faith Maturity Scale (

shows lower skew and kurtosis with Mainline and

Catholic adherents than with Mormons and Evangelicals.

Validation of the scale among Jewish and diverse

Christian adherants would extend research in workplace

religion.

KEY WORDS: Christianity, Faith at Work Scale,

Judaism, psychometric, scale, vocation, workplace

spirituality, workplace religion

= 0.77) and demonstrates convergent validity with ther = 0.81, p > 0.0001). The scale

Max Weber’s provocative work, and the Spirit of Capitalism among sociologists and historians over religion’s contribution to economic growth (cf. Jones,  Radoki, have explored religiosity’s connection to virtue, emotion, personality, health, and other aspects of human functioning (Emmons and Paloutzian,

Pargament et al., veins, distinctive and potent connections have been identified between religiosity and human behavior and social systems. Sandwiched between the macro realm of the economy and the micro realm of psychology, the field of workplace spirituality has been taking shape (Giacalone and Jurkiewicz,  For a variety of reasons, however, scholars have eschewed religion and have focused on spirituality (cf. Gotsis and Kortezi,  Dean and Fornaciari, of research on workplace religion exists despite the religious affiliation of a sizable portion of the global workforce (Baylor Religion Survey, 2006; Juergensmeyer, 2006).

Many observers have noted that people of faith

often struggle with connecting their religious belief

with their work (Epstein,

and McLennan,

The Protestant Ethic, sparked decades of debate1997;2007). Scores of psychologists as well2003;2005). In both of these research2003).2008; Hicks, 2003; Lund2007; Smith, 2005). A paucity2002; Miller, 2006; Nash2001; Van Buren, 1995; Van Loon,

2000

from religion and work being conceptually disconnected,

to religion serving a therapeutic or ethical

role in work, to religion providing a comprehensive

lens through which all work and life are seen.

Scholars occasionally have ventured into workplace

religion (Conroy and Emerson,

Caddell,

research has been limited by presuppositions about

religion and spirituality, and by an absence of measurement

tools targeting workplace religion. We

attempt to contribute to this line of research by

revisiting the treatment of religion in workplace

spirituality scholarship and by developing and testing

a scale to measure the integration of religious belief

and practice about work extracted from Jewish and

). Faith-work integration takes on varied forms,2004; Davidson and1994; Hicks, 2003; Sandelands, 2003) but

Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 85:227–243

DOI 10.1007/s10551-008-9767-3

Springer 2008

Christian teachings. We conclude the article with

recommendations on future research directions.

Religion and spirituality

The sacred and normative aspects of spirituality have

long posed unique research material for the social

sciences. The sacred exceeds the boundaries and

calipers of social science and spirituality’s normative

content is often viewed as lying within the territory

of theologians and philosophers or the privatized

realm of the individual. As a common and significant

feature of human society, however, religion has long

been contemplated by social scientists.

Functionalism, institutionalism, and quest

One way to make spirituality consistent with the

research pallet of the social scientist is to define it

functionally. Tracing back to Geertz (

functional approach examines how meaning and

order are created and transmitted through rituals and

symbols. Sacred and normative elements can also be

elevated to the level of the organization, homogenizing

the measurement challenges posed by the

pluralistic noise of belief at the individual level.

Casting a broad net over the function of spirituality

or the values of the workplace without distinguishing

varying beliefs, traditions, and rituals in the net

allows social science to remain silent on religion’s

normative and sacred content.

Both of these treatments – homogenizing and

elevating – are present in Giacalone and Jurkiewicz’s

(

described as ‘‘a framework of organizational 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’’ (p. 13). Mainstream workplace spirituality

research follows Giacalone and Jurkiewicz’s

functional approach in limiting spirituality to values

which reside at the organizational level and by

focusing on outcomes. This approach allows

researchers to avoid the sacred and normative nature

of spirituality, but provides no tools for dealing with

significant realities of post-modern workplaces, such

as workplace religious pluralism and faith-work

integration among employees. Specifying outcomes

of workplace spirituality makes Giacalone and

Jurkiewicz’s approach curiously normative and

perilously utilitarian.

Giacalone and Jurkiewicz’s approach to defining

workplace spirituality reflects the presupposition

among many management researchers that workplace

spirituality is an arcing rubric under which

religious, humanistic, and ecological belief systems

are embraced. Tsang and McCullough (2003), for

example, suggest that workplace spirituality research

may progress hierarchically, moving from general

spirituality to more fine-grained specific faith traditions.

Among other social scientists, however,

spirituality is a sub-domain of religion. Spirituality is

the life inside the cloak of religion.

Moberg (

of religiosity as ‘‘the essence of the religious life, a

transcendent quality that cuts across and infuses all of

the core dimensions of religiosity’’ (p. 48). Hill et al.

(

and religion as a quest for the sacred

elements, such as a search for non-sacred goals (e.g.,

identity, belongingness, and meaning) and/or the

validation and support of an identifiable community.

Whether the essence of the religious life or a quest

for the sacred, conceptualizations such as these suggest

that the spirituality may be conceptually distinguished

from religion and that spirituality is a

quest or search for meaning and substance and

religion is the specific beliefs, practices, and historical

and institutional scaffolding which complement that

quest. This bifurcation flip-flops the approach of

researchers who see spirituality as the generic and

religion as the particular. Regardless of how one

orders them, they may be easier to make conceptually

than empirically. Hill and his colleagues conclude

their survey of definitions stating that the

difference between spirituality and religion may be

1973), the2003) definition of workplace spirituality which is2002) describes the spiritual component2000) describe spirituality as a quest for the sacred,plus other

attempts to measure spirituality as a separate construct

from religion are difficult

about why an individual engages in a particular

religious or spiritual behavior, it can be difficult to

infer whether that particular behavior is reflecting

religiousness, spirituality, or both (p. 71).

…. In the absence of information

For the same reason that religion has been characterized

as being dead when devoid of a spiritual

228

Monty L. Lynn et al.

core (Moberg, 2002), spirituality is quest until it

finds embodiment in beliefs, values, and/or practices.

Once spirituality finds substance, it becomes

religion or philosophy.

social science approach, workplace spirituality is thus

a misnomer if it takes on substance or outcomes

beyond quest unless it is modified by a particular

religious or philosophical tradition, such as ‘‘Zen

Buddhist spirituality.’’

1 With this more orthodox

Benefits of substance

We believe workplace spirituality should be broadened

to include specific belief systems. We employ

the term ‘‘workplace religion’’ because it suggests the

addition of substance (e.g., dogma, institution, etc.) to

spirituality’s quest and it is inclusive of deistic and nondeistic

belief systems. Specifically, we argue that:

Spirituality moves beyond quest when belief and

practice are added; spirituality is best understood in its

accompanying context; understanding issues such as

workplace pluralism and work-faith integration invites

scholars to tap into spirituality’s substance.

On the first point, spirituality morphs into religion

or philosophy when belief and practice are

coupled with quest. As Hill et al. (

spirituality is the narrow band of searching for

meaning prior to latching on to any particular

beliefs, practices, or structures, but religion or

philosophy are invoked after specific values, beliefs,

practices, and institutions come into play. Important

as it is, workplace spirituality scholars are interested

primarily in what happens after quest has found a

vehicle of embodiment. For many, spirituality carries

less baggage than religion does and may even

be perceived as ideology- and institution-free.

But even when spirituality’s roots are syncretistic

or tacit, it is nonetheless not context-free.

