Abstract
Purpose
Recently, both researchers and practitioners have been very interested in the impact of leadership on employee engagement. Thus, I aimed to examine the relationship between spiritual leadership and work engagement through the mediating role of spiritual well-being at work.
Design/methodology/approach
I assessed spiritual leadership, engagement, and well-being in an empirical study based on a sample of 223 employees. I collected data through a survey-based method and analyzed them using structural equation modeling (SEM).
Findings
The present study contributes to the existing knowledge in the leadership field, especially spiritual leadership. The results revealed that spiritual leadership impacts employees’ work engagement by indirectly influencing employees’ spiritual well-being.
Research limitations/implications
Theoretically, the findings imply that spiritual well-being can be one of the factors considered in enhancing work engagement through spiritual leadership.
Practical implications
Finding evidence that spiritual leadership, like other leadership styles, can foster employee engagement. Therefore, leaders should take care of employees’ spiritual needs.
Originality/value
Many researchers have indicated that well-being is associated with employee engagement. However, they overlooked employees’ spiritual well-being in the research. The study confirmed the unexplored mediating role of spiritual well-being between spiritual leadership and employee engagement.
Keywords
Citation
Samul, J. (2024), "Spiritual leadership and work engagement: a mediating role of spiritual well-being", Central European Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 421-435. https://doi.org/10.1108/CEMJ-05-2023-0223
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024, Joanna Samul
License
Published in Central European Management Journal. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Introduction
Research on leadership and work engagement is advancing. Previous studies explored how specific leadership styles stimulate employee engagement which is necessary for organizational performance at the individual (Bayighomog & Arasli, 2022), team (Seppälä, Harju, & Hakanen, 2020), and organizational levels (Yang, Huang, & Wu, 2019). Scholars studied several positive leadership styles such as charismatic leadership (Babcock-Roberson & Strickland, 2010), ethical leadership (Chughtai, Byrne, & Flood, 2014), authentic leadership (Mehmood, Nawab, & Hamstra, 2016), transformational leadership (Amor, Vάguez, & Faina, 2020), and inclusive leadership (Cenkci, Bircan, & Zimmerman, 2020) for their roles in improving employee engagement. According to the model by Carasco-Saul, Kim, and Kim (2015), transformational leaders provide vision, emotional support, and recognition for contributions to enhance work engagement. Authentic, charismatic, and ethical leaders reinforce employee engagement through role clarification, organizational culture, empowerment, identification with the supervisor, and psychological ownership (Carasco-Saul et al., 2015). The search for different determinants and mediators affecting work engagement is still ongoing.
One of the most dominant paradigms in contemporary leadership literature is spiritual leadership (Judge & Piccolo, 2004) determined as “probably the most significant trend in management since the 1950s” (Howard, 2002, p. 230). According to Fry (2003, p. 694), spiritual leadership comprises “the values, attitudes, and behaviors that are necessary to intrinsically motivate one’s self and others so that they have a sense of spiritual survival through calling and membership.” Samul (2020) recognizes it as an ability to inspire other people and motivate them intrinsically by providing vision, values, hope, and loving relationships. It seems that spiritual leadership can be significant for employee engagement because of its motivational nature. Work engagement physically involves employees at work, being cognitively vigilant, and empathically relating with other employees in the work environment (Kahn, 1990). Another reason to choose spiritual leadership is its holistic nature which includes: body, mind, heart, and spirit (Fry, 2003). Moreover, engagement involves the use of “hands, head, and heart” to achieve organizational goals (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995, p. 110). Although it seems that spiritual leadership is well suited to the needs of employee engagement, there is no sufficient research on the topic. Some recent studies have suggested that workers’ commitment to work and organizations is roused when the organization and its leaders take care of their spiritual needs (Saripudin & Rosari, 2019; Hunsaker & Jeong, 2020; Wu & Lee, 2020). However, scholars conducted the mentioned research in an Asia characterized by Confucius or Hinduism culture. Therefore, we cannot regard the results as a general trend for all employees. Scholars should also evaluate the relationship between spiritual leadership and work engagement among employees from European cultures to determine the trend. Moreover, some studies have reported that there is no connection between the elements of spiritual leadership and work engagement (Stains, 2018). Therefore, this topic requires further investigation.