Orsi (

spirituality

2000) define it,2006) argues that much of what is labeled

…

the past, then posits an essential identity among these

deracinated ‘‘spiritual’’ forms, on the one hand, and

between the present and the past, on the other, obliterating

difference. ‘‘Spirituality’’ does so without giving

an account of the reasons for its selections, moreover

masking the fact that it is making any selections at all,

authorizing a new canon while pretending to be surveying

an established tradition (p. 115).

severs religious idioms from their precise locations in

In sum, once workplace spirituality moves beyond

quest, it ceases being value free and outgrows its

generic label.

A second reason why the workplace spirituality

movement should consider substance is because

spirituality is best understood in its full context.

2

Wuthnow (

without external behaviors that employ the

internal, transcendent experience. In

Element of Religion

spirituality cannot flourish without accompanying

institutional and intellectual dimensions. Echoed by

later social scientists, Von Hu¨gel characterizes religion

as having a tripartite character: An historical and

institutional dimension; an intellectual dimension;

and a spiritual or mystical dimension.

thesis is that each of these three dimensions correct,

inform, purify, and stimulate the others. Once one or

two of these dimensions are ousted, neglected, or

deemphasized, religion becomes distorted resulting in

‘‘an impoverishing oneness’’ (p. 73).

One impoverishment of religion which has been

highlighted in workplace spirituality writing is found

in the phrase ‘‘institutionalized religion’’ which

suggests the primacy of the institutional and the

intellectual over the spiritual. This primacy inevitably

saps religion of its inherent vitality, as echoed by

Moberg (2002) quoted earlier. It becomes a dead

faith of the living that results in traditionalism, ecclesialism,

and authoritarianism. Workplace spirituality

scholars counsel against polarizing spirituality

and religion as good versus bad or individual versus

institutional (Hill et al.,

connected more closely than this counsel suggests.

Religion without spirituality denies the search

for the divine and it is this distortion by which

institutional religion has in part earned anti-institutional

reactions. For Von Hu¨gel this is not the only

form of impoverishment. Divorced from any form

of institutional or intellectual tradition, spirituality

tends to be highly emotive resulting in a strongly

individualistic, therapeutic, and ultimately relativistic

notion, leaving much of its basis to be found in the

emotive preference of individuals. Thus, spirituality

often is defined so generically that its non-specificity

tends to lack any intellectual or institutional rigor on

which to come to common meaning of what it is,

how it works, or how it differs from other belief

systems.

1998) emphasizes that spirituality is incompleteThe Mystical, Von Hu¨ gel (1923) argues that3 Von Hu¨ gel’s2000). But the two are

Faith At Work Scale

The third reason why research in workplace

religion should serve as an extension of workplace

spirituality is that many poignant and potentially

potent issues require understanding fine-grained

beliefs and practices – issues such as pluralism and

work-faith integration. Scholars cannot explore the

sensemaking, coping tools, fit, inconsistencies, and

conflicts of religion and work without considering

spirituality’s substance. Focusing on substance

engages not only the personal but intellectual and

institutional dimensions as well. Integrationist writings

suggest that even for deeply spiritual people, for

whom spirituality and religion are core interpretative

schemas, it can be difficult to conceptualize how

faith and work mesh. The expression of workplace

religion is not uniform across religious traditions or

even within a single religious tradition. Additionally,

homogenizing belief systems does not allow an

understanding of pluralistic spiritual expression

which characterizes the world many workplaces

(Hicks, 2003; Juergensmeyer, 2006). Without

exploring substance, the dynamics of integration and

pluralism cannot be carefully examined. The focus

on the substance of belief and practice moves the

analysis from solely personal commitments to the

role cultural institutions (such as temples, mosques,

churches, and movements) play in business.

In sum, we believe the time is ripe for a more

fine-grained look at specific belief and practice

within workplace spirituality research. Although it is

possible to explore spiritual quest and the function of

belief systems in the workplace without attending to

the substance, the breadth and depth of such treatments

is severely limited. While the workplace

spirituality literature has been important to bringing

one’s ‘‘whole self’’ to work, it needs to take more

seriously that religious belief is part of the whole for

many individuals.

With a justification for scholarship in workplace

religion offered, we move on to address a second

need for this line of research to develop – measurement

of the construct.

229

Scale development

With over 150 religiosity and spirituality scales

available (several have been added since Hill and

Hood’s review of 125 scales in

as Gorsuch and Miller (

have called for a justification of need prior to constructing

additional scales. Although related constructs

such as workplace spirituality (Ashmos and

Duchon,

Sheep,

et al.,

differ from workplace religion. A scale to tap the

degree to which Judaeo-Christian belief and practice

are integrated with one’s work would further

research in workplace religion (Jackson et al.,

Differences in theology among religions make it

difficult to word scale items so they are familiar in

both content and language (Moberg,

the present study will be limited to the largest portion

of the US workforce – the Judaeo-Christian

religious traditions. Approximately 84% of the US

population is affiliated with Judaism and Christianity

but within them there is substantial diversity in belief

and practice (Baylor Religion Survey,

1999), scholars such1999) and Pargament (1999)2000; Kinjerski and Skrypnek, 2006;2004) and servant leadership (Whittington2006) have been the subject of scaling, these2006).2002). Thus,2006).

Approach

In constructing a scale, we followed Hill’s (

criteria for measures of religion and spirituality as well

as general counsel in scale development (e.g.,

Arthaud-Day et al.,

Ladd and Spilka,

included the need to be sensitive to religious development

(Levenson et al.,

Hofmeister,

measurement issues in religion (Moberg,

utilized Rossiter’s (

development model and classic scale development

procedures (DeVellis,

Netemeyer et al.,

Three assumptions provided direction in scale

development:

1.

of how and to what degree their religious beliefs

and practices integrate with work

variety of levels of analysis, including the individual,

work unit, organization, and peers

(e.g., Ashmos and Duchon,

et al.,

organizational fit while others measure

attitude or behavior. Our focus is on individ-

230

2005)2005; Hall and Edwards, 2002;2006; Seidlitz et al., 2002). Advice2005), gender (Becker and2001), ethnicity (Neff, 2006), and general2002). We2002) conceptually focused scale2003; Fowler, 1995;2003; Tourangeau et al., 2000).Our focus is on individuals and their perceptions. Scales target a2000; Whittington2006). Some assess individual-Monty L. Lynn et al.

uals’ self-perceptions. Because religiosity

incorporates belief and behavior (Mockabee et

al.,

both.

2.

of Judaeo-Christian traditions, occupations, and

demographics.

explicitly or tacitly emphasize a wide range

of views and practices on issues such as

wealth, work ethic, co-workers, and service.

Individuals within denominational traditions

differ greatly in religion-workplace integration

as well. Our interest was in creating a

model which fits addresses core beliefs and

practices relevant to a wide variety of traditions

and whose wording fits workers laboring

in a variety of settings and accustomed to

varying religious vocabularies.

3.

linear.

developmental (e.g., Mockabee et al.,

Wink and Dillon,

additive. As Klemmack et al. (

state, individuals may be categorized as being

more or less religious but also as being religious

in different ways. It is possible to conceptualize

of clusters of individuals located in

various quadrants of a multidimensional religiosity

grid as well as maturing developmentally

(Klemmack et al.,

Thoresen,

scale so summative and cluster research

studies are feasible.

2001), we were interested in measuringScale constructs and items should fit a broad rangeChristian and Jewish traditionsWorkplace religion is formative and not necessarilyResearch suggests that spirituality is2001;2002) but not necessarily2007, p. 165)2007; Miller and1999). Our aim is to construct a

Item development and pretesting

After establishing assumptions about the scale’s

content and boundaries, the next step was to generate

a model of workplace religion informed by

historical, theological, and sociological writings

across Judaeo-Christian traditions and historical eras.

From this survey, several construct dimensions and

indicators were identified through multiple iterations

of reflection and discussion among the

researchers (Table

by the researchers as potential measures of the

22 indicators. The researchers edited the core

dimensions, indicators, and items for clarity, accuracy,

and parsimony, independently rating each item

and retaining 150 items which rose above natural

breaks in the item ratings.

Eight panelists representing a variety of occupations,

demographics, and religious affiliations served

on a focus group to pilot-test the 150 potential scale

items. Panel members evaluated each item and were

invited to respond to specific probes about the survey

instrument (cf. Foddy,

suggested wording modification for a few items and

surfaced 59 items which rose above natural breaks

for each indicator. These items were selected for

distribution to a larger sample of respondents.

I). Over 250 items were generated1998). Panel feedback

Sampling and procedure

An invitation and an Internet link to an electronic

survey containing potential scale, demographic, and

validation items was emailed to a sample of alumni

from business programs in four religiously-related

higher education institutions in the United States.

Sampling was stratified by graduation decade and

limited to individuals ending their studies at the

institution between 1958 and 2005 under the

assumption that many of those older may have exited

the workforce and those younger may have insufficient

experience to reflect upon workplace religion.

In total, 1,800 individuals were emailed. Of these,

516 emails bounced, leaving 1,284 alumni presumably

reached. A random drawing for eight gift certificates

was offered as an incentive to complete the

survey. The survey and sampling method was

approved by the institutional review board at the

first author’s institution where the research was

conducted. Permission to contact alumni of the

participating institutions was granted by each school.

The response format asked respondents to indicate

the degree to which they agreed with items

using one of the following: 5 = Always or

Frequently; 4 = Often; 3 = Sometimes; 2 = Seldom;

and 1 = Never or Infrequently. We asked

respondents to report their gender, race, and age and

were able to ascertain the country and state domicile

of the respondent from the alumni databases.

Employment variables included employment status

and an estimate of the average number of hours

Faith At Work Scale

worked per week. We used the International Standard

Industrial Classification of all Economic

Activities (ISIC Rev. 4 (draft),

respondents’ industries and the International Standard

Classification of Occupations (ISCO-88,

to classify occupations.

Religious affiliation included self-identified categories

of Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Orthodox,

Jewish, and other.Weasked Protestant respondents to

write-in a specific denominational identifier which

the researchers coded into one of two groups

– evangelical or mainline – following the rubric

developed by the Baylor Religion Survey (

Jewish respondents were asked to identify themselves

as Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform. Those indicating

‘‘other’’ were asked to describe their affiliation

and the researchers coded these appropriately. To test

the convergent validity of the Faith at Work Scale

(FWS), Donahue’s 12-item short-form of the Faith

Maturity Scale (FMS) (Benson et al.,

included in the survey. The FMS was selected because

of its relevance, brevity, psychometric quality, and

acceptance to a heterogeneous Judaeo-Christian

sample.

2312007) to code1988)2006).1993) was4 Cronbach’s a for the FMS short form is 0.88.

Results

Sample

Of the 1,284 alumni contacted via email, 272

responded to the survey yielding a 21% response

rate. Surveys from individuals who self-affiliated

with no religion or with a religion other than

Christianity (including Judaism) were too small to

test statistically (

the analysis. Surveys from retirees (

excluded to insure current reflection on religion and

work. Surveys with substantially missing data

(

sample of a reasonable size (

exploratory factor analytic study.

n = 11), so they were excluded fromn = 14) weren = 13) were also excluded. This culling left a finaln = 234) for an

TABLE I

Dimensions and indicators of Judaeo-Christian workplace religion

Dimension Indicator

Called to relationship Aware of God’s presence in the workplace

God guides at work

Co-creates with God

Integrates work and faith

Trusts God and receives strength and peace

Called to meaning Sees work as part of a calling, a mission

Attributes work talents as gifts from God

Pursues healthy work habits

a

Personal identity is not defined by occupation

a

Is competent and applies gifts in service to others

Learns and grows in skill and wisdom

Called to community Cares for coworkers who reflect God’s image

Witnesses for Christ in word and deed

Suffers for Christ and loves sacrificially

Reserves time for family, church, friends, and community

a

Called to holiness Consistently ethical even when challenged

a

Aware of injustice and acts to correct it

Practices morality and encourages others to as well

Called to giving Sees work as worship, prayer, and a gift to God

Contributes to the common good through work

Stewards rather than owns material things so all can benefit

Conserves natural resources out of love for others

a

aRemoved from the final scale after psychometric testing.

232

Monty L. Lynn et al.

Sociodemographic, employment, and religious

characteristics of the sample are reported in Tables

II

was female (36.8%) which is 10% lower than the

percentage of the US workforce constituted by

women age 20 and older (46.2%) (Bureau of Labor

Statistics,

ethnic minorities were represented in the sample

(4.7%) compared to the US civilian labor force

(26.4%). More respondents were drawn from midwestern

(37.9%) and southwestern (36.6%) states

than from the west, southeast, or northeast, although

respondents were drawn from across the US. Only

one respondent lived abroad. The median age of the

respondents was 37, with a range in age from 22 to

71 years. The sample generally follows the age distribution

of the US civilian work force with more

workers at the younger end of the spectrum (US

Census Bureau,

In terms of employment (Table

majority of respondents were paid, full-time

employees. Three quarters of the sample worked

more than 40 h per week. Employees worked in

small and large organizations in over twenty industries

and in several occupational levels with the largest

groups employed in professional or managerial roles.

As reported in Table

significantly smaller percentage of Catholics and

significantly larger proportion of Evangelicals than is

represented among US religious adherents. There

was slightly less Mainline and more Morman

representation than proportionately found in the US

population. Catholics represent approximately 48%

of US religious adherents, Evangelicals 24%, Mainlines

18%, Jews 6%, and Mormons 3% (Jones et al.,

2002). Two-thirds of the sample attend religious

services once a week or more.

–IV. Slightly more than one-third of the sample2007). A significantly smaller proportion of2007).III), the vastIV, the sample had a

Scale structure

Data adequacy

Survey responses were tested to insure they were

appropriate for factor extraction. A Kaiser–Meyer–

Olkin statistic exceeded the recommended minimum

threshold of 0.6 (KMO = 0.95) and Bartlett’s Test of

Sphericity was significant (

x2 = 2187.45, df = 105,

p

correlations to factor.

<0.000), indicating that the data contained adequate

Number of factors

Scree plots generated using different combinations of

items consistently suggested that a one-factor solution

best fit the data. (The Scree plot using the final

scale items is shown in Figure

prone to overfactoring than Kaiser’s Eigenvalue of 1

rule (cf. Fabrigar et al.,

1). A Scree plot is less1999; Zwick and Velicer,

1986

enough to obviate conducting parallel analysis.

), and the results were judged to be clear

Factor analysis

The factor structure of the scale was tested using

principle axis factoring (PAF) because the relationship

among the supposed factors was theoretically

unknown. PAF uses squared multiple

correlations as the initial communality estimate and

iterates to a final communality by incorporating

variance for each measure (Widaman,

select final items for the FWS, we chose one item

from each indicator which satisfied four criteria.