Next, it is well known that both well-being and work engagement positively influence enthusiasm, happiness, vigor (Bakker & Oerlemans, 2011). Much of the research focused on overall well-being, to the exclusion of spiritual well-being. Spiritual well-being means engagement in positive behavior leading to the pursuit of one’s calling or purpose (Fry, 2005). A spiritual leader inspires people to seek what makes work more interesting and meaningful (Fry, 2003; Nguyen, Tran, Dao, & Dinh, 2018). However, only a few studies explored the mediating role of spiritual well-being between spiritual leadership, life satisfaction, and job burnout (Hunsaker, 2019) and organizational commitment and productivity (Fry, 2003). The topic of spiritual well-being seems to be unexplored. Therefore, it is important to verify whether spiritual well-being has a mediating role between spiritual leadership and work engagement.
The present study contributes to the existing knowledge in the field of leadership, especially spiritual leadership. Firstly, it ascertains the association between spiritual leadership and work engagement. The literature review showed that many leadership concepts impact work engagement. Therefore, it is important to determine whether spiritual leadership also enhances employee engagement. The studies in spiritual leadership are ambiguous and concern mainly Asian or American culture. Thus, this research contributes to international analysis. New concepts require validation in different cultural contexts. Moreover, the concept of spiritual leadership is not yet well recognized in Polish literature. Therefore this research will contribute to the expanding knowledge in this area. Secondly, I studied the mediating role of spiritual well-being in the relationship between spiritual leadership and work engagement. The literature recognizes the construct of well-being quite well. However, researchers often neglect spiritual well-being. Therefore, it is important to define the role of spiritual well-being in the context of spiritual leadership and employee engagement.
The article consists of four sections. The first section will present a literature review and hypotheses development in the context of a spiritual leadership concept and work engagement considering the mediating role of well-being. The second section will describe the methods and measures. The next section will present the results of structural equation modeling. The final sections will present the findings and limitations and indicate further research avenues.
Literature review and hypothesis development
Spiritual leadership and work engagement
Spiritual leadership is a positive and humane leadership style that involves intrinsically motivating and inspiring workers through hope/faith, vision, and altruistic love for service to organization’s key stakeholders (Smith, Minor, & Brasher, 2018). Spiritual leadership takes care of a corporate culture based on these values to produce highly motivated, committed, and productive employees. A spiritual leader is “someone who walks in front of one when one needs someone to follow, behind one when one needs encouragement, and beside one when one needs a friend” (Fry, 2003, p. 720). It is linked with several employee outcomes, such as well-being and human health (Nielsen, Yarker, Randall, & Munir, 2009; Khanna & Srinivas, 2000), greater morale, commitment, a sense of meaning, and a job calling (Fry, Vitucci, & Cedillo, 2005), greater employee and leader motivation, satisfaction, and task involvement (Delbecq, 1999), and job engagement (Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008). This suggests that spiritual leadership has a possible effect on positive dimensions of work that translate into employee engagement.
Work engagement as a motivational concept describes why employees want to allocate their resources to their work (Halbesleben, 2010). One of the first definitions of work engagement describes it as “the alignment of individual members of the organization with their respective work roles” (Kahn, 1990, p. 694). It allows employees to connect to their work and feel a sense of membership. Moreover, employees in their work “employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances” (Kahn, 1990, p. 694). This means that employees can express their “preferred self” in their work. This affects not only the well-being of employees as employee health (Halbesleben, 2010), organizational commitment (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2008), job, and life satisfaction (Bailey, Madden, Alfes, & Fletcher, 2017), creativity (Khan, Khan, Bodla, & Gul, 2020), or taking extra-role behavior (Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008), but also organizational performance (Samul & Wangmo, 2021). Therefore, we may state that spiritual leadership and work engagement may be connected due to the influence of common personal or organizational outcomes.
Furthermore, scholars define engagement as a work situation, in which employees find work meaningful (Kahn, 1990) and experience well-being (Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008). Spiritual leadership refers to the behavior, values, and attitudes of a leader that lead to the satisfaction of employees’ well-being needs, such as a sense of meaning and appreciation (Fry, 2003; Sanders, Hopkins, & Geroy, 2003). A spiritual leader aims to create a meaningful workplace (Sanders et al., 2003). This means that both spiritual leadership and work engagement enhance similar personal outcomes such as meaning and well-being.