We considered whether the item had: (1) high

1993). To

TABLE II

Sociodemographic characteristics of sample

Category Characteristic

Gender Male 148 63.2

Female 86 36.8

Ethnicity White 222 95.3

Asian, Native Hawaiian,

Pacific Islander

4 1.7

Hispanic/Latino 4 1.7

Black or African

American

2 0.9

American Indian or

Alaska Native

1 0.4

Domicile Midwest 88 37.9

Southwest 85 36.6

West 23 9.9

Southeast 22 9.5

Northeast 13 5.6

International 1 0.4

Age

(median = 37)

22–29 75 32.1

30–39 56 23.9

40–49 48 20.5

50–59 31 13.3

60–69 21 9.0

70–71 3 1.3

n %

Faith At Work Scale

correlation with other items and with the scale as

a whole; (2) relatively low skew and kurtosis; (3)

high factor communalities; and (4) high factor

loadings. We inspected items by religious affiliation

as well, favoring those with relatively high

intercorrelations across multiple traditions.

233

TABLE III

Employment characteristics of sample

Category Characteristic

Work status Paid 215 91.9

Homemaker 12 5.1

Student 4 1.7

Volunteer 3 1.3

Hours worked <40 h per week 24 10.3

40–49 h per week 132 56.4

50–59 h per week 52 22.2

>60 h per week 26 11.1

Organization size Under 20 employees 67 28.8

20–99 employees 35 15.0

100–249 employees 20 8.6

250–999 employees 30 12.9

1,000–10,000 employees 33 14.2

Over 10,000 employees 48 20.6

Industry Financial activities and insurance 49 20.9

Manufacturing 22 9.4

Retail or wholesale trade 20 8.5

Education 18 7.7

Technical or scientific 17 7.3

Real estate 14 6.0

Medicine, health, and social services 13 5.6

Information and communication 11 4.7

Households goods and services 10 4.3

Administrative and support services 7 3.0

Construction 6 2.6

Religious and pastoral services 6 2.6

Transportation and storage 3 1.3

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 2 0.9

Mining and quarrying 2 0.9

Military 2 0.9

Other services 2 0.9

Public administration 2 0.9

Accommodation and food service 1 0.4

Agriculture, forestry, and fishing 1 0.4

Water supply, sewerage, and waste 1 0.4

Occupation Professional 112 47.9

Manager, senior official, and legislator 65 27.8

Service and sales worker 14 6.0

Clerk 6 2.6

Technician and associate professional 3 1.3

Armed services 2 0.9

Craft and related trades worker 1 0.4

Skilled agricultural, fishery, and forestry worker 1 0.4

n %

234

Monty L. Lynn et al.

After selecting at least one item for each indicator,

the next step was to decide whether the theoretical

model justified retaining items with relatively poor

performance on the above criteria. Items associated

with three indicators – ‘‘Pursues healthy work

practice,’’ ‘‘Reserves time for family, church,

friends, and community,’’ and ‘‘Personal identity is

not defined by occupation’’ – had consistently low

communalities and factor loadings. Although we

believe these constructs are supported by Judaeo-

Christian theology, the items appear to be tapping an

unidentified latent variable which differs from other

scale items and is not statistically adequate to

add additional factors. We removed these three

indicators and their accompanying items from the

scale. Items measuring ‘‘Conserves natural resources

out of love for others’’ consistently loaded low as

well. We believe this construct is partially tapped by

a related indicator – ‘‘Stewards rather than owns

material things so all can benefit.’’ We eliminated

items associated with the Conservation indicator.

Two items measuring ‘‘Consistently ethical, even

when challenged’’ were strongly kurtotic across

most or all religious affiliations, suggesting that they

would have ceiling effects and be relatively meaningless

measures if they were retained. Thus, they

too were omitted. In sum, 17 of the original 22

indicators were retained for the scale and 15 items

were selected to constitute the Faith at Work Scale

(FWS) (Table V).

5

The scale’s single factor accounts for 59.22% of the

total variance (Eigenvalue = 8.88) (Table

the 75% recommended by Stevens (

average at approximately at the sixtieth percentile of

factor analytic studies in the social sciences (Peterson,

VI), shy of2001) but above

2000

communalities and factor loadings adequate (Tables

). Itemintercorrelationswere high (TableVII) and

VIII

above 0.5 and only two items (Caring and Moral) had

factor loadings lower than 0.7. This significantly

exceeds the average cutoff of factor loadings of 0.4

(Peterson,

, IX). Twelve of the 15 items had communalities2000).

Scoring, skew, and kurtosis

Scores on the FWS can range from a low of 15 to a

high of 75. The mean score of the respondents in

this study was 52, which places the sample mean at

the 62nd percentile on the scale – skewed slightly

negatively (toward a positive response). Analysis of

Variance tests across religious affiliations on each of

the 15 FWS items were significant, as were differences

across religious affiliations on the overall FWS

score (

means were evidenced by the small sample of

Mormon respondents (

being slightly lower, followed by Mainlines and

Catholics (Table

Catholics were normally distributed with few

exceptions. With the relatively large Evangelical and

smaller Mormon influence in the sample, however,

six items had a negative skew of 2 or greater (toward

a positive response) (Table

was significantly kurtotic using the

3 rule of thumb for acceptable kurtosis. Two items

(Growing and Witnessing) had a mean score on

skewness that exceeded 4.0.

F = 16.72, df = 3, p> 0.001). The highestn = 12) with EvangelicalsX). Scale items for Mainlines andXI). One item (Partnering))3 to +

TABLE IV

Religious characteristics of sample

Category Characteristic

Affiliation Catholic 45 19.7

Evangelical 138 60.3

Mainline 34 14.8

Mormon 12 5.2

Religious service Less than once a year 8 3.4

Attendance Once or twice a year 8 3.4

Several times a year 26 11.1

Once a month 9 3.8

2–3 times a month 30 12.8

Once a week 82 35.0

More than once a week 71 30.3

n %

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Factor Number

10

8

6

4

2

0

Eigenvalue

Figure 1. Scree plot of Faith at Work Scale.

Faith At Work Scale

235

Reliability and validity

A reliability calculation (Cronbach’s

the rule of thumb minimum of 0.7 for scale

internal consistency. The FWS correlates significantly

with the Faith Maturity Scale (Benson et al.,

a = 0.77) satisfies

1993

validity with the FWS.

) (r = 0.81, p> 0.0001), indicating strong convergent6

Discussion

In this study, we have attempted to broaden and

deepen workplace spirituality by highlighting the

benefits of exploring belief and practice, not just

function. Religious belief and practice connect to

life and work in potent and unique ways and, we

argue, are best understood holistically with spirituality,

practice, and belief examined together.

Examining substance in spirituality opens doors to

exploring workplace pluralism and workfaith

integration. It extends research into measuring the

trends of spiritual beliefs and practices connected

with work, changes across age in workplace religion,

the comparison of belief and practice internationally

and interculturally, and the interaction, melding, and

clash of various expressions of workplace religion.

Studies of outcomes associated with spirituality can

be connected more specifically with religious beliefs

and practice.

To further empirical research into workplace

religion, we describe the development and initial

testing of a measure of Judaeo-Christian workplace

religion.

The FWS is based on a broad, multi-tradition

reading of Judaeo-Christian theology and is designed

TABLE V

Faith at Work Scale core dimensions and items

Dimension Item

Abbreviation Complete wording

Relationship Aware I sense God’s presence while I work

Partnering I view my work as a partnership with God

Meaningful I think of my work as having eternal significance

Integrated I see connections between my worship and my work

Coping My faith helps me deal with difficult work relationships

Meaning Called I view my work as a mission from God

Equipped I sense that God empowers me to do good things at work

Diligent I pursue excellence in my work because of my faith

Growing I believe God wants me to develop my abilities and talents at work

Community Accepting I view my coworkers as being made in the image of God

Witnessing My coworkers know I am a person of faith

Caring I sacrificially love the people I work with

Holiness Moral When I am with others and alone, I practice purity in my work habits

Giving Just I view my work as part of God’s plan to care for the needs of people

Stewarding I view myself as a caretaker not an owner of my money, time and resources

TABLE VI

Eigenvalues and variance explained by Faith at Work Scale

Factor Initial eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared loadings

a

Total % of variance Total % of variance

1 8.88 59.22 8.47 56.46

a

Extraction method: principal axis factoring.

236

Monty L. Lynn et al.

to apply to a variety of occupations and work settings.

The single-factor, 15-item scale reflects five dimensions

of relationship, meaning, community, holiness,

and giving. The scale meets expectations in construct

and convergent validity and in scale internal consistency.

Items highly correlate and exhibit adequate

TABLE VII

Means, standard deviation, and correlation matrix for Faith at Work Scale items

Item abbreviation Descriptives Pearson correlations

a

Mean Std. dev. Awa Par Mea Int Cop Cal Equ Dil Gro Acc Wit Car Mor Jus Ste FWS

Aware 3.16 1.14 1.00

Partnering 3.17 1.27 0.79 1.00

Meaningful 2.90 1.24 0.62 0.74 1.00

Integrated 3.12 1.20 0.68 0.78 0.70 1.00

Coping 3.88 0.95 0.56 0.60 0.46 0.58 1.00

Called 2.91 1.25 0.65 0.72 0.79 0.72 0.51 1.00

Equipped 3.75 1.06 0.64 0.65 0.57 0.60 0.64 0.61 1.00

Diligent 3.63 1.10 0.59 0.65 0.55 0.63 0.63 0.60 0.64 1.00

Growing 4.07 1.03 0.52 0.62 0.54 0.65 0.61 0.56 0.62 0.62 1.00

Accepting 3.47 1.16 0.59 0.61 0.50 0.54 0.50 0.54 0.52 0.56 0.49 1.00

Witnessing 4.05 1.12 0.52 0.64 0.49 0.59 0.54 0.53 0.49 0.59 0.58 0.62 1.00

Caring 3.33 1.03 0.51 0.53 0.49 0.45 0.40 0.53 0.46 0.42 0.37 0.59 0.52 1.00

Moral 3.82 0.91 0.41 0.48 0.39 0.48 0.43 0.46 0.33 0.58 0.33 0.47 0.47 0.33 1.00

Just 3.50 1.19 0.61 0.66 0.67 0.66 0.54 0.70 0.64 0.63 0.56 0.58 0.53 0.55 0.45 1.00

Stewarding 3.49 1.09 0.55 0.62 0.51 0.56 0.48 0.54 0.46 0.66 0.48 0.58 0.53 0.38 0.48 0.55 1.00

FWS total 52.22 12.90 0.81 0.88 0.79 0.84 0.73 0.83 0.77 0.81 0.74 0.76 0.75 0.65 0.61 0.81 0.73 1.00

a

TABLE VIII

Communalities of Faith at Work Scale items

Item abbreviation Initial Extraction

Listwise n = 200; all correlations are significant with an a >0.001.a

Aware 0.68 0.63

Partnering 0.79 0.77

Meaningful 0.70 0.60

Integrated 0.71 0.69

Coping 0.55 0.51

Called 0.72 0.66

Equipped 0.63 0.57

Diligent 0.68 0.63

Growing 0.59 0.52

Accepting 0.58 0.53

Witnessing 0.58 0.52

Caring 0.47 0.38

Moral 0.42 0.33

Just 0.64 0.64

Stewarding 0.55 0.49

a

TABLE IX

Factor matrix of Faith at Work Scale items

Item abbreviation Factor

Extraction method: principal axis factoring.a

Aware 0.79

Partnership 0.88

Meaningful 0.77

Integrated 0.83

Coping 0.71

Called 0.81

Equipped 0.75

Diligent 0.80

Growing 0.72

Accepting 0.73

Witnessing 0.72

Caring 0.62

Moral 0.57

Just 0.80

Stewarding 0.70

a

extracted; 4 iterations required.

Extraction method: principal axis factoring; 1 factor

Faith At Work Scale

communalities and factor loadings across a diverse

sample of Catholic, Evangelical, Mainline, and Mormon

respondents. The scale’s single factor moderately

captures the construct of workplace religion from a

Judaeo-Christian perspective, explaining 59.22% of

the variance.

The sample used to test the FWS was diverse in

Christian tradition, age, occupation, and industry

but was deficient in its representation of ethnic

minorities. Although scale items were extracted

from Jewish and Christian sources, there were too

few Jewish respondents in the sample to adequately

test the scale across Orthodox, Conservative, and

Reform Jewish traditions. Orthodox Christian traditions

were inadequate in number to test as well.

All but one respondent lived in North America,

suggesting the scale may not generalize to other parts

of the world. Thus, in terms of follow-up studies,

obtaining scale responses from a broad cross section

of ethnic minorities and Jewish respondents, and

testing it in various nations and cultures would further

scrutinize the scale’s psychometric qualities.

Beyond general scale testing, confirmatory factor

analysis could be used to construct and examine

various theories of workplace religion. Additionally,

comparative studies of religious traditions could

enlighten understanding in faith-work integration,

not only from a summative perspective but also in

multidimensional religious space, investigating how

faith adherents may conceptualize of faith-work

integration differently.

In sum, exploring substance surrounding workplace

spirituality promises additional insight into

what to this point has been limited to mostly conjecture,

anecdotal observation, and homogenized

measures. In cultures flourishing in pluralistic

religion, it seems both appropriate and timely to

refine theoretical conceptualizations and augment

empirical measures which allow exploration of

workplace religion.

237

TABLE X

Means and standard deviations of Faith at Work Scale items by Christian tradition

Item abbreviation Christian traditions

a

Catholic (

(

Mainline (

Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev.

Aware 2.79 0.94 3.32 1.08 2.97 1.31 3.55 1.13

Partnership 2.40 1.19 3.44 1.16 2.73 1.21 3.45 1.21

Meaningful 2.35 1.11 3.12 1.23 2.55 1.18 3.45 1.04

Integrated 2.47 1.20 3.39 1.09 2.76 1.35 3.90 0.88

Coping 3.30 0.94 4.06 0.78 3.48 1.18 4.27 1.27

Called 2.28 1.13 3.14 1.18 2.74 1.41 3.09 1.30

Equipped 3.35 1.10 3.90 0.97 3.55 1.03 4.27 0.65

Diligent 3.05 1.01 3.91 0.97 3.15 1.09 4.27 0.91

Growing 3.60 1.08 4.28 0.85 3.79 1.02 4.91 0.30

Accepting 2.93 0.94 3.66 1.11 2.91 1.05 4.27 0.79

Witnessing 3.30 1.36 4.39 0.95 3.44 1.27 4.82 0.41

Caring 3.05 1.15 3.47 0.97 3.03 1.06 3.27 0.91

Moral 3.28 0.97 3.98 0.75 3.40 1.07 4.80 0.42

Just 2.82 1.10 3.70 1.11 3.17 1.05 4.00 1.41

Stewarding 2.90 1.02 3.76 0.99 2.93 1.20 4.30 0.82

Total 43.34 11.44 55.69 11.06 46.25 13.87 64.11 5.18

n = 45) Evangelicaln = 138)n = 34) Mormon (n = 12)

a

Jewish responses were insufficient in number to be statistically meaningful and so are omitted.