The empirical findings of previous studies on the relationship between spiritual leadership and work engagement suggested that employee engagement is positively affected by innovative behavior with spiritual leadership as the moderator (Zuhaena, Tjahjono, El Qodri, Prajogo, & Palupi, 2018). Moreover, spiritual leadership indirectly influences work engagement by psychological capital (Wu & Lee, 2020). Another study shows that spiritual leadership positively facilitates employee vigor at work by enhancing their work enjoyment (Yang, Chen, Yang, & Huang, 2022). Csikszentmihalyi (2003) defines employees engaged at work as those who are immersed in their work and experience “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli, Salanova, Roma, & Bakker, 2002, p. 74). Moreover, spiritual leadership has a positive and significant association with happiness at work (Srivastava, Mendiratta, Pankaj, Misra, & Mendiratta, 2022) and promoting organizational commitment (Fry et al., 2005) which are connected to work engagement. Spiritual climate relates to employee engagement (Cruz, Alquwez, & Balay‐odao, 2022). Spiritual leadership is an inner life that determines the approach to work and commitment to activities (Samul, 2020). Employees do not exist as distinct individuals in their personal and work lives. They simply transfer their values to work by behaving in a certain way.
Building upon the above arguments, I hypothesized:
There is a positive relationship between spiritual leadership and work engagement.
The role of well-being in spiritual leadership and work engagement
Scholars analyzed the concept of well-being from different standpoints. It may be an individual’s perception of life, happiness, meaning and purpose, work satisfaction, personal development, or social relationships (Su, Tay, & Diener, 2014; VanderWeele, 2017). It is a state of mind wherein individuals subjectively assess mental health, happiness, and quality of work experiences.
Several studies have shown that well-being creates a positive work environment, affects positive work-and-health outcomes, and fosters personal growth and development (Russell, 2008), and causes happiness (Dodge, Daly, Huyton, & Sanders, 2012). The most common structure of well-being includes physical, social, and psychological aspects. However, we may observe that the concept’s dimensions are still expanding. Some researchers have claimed that well-being encompasses social, spiritual, emotional, and intellectual well-being (Brunetto, Teo, Shacklock, & Farr-Wharton, 2012; McCarthy, Almeida, & Ahrens, 2011). This study focused on spiritual well-being proposed by Fry (2003), who indicated two constructs of spiritual well-being, i.e. a sense of meaning and membership.
The concept of meaning is the idea of questioning one’s existence (Geldenhuys, Łaba, & Venter, 2014) which is the primary matter of human life. Work is one of the ways to find a sense of meaning (Bakker, Scharp, Breevaart, & de Vries, 2020). A perception of meaning at work relates to personal outcomes such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction, absenteeism (Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin, & Schwartz, 1997), and organizational outcomes (Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski, 2010; Nielsen, Randall, Yarker, & Brenner, 2008). Scholars found the construct of meaning in work in the empowerment model (Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997) or the job characteristics model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). The current model of spiritual leadership (Fry, 2003) focuses on intrinsically motivating the leaders and the followers for their spiritual well-being.
When employees feel that their jobs and lives are meaningful and they are understood and appreciated by leaders, it results in membership (Chen & Li, 2013). Membership is the core of organizational culture, based on altruistic love, where leaders care for and value their employees. Therefore, employees feel valued, unleashing their intrinsic motivation and desire to excel (Fagley & Adler, 2012). Membership provides psychological resources such as a sense of meaning and support needed for good health. Moreover, mere attendance is not sufficient but depends on a person’s identification with the particular group (Sani, Madhok, Norbury, Dugard, & Wakefield, 2015; Wakefield, Sani, Herrera, Khan, & Dugard, 2016). Every leader is responsible for the maintenance of a sense of being a part of a community and connection to others at work.
In contemporary leadership literature, scholars relate positive leadership styles to well-being (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Some studies have indicated that spiritual leadership is an important factor in the workplace that may impact subjective well-being (Zou et al., 2020). Another study showed that life satisfaction with spiritual well-being affects the relationship between spiritual leadership and job burnout (Hunsaker, 2019). Furthermore, some authors suggested that spiritual leadership directly influences employees’ spiritual well-being (Yusof & Mohamad, 2014; Fry, 2003). Another research supported the impact of spiritual leadership on psychological ownership directly and through a mediating role of spiritual well-being (Arshad & Abbasi, 2014).
Based on these studies, I hypothesized:
Spiritual leadership has a positive impact on spiritual well-being.
The body of literature on work engagement and well-being suggested a relationship between both terms. Employees with a high level of engagement are characterized by a high level of well-being (Peterson et al., 2008; Truss, Shantz, Soane, Alfes, & Delbridge, 2013). Scholars consider employee engagement to be a key factor in supporting well-being, which positively influences the indicators of employee well-being such as work and life satisfaction, health, and performance (Truss et al., 2013; Lewis & Donaldson-Feilder, 2014). It is believed that work engagement research has emerged “from employee unwell-being (job burnout) to employee well-being” (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004, p. 176).