238

Monty L. Lynn et al.

Notes

1

understandings of spirituality in the psychological literature

may be gathered under three categories: Religious spirituality

based in theology (e.g., Orsi,

drawing on ecology (e.g., Zsolnai and Ims,

humanistic spirituality emphasizing anthropological sources

(e.g., Pava,

three aspects of good work: ‘‘To act as spiritual

beings, that is to say, to act in accordance with their moral

impulses –

render service to his fellows –

as persons, as autonomous centers of power and responsibility,

that is, to be creatively engaged, using and developing

the gifts that we have been blessed with –

and herself

the last point links with his emphasis upon small

technology and industry which, he argued, respects and

preserves the natural environment. These three categories

of spirituality are not mutually exclusive as Tucker (2007)

suggests.

Over a decade ago, Spilka (1993) concluded that2006); natural spirituality2006); and2003). Schumacher (1979, p. 116) similarly definedMan as a divine being. To act as neighbors, toMan as a social being; To actMan himself.’’ Although Schumacher doesn’t mention ecology,

2

find the whole of life to be sacred, there is little difference

between the two processes.’’ Similarly, Pargament et al.

(

the sacred is not illusory. It is not a means to achieve

psychological and social ends devoid of spiritual value. It is

not merely one part of living. It is the core of life.’’Workplace

spirituality on the individual level is not merely a

treatise on ethical work or a theology of work, but a lived

experience which transforms the work and workplace in

transcendent ways, imbuing it with meaning beyond its

immediate context (Raidt,

workplace spirituality, its potential as an encompassing

world view should be recognized. Nevertheless, for some,

religion may be reduced to moralistic therapeutic deism –

general moral platitudes divorced from the intellectual tradition

of their religion. Others struggle with how their

faith and work coincide.

TABLE XI

Skew and kurtosis of Faith at Work items

Item abbreviation

Zinnbauer et al. (1997, p. 911) state: ‘‘For those who2005, p. 668) observe that ‘‘…to the religiously minded,2001). Thus, to understandN Mean Std. deviation Skewnessa Kurtosisb

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std.

error

Statistic/Std.

error

Statistic Std.

error

Statistic/Std.

error

Aware 227 3.15 1.13

Partnering 228 3.11 1.26 0.03 0.16 0.21

Meaningful 229 2.87 1.24 0.22 0.16 1.34

Integrated 226 3.11 1.22

Coping 229 3.81 0.99

Called 224 2.90 1.25 0.22 0.16 1.32

Equipped 226 3.75 1.03

Diligent 225 3.64 1.08

Growing 225 4.07 1.01

Accepting 223 3.43 1.14

Witnessing 223 4.06 1.10

Caring 222 3.32 1.03

Moral 213 3.82 0.90

Just 215 3.45 1.19

Stewarding 216 3.50 1.10

FWS Total 200 52.22 12.99

)0.07 0.16 )0.41 )0.68 0.32 )2.11)1.05 0.32 )3.27)0.93 0.32 )2.91)0.05 0.16 )0.31 )0.91 0.32 )2.83)0.67 0.16 )4.18 0.26 0.32 0.82)0.91 0.32 )2.82)0.60 0.16 )3.69 )0.21 0.32 )0.65)0.47 0.16 )2.91 )0.53 0.32 )1.64)1.05 0.16 )6.44 0.72 0.32 2.22)0.20 0.16 )1.21 )0.81 0.32 )2.50)1.20 0.16 )7.39 0.83 0.32 2.56)0.29 0.16 )1.75 )0.37 0.33 )1.13)0.68 0.17 )4.10 0.53 0.33 1.59)0.26 0.17 )1.58 )0.87 0.33 )2.62)0.23 0.17 )1.40 )0.77 0.33 )2.33)0.30 0.17 )1.74 )0.52 0.34 )1.52

a

skewness reflect long right and left tails, respectively. In this case, a negative skew is toward a positive item response. Items

may be considered skewed if they exceed the range of +2 to

error.

Skewness is a measure of a distribution’s asymmetry; a normal distribution has skewness of zero. Positive and negative)2 when the skew statistic is divided by the item’s standard

b

kurtosis of zero. Positive and negative kurtosis reflects less or more spread than normal, respectively. An item may be

considered kurtotic if it exceeds +3 to

Kurtosis is an indicator of whether the distribution of responses to an item is peaked or flat. A normal distribution has)3 when divided by the standard error.

Faith At Work Scale

239

3

transformation is strongly tied to religious participation

(Smith,

Recent research supports the view that spiritual2006).

4

To make the Faith Maturity Scale (Benson et al.,

1993

‘‘My life is committed to Jesus Christ’’ was altered to

‘‘My life is committed to God.’’

) relevant to Jewish respondents, the wording of

5

suggests the addition of substance (e.g., dogma, institution,

etc.) to spirituality’s quest; it is inclusive of deistic

and non-deistic religion; and it can incorporate humanistic

and ecological belief systems as well as religious ones.

‘‘Faith at Work’’ is the name given to the scale developed

in this research because it suggests a relationship with a

deity which extends beyond the dogmatic and institutional

intonation of the word ‘‘religion.’’

We employ the term ‘‘workplace religion’’ because: It

6

Baptists) were dropped from the mostly Mainline

Christian sample that was used to develop the Faith

Maturity Scale study (Donahue et al., 1993). That

Evangelicals were included in the present study along

with Catholics, Mainlines, and a small sample of

Mormons suggests that the FWS potentially has broad

reasonable application across Christian and, yet to be

tested, Jewish audiences.

Due to sampling particularities, Evangelicals (Southern

References

Ashmos, D. P. and D. Duchon: 2000, ‘Spirituality at

Work: A Conceptualization and Measure’,

Management Inquiry

9260092008

Arthaud-Day, M. L., J. C. Rode, C. H. Mooney and

J. P. Near: 2005, ‘The Subjective Well-Being Construct:

A Test of Its Convergent, Discriminant, and

Factoral Validity’,

476. doi:

Baylor Religion Survey: 2006,

Century: New Insights to the Depth and Complexity of

Religion in the US

Religion, Waco, TX).

Becker, P.E. and H. Hofmeister: 2001, ‘Work, Family,

and Religious Involvement for Men and Women’,

Journal of9, 134–145. doi:10.1177/10564.Social Indicators Research 74, 445–10.1007/s11205–004–8209–6.American Piety in the 21st(Baylor Institute for Studies of

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

doi:

Benson, P. L., M. J. Donahue and J. A. Erickson: 1993,

‘The Faith Maturity Scale: Conceptualization,

Measurement, and Empirical Validation’, in M. L.

Lynn and D. O. Moberg (eds.),

Scientific Study of Religion

CT), pp. 1–26.

Bureau of Labor Statistics: 2007, ‘Employment Situation

(Table A-2. Employment Status of the Civilian

Population by Race, Sex, and Age; Table A-3.