Moreover, employees with a high level of perceived well-being are more involved in their work. This relationship is considered true because employees who are enthusiastic about their work demonstrate high commitment levels, initiative at work, and high-quality performance (Matthews, Mills, Trout, & English, 2014). Furthermore, meaning, as one of the dimensions of spiritual well-being predicts the characteristics of work engagement (Mendes & Stander, 2011).
A few studies on the topic indicated a positive link between the elements of workplace spirituality such as inner life, meaningful work, community, and the elements of work engagement like attention and absorption (Singh & Chopra, 2018), or between the sense of meaning and the level of work engagement (Saripudin & Rosari, 2019). Meanwhile, another study showed a negative link between spiritual well-being and job engagement (Stains, 2018). Thus, it requires further investigation. Based on the above, I hypothesized:
Spiritual well-being has a positive impact on work engagement.
Some studies provide evidence that well-being can act as a mediator which increases several personal and organizational outcomes. Well-being is a predictor of organizational commitment and performance (Samul & Wangmo, 2021). Another study presents that the values, attitudes, and behaviors of spiritual leaders positively impact such dimensions of spiritual well-being as meaning/calling, and membership, and further enhance work engagement (Saripudin & Rosari, 2019; Fry, 2003). Besides, not only a spiritual leader, but each leader influences the sense of the importance of work (Rosso, Dekas & Wrzesniewski, 2010). Meaningfulness as a main element of well-being is a motivational construct (Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway, & McKee, 2007) that can have a positive effect on employee engagement. In active voice: Spiritual leaders fulfilling the spiritual well-being needs of employees may stimulate employee engagement and commitment (Hunsaker & Jeong, 2020). However, this study investigated a specific group of respondents, i.e. millennial employees in China. Thus, the topic requires further research.
Based on the arguments above, the last hypothesis is as follows:
Spiritual well-being mediates the relationship between spiritual leadership and work engagement.
Based on the above, I constructed the following conceptual model (see Figure 1).
Materials and methods
To conduct the study, the author employed a convenience sample (Cozby & Bates, 2012) to gather responses from employees. Convenience sampling is a nonprobability or nonrandom sampling. It allows researchers to choose from the whole population of respondents that meet certain practical criteria, such as easy accessibility to the researcher, geographical proximity, availability at a given time, or the willingness to participate (Dörnyei, 2007). Full-time employment was the only criterion for selecting respondents in the study because the members of the target population are homogeneous. Thus, the respondents were full-time employees of various sectors from Polish companies, according to a convenience sample. I sent a total of 349 e-mail invitations with a web-based questionnaire with a Google Form link to respondents in September-December 2021. The invitation letter described the purpose of the study and gave their voluntary consent to participate in it. I received 233 completed questionnaires. Table 1 presents the participant’s characteristics.
Below, I outline the measures used for the study variables.
Spiritual leadership (SL). I used the spiritual leadership model by Fry (2003). Spiritual leadership has three dimensions with 13 items: (1) vision (four items, e.g. “My organization’s vision inspires my best performance”), (2) hope/faith (four items, e.g. “I persevere and exert extra effort to help my organization succeed because I have faith in what it stands for”), (3) altruistic love (five items, e.g. “The leaders in my organization are honest and without false pride”). I collected the data by employing a five-point Likert scale from 1 (definitely disagree) to 5 (definitely agree).
Spiritual well-being (SWB). I measured well-being with two dimensions with 8 items developed by Fry (2003): (1) meaning (four items, e.g. “The work I do is meaningful to me”), and (2) membership (four items, e.g. “I feel my organization appreciates me and my work”). The participants rated well-being on a five-point Likert scale.
Work engagement (WE). I measured work engagement with the three-dimensional scale by Schaufeli, Bakker, and Salanova (2006). Sample items include (1) vigor (six items, e.g. “When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work”), (2) dedication (five items, e.g. “I am enthusiastic about my job”), and (3) absorption (six items, e.g. “I am immersed in my work”). Respondents rated the items on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
Control variables. Along with the variables of the study, I collected data from respondents regarding their gender, age, work experience, and job position.