Employment Status of theHispanic or Latino Population

by Sex and Age)’, Retrieved September 2, 2007 from

40, 707–722.10.1111/0021–8294.00086.Research in the Social, Vol. 5 (JAI Press, Greenwich,

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.toc.htm

Conroy, S. J. and T. L. N. Emerson: 2004, ‘Business Ethics

and Religion: Religiosity as a Predictor of Ethical

Awareness Among Students’,

383–396. doi:

Davidson, J. C. and D. P. Caddell: 1994, ‘Religion and

the Meaning of Work’,

Religion

DeVellis, R. F.: 2003,

Applications

Emmons,R.A. andR. F. Paloutzian: 2003, ‘The Psychology

of Religion’,

doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145024.

Epstein, E. M.: 2002, ‘Religion and Business – The

Critical Role of Religious Traditions in Management

Education’,

doi:

Fabrigar, L. R., D. T. Wegener, R. C. MacCallum and E.

J. Strahan: 1999, ‘Evaluating the Use of Exploratory

Factor Analysis in Psychological Research’,

Methods

Finnis, J., J. Boyle and G. Grisez: 1999, ‘A Sounder

Theory of Morality. Readings in Moral Theology,

No. 11’, in R. McCornick and C. Curran (eds.),

Historical Development of Moral Theology in the United

States

Foddy, W.: 1998, ‘An Empirical Evaluation of In-Depth

Probes Used to Pretest Survey Questions’,

Methods and Research

0049124198027001003

Fowler, F. J. Jr.: 1995,

and Evaluation

Geertz, C.: 1973, ‘Thick Description: Towards an

Interpretative Theory of Culture’, in C. Geertz (ed.),

.Journal of Business Ethics 50,10.1023/B:BUSI.0000025040.41263.09.Journal for the Scientific Study of33, 135–147. doi:10.2307/1386600.Scale Development: Theory and, 2nd Edition (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Annual Review of Psychology 54, 377–402.Journal of Business Ethics 38, 91–96.10.1023/A:1015712827640.Psychological4, 272–299. doi:10.1037/1082–989X.4.3.272.The(Paulist Press, New York), pp. 200–218.Sociological27, 103–133. doi:10.1177/.Improving Survey Questions: Design(Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).

The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays

Books, New York), pp. 3–30.

Giacalone, R. A. and C. L. Jurkiewicz: 2003, ‘Toward a

Science of Workplace Spirituality’, in R. A. Giacalone

and C. L. Jurkiewicz (eds.),

Spirituality and Organizational Performance

Sharpe, Armonk, NY), pp. 3–28.

Gorsuch, R. L. and W. R. Miller: 1999, ‘Assessing

Spirituality’, in W. R. Miller (ed.),

into Treatment: Resources for Practitioners

Psychological Association, Washington, DC)

, pp. 47–64.

Gotsis, G. and Z. Kortezi: 2008, ‘Philosophical Foundations

of Workplace Spirituality: A Critical Approach’,

(BasicHandbook of Workplace(M.G.Integrating Spirituality(American

240

Monty L. Lynn et al.

Journal of Business Ethics

s10551–007–9369–5

Hall, T. W. and K. J. Edwards: 2002, ‘The Spiritual

Assessment Inventory: A Theistic Model and Measure

for Assessing Spiritual Development’,

Scientific Study of Religion

1468–5906.00121

Hicks, D. A.: 2003,

Spirituality, Leadership

Cambridge).

Hill, P. C.: 2005, ‘Measurement in the Psychology of

Religion and Spirituality:Current Status and Evaluation’,

in R. F. Paloutzian and C. L. Park (eds.),

Psychology of Religion and Spirituality

York), pp. 43–61.

Hill, P. C. and R. W. Hood Jr.: 1999,

Religiosity

Hill, P. C., K. I. Pargament, R. W. Hood Jr.,

M. E. McCullough, J. P. Swyers, D. B. Larson and

B. J. Zinnbauer: 2000, ‘Conceptualizing Religion and

Spirituality: Points of Commonality, Points of

Departure’,

51–77. doi:

ISCO-88: 1988,

(International Labour Organization, Geneva)

at:

stat/isco/index.htm

ISIC Rev. 4 (draft): 2007,

Classification of All Economic Activities, Revision 4

Nations Statistical Division, New York

78, 575–600. doi:10.1007/.Journal for the41, 341–357. doi:10.1111/.Religion and the Workplace: Pluralism,(Cambridge University Press,Handbook of the(Guilford Press,NewMeasures of(Religious Education Press, Atlanta).Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 30,10.1111/1468–5914.00119.International Standard Classification of Occupations, availablehttp://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/.International Standard Industrial(United), available at:

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/class/default.asp

Jackson, S., R. Eames, L. Van Drunen and J. Voskuil:

2006, ‘Engaging Ideas: Can Christian Business Scholarship

Inform Business Practice?’,

Integration in Business

Jones, H. B. Jr.: 1997, ‘The Protestant Ethic: Weber’s Model

and theEmpirical Literature’,

Jones, D. E., S. Doty, C. Grammich, J. E. Horsch, R.

Houseal, M. Lynn, J. P. Marcum, K. M. Sanchagrin

and R. H. Taylor: 2002, Religious Congregations and

Membership in the United States 2000: An Enumeration

by Region, State and County Based on Data

Reported for 149 Religious Bodies (Glenmary

Research Center, Atlanta).

Juergensmeyer, M.: 2006, ‘Thinking Globally about

Religion’, in M. Juergensmeyer (ed.),

Handbook of Global Religions

New York), pp. 3–14.

Kinjerski, V. and B. J. Skrypnek: 2006, ‘Measuring the

Intangible: Development of the Spirit at Work Scale’,

Paper presented at the Academy of Management

Annual Meeting, Atlanta, August.

Klemmack, D. L., L. L. Roff, M. W. Parker, H. G. Koenig,

P. Sawyer and R. M. Allman: 2007, ‘A Cluster Analysis

Typology of Religiousness/Spirituality Among Older

Adults’,

Ladd, K. L. and B. Spilka: 2006, ‘Inward, Outward,

Upward Prayer: Scale Reliability and Validation’,

.Journal of BiblicalFall, 141–162.HumanRelations 50, 757–778.The Oxford(Oxford University Press,Research on Aging 29, 163–183.

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

Levenson, M. R., C. M. Aldwin and M. D’Mello: 2005,

‘Religious Development from Adolescence to Middle

Adulthood’, in R. F. Paloutzian and C. L. Park (eds.),

45, 233–251.

Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality

(Guilford Press, New York), pp. 144–161.

Lund Dean, K. and C. J. Fornaciari: 2007, ‘Empirical

Research in Management, Spirituality and Religion

During Its Founding Years’,

Spirituality and Religion

Miller, D. W.: 2006,

of the Faith at Work Movement

New York).

Miller, W. R. and C. E. Thoresen: 1999, ‘Spirituality and

Health’, in W.R. Miller (ed.),

Treatment: Resources for Practitioners

Association, Washington, DC), pp. 3–18.

Moberg, D. O.: 2002, ‘Assessing and Measuring Spirituality:

Confronting Dilemmas of Universal and Particular

Evaluative Criteria’,

47–60.

Mockabee, S. T., J. Q. Monson and J. T. Grant: 2001,

‘Measuring Religious Commitment Among Catholics

and Protestants: A New Approach’,

Scientific Study of Religion

Nash, L. and S. McLennan: 2001,

Work on Monday: The Challenge of Fusing Christian

Values with Business Life

Neff, J. A.: 2006, ‘Exploring the Dimensionality of

‘Religiosity’ and ‘Spirituality’ in the Fetzer Multidimensional

Measure’,

Religion

Netemeyer, R. G., W. O. Bearden and S. Sharma: 2003,

Journal of Management,4, 3–34.God at Work: The History and Promise(Oxford University Press,Integrating Spirituality into(American PsychologicalJournal of Adult Development 9,Journal for the40, 675–690.Church on Sunday,(Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).Journal for the Scientific Study of45, 449–459.

Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications

Oaks, CA).

Orsi, R. A.: 2006, ‘2 + 2 = 5, or the Quest for an

Abundant Empiricism’,

Pargament, K. I.: 1999, ‘The Psychology of Religion and

Spirituality? Yes and No’,

Psychology of Religion

Pargament, K. I., G. M. Magyar-Russell and N. A.

Murray-Swank: 2005, ‘The Sacred and the Search for

Significance: Religion as a Unique Process’,

Social Issues

Pava, M. L.: 2003, ‘Searching for Spirituality in all the

Wrong Places’,

(Sage, ThousandSpiritus 6, 113–121.International Journal for the2, 201–229.Journal of61, 665–687.Journal of Business Ethics 48, 393–400.

Faith At Work Scale

241

Peterson, R. A.: 2000, ‘A Meta-Analysis of Variance

Accounted for and Factor Loadings in Exploratory

Factor Analysis’,

Piedmont, R. L. and M. M. Leach: 2002, ‘Cross-Cultural

Generalizability of the Spiritual Transcendence Scale in

India: Spirituality as a Universal Aspect of Human

Experience’,

Radoki, C.: 2007, ‘Understanding the Roles of Religion

in Development: The Approach of the RaD

Programme’, Working Paper 9 (University of

Birmingham, Birmingham).

Raidt, E.: 2001, ‘Towards a Christian Spirituality of

Work’, Paper presented at Work as Key to the Social

Question: The Great Social and Economic Transformations

and the Subjective Dimension of Work

(John A. Ryan Center for Catholic Studies, University

of St. Thomas, Rome/Vatican City), March.

Rossiter, J. R.: 2002, ‘The C-OAR-SE Procedure for

Scale Development in Marketing’,

of Research in Marketing

Sandelands, L. E.: 2003, ‘The Argument for God from Organization

Studies’,

Schumacher, E. F.: 1979,

Books, New York).

Seidlitz, L., A. D. Abernethy, P. R. Duberstein,

J. S. Evinger, T. H. Change and B. L. Lewis: 2002,

‘Development of the Spiritual Transcendence Index’,

Marketing Letters 11, 261–275.American Behavioral Scientist 45, 1888–1901.International Journal19, 305–335.Journal ofManagement Inquiry 12, 168–177.Good Work (Harper Colophon

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

Sheep, M. L.: 2004, ‘Nailing Down Gossamer: A Valid

Measure of the Person-Organization Fit of Workplace

Spirituality’,

Smith, Y. S.: 2005, ‘The JBIB and the State of Faith/

Business Integration: Accomplishments and Gaps’,

41, 439–453.Academy ofManagement Proceedings, ppB1–B6.

Journal of Biblical Integration in Business

Smith, T. W.: 2006, ‘The National Spiritual Transformation

Study’,

Fall, 154–165.Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

45

Spilka, B.: 1993, ‘Spirituality: Problems and Directions in

Operationalizing a Fuzzy Concept’, Paper presented at

the meeting of the American Psychological Association,

Toronto, Ontario, August.

Stevens, J. P.: 2001,

Sciences

Tourangeau, R., L. J. Rips and K. Rasinski: 2000,

Psychology of Survey Response

Press, New York).

Tsang, J. and M. E. McCullough: 2003, ‘Measuring

Religious Constructs: A Hierarchical Approach to

Construct Organization and Scale Selection’, in

S. J. Lopez and C. R. Snyder (eds.),

Assessment: A Handbook of Models and Measures

, 283–296.Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social, 4th Edition (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ).The(Cambridge UniversityPositive Psychological

(American Psychological Association, Washington,

DC), pp. 345–360.

Tucker, M. E.: 2007, ‘The Ecological Spirituality of

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’,

Christian Spirituality

US Census Bureau: 2007,

577, Civilian Labor Force–Percent Distribution by Sex and

Age: 1960 to 2005

Spiritus: A Journal of7, 1–19.2007 Statistical Abstract, Table, retrieved September 2, 2007 from

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/labor_force_

employment_earnings/

Van Buren, H.J. III: 1995, ‘Work and Religious Faith:

How People of Faith Relate to their Employers’,

.

Journal of Values-Based Management

Van Loon, E. C.: 2000, ‘Faith on the Job: A Typology for

the Integration of Faith and Work Life for Christians

Working in For-Profit Businesses’, unpublished M.A.

thesis (Hartford Seminary, Hartford, CT).

Von Hu¨ gel, F. F. : 1923,

as Studied in Saint Catherine of Genoa and Her Friends

8, 279–288.The Mystical Element of Religion

(J. M. Dent, London).

Whittington, J. L., B. Frank, R. May, B. Murray and

V. Goodwin: 2006, ‘Servant Leadership in Organizations:

Scale Development and Validation’, Paper presented at

AcademyofManagementAnnualMeeting, Atlanta, August.

Widaman, K. F.: 1993, ‘Common Factor Analysis Versus

Principal Component Analysis: Differential Bias in

Representing Model Parameters?’,

Research

Wink, P. and M. Dillon: 2002, ‘Spiritual Development

Across the Adult Life Course: Findings from a Longitudinal

Study’,

Withnow, R.: 1998,

the 1950s

Zinnbauer, B. J., K. I. Pargament., B. Cole, M. S. Rye,

E. M. Butter, T. G. Belavich, K. M. Hipp, A. B. Scott

and J. L. Kadar: 1997, ‘Religion and Spirituality:

Unfuzzying the Fuzzy’,

Religion

Zsolnai, L. and K. J. Ims (eds.): 2006,

Limits: Deep Ecology and Buddhist Economics, Frontiers of

Business Ethics

Zwick, W. R. and W. F. Velicer: 1986, ‘Comparison of

Five Rules for Determining the Number of Components

to Retain’,

Multivariate Behavioral28, 263–311.Journal of Adult Development 9, 79–94.AfterHeaven: Spirituality inAmerica Since(University of California Press, Berkeley).Journal for the Scientific Study of36, 549–564.Business Within, Vol. 1 (Peter Lang, Oxford).Psychological Bulletin 99, 432–442.

Monty. L. Lynn

Management Sciences,

Abilene Christian University,

ACU Box 29325,

Abilene, TX 79699, U.S.A.

E-mail: lynnm@acu.edu

242

Michael J. Naughton

Catholic Studies,

University of St. Thomas,

Mail 55-S, 2115 Summit Avenue,

St. Paul, MN 55105, U.S.A.

E-mail: mjnaughton@stthomas.edu

Steve VanderVeen

Economics, Management and Accounting,

Hope College,

Box 9000,

Holland, MI 49422, U.S.A.

E-mail: vanderveen@hope.edu

Faith At Work Scale Monty L. Lynn et al.243

Faith at Work Scale (FWS): Justification,

Development, and Validation of a Measure

of Judaeo-Christian Religion

in the Workplace