I used the structural equation model (SEM) to test and evaluate multivariate causal relationships. I chose this method because it allows for testing direct and indirect effects (Singh & Chopra, 2018). Moreover, I used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to determine the scale’s validity and reliability. To measure the constructs’ validity, I calculated individual item loading, average extracted variance (AVE), and composite reliability (CR). I also calculated Cronbach’s alpha coefficients to determine the scale’s internal consistency and reliability. Cronbach’s alpha shows whether the tests and scales that have been constructed or accepted for research are appropriate for this purpose.
Results
Table 2 contains the results for item loadings, Cronbach alpha, composite reliability, and average variance extracted. Following the accepted categorization of reliability and validity, the use of scales in the questionnaire was very good. I analyzed the values of factor loadings to verify whether individual factors had significant factor loadings with the variables. Their value for a sample size of over 200 should be above 0.4 (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). The minimum acceptable limit for both of the criteria Cronbach’s alpha and CR was more than 0.7 (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010; Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2013). Moreover, AVE should be more than 0.5 (Hair, Sarstedt, Hopkins, & Kuppelwieser, 2014; Na-Nan, 2020). The analysis results showed that all parameters met the assumed criteria. This means that the structural equation model was an appropriate method to use in the study.
Before testing the hypothesized model, I checked the descriptive statistics and the correlations among the constructs. The means of the variables ranged from 3.29 to 3.73. They were rated quite average. Noteworthy, standard deviations (SD) are quite high (higher than 1 on a scale of 1–5). This can mean that there were differences in the perception of individual constructs by respondents. The discriminant validity was also determined with the use of Pearson’s rank correlations. The values of the coefficients should be greater than 0.4 but less than 0.9, which indicates a high but correct correlation (Akoglu, 2018). The analysis of individual variables showed positive (about 0.8) and statistically significant (p < 0.01) correlations between the constructs. Table 3 presents the results of the significant relationships, confirming the test constructs.
Table 4 shows the results of the structural model. The study found that all the hypothesized correlations were positive and significant. Spiritual leadership related to work engagement (β1 = 0.459, p < 0.001) and spiritual well-being (β2 = 0.974, p < 0.001). Spiritual well-being and work engagement also had significant correlations (β3 = 0.495, p < 0.001). Finally, well-being significantly mediated the relationship between spiritual leadership and work engagement (β’ = 0.482, p < 0.001). This indirect effect was greater than zero and statistically significant (Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010). The total effect of spiritual leadership on work engagement including the mediating role of spiritual well-being was 0.941 (β2*β3+β1), according to (Carsten, Jahn, & Boztug, 2017).
Discussion
I examined the relationship between spiritual leadership and work engagement among employees with the mediating role of well-being. The results showed that the direct relationship between spiritual leadership and work engagement was significant and positive. Thus, I confirmed H1. The findings show that employees led by spiritual leaders were more engaged in work. This means that they felt vigor, dedication, and absorption. The study results were in line with earlier findings that indicate a positive association of spiritual leadership with employee engagement (Fry, 2003; Huang, 2022). Moreover, this study among Polish employees confirmed that the influence of spiritual leadership on employee engagement is not culturally determined. In both Asian (Hunsaker & Jeong, 2020) and European cultures, leadership based on spiritual values is important for shaping work engagement.
Moreover, I also confirmed the second hypothesis that proposed a connection between spiritual leadership and spiritual well-being understood as a sense of meaning and membership. Ahmed, Khan, and ur Rahman (2023) confirmed these common results. They claim that a people-oriented spiritual leader can instill meaning among employees, which positively impacts the team and organization. This result is also consistent with the research of Garg, Punia, Garg, and Punia (2022), which found that employees have not only intellect but also spirit and they want to be a part of a community and see the purpose in their work.
Thirdly, the results show that spiritual well-being predicts employee engagement, which thus confirms H3. It is very important because most research is about overall well-being, not spiritual one. Moreover, another research indicates that there are significant relationships between spiritual well-being and other kinds of well-being: physical, psychological, and social well-being (Vaezipour, Atef-Vahid, Amini, & Ramezani Farani, 2021). It means that a leader who takes care of spiritual well-being at the same time enhances other types of well-being. Thus, this study affirms the existence of a relationship between spiritual well-being and work engagement according to recent studies (Hunsaker & Jeong, 2020).
Finally, the results support the mediation of spiritual well-being in work between spiritual leadership and work engagement (H4). The findings are in line with the recent results reported by Saripudin and Rosari (2019). Furthermore, this result can enrich the literature on the topic, because as Hunsaker and Jeong (2020) state, there is little information about the role of spirituality in the workplace and employee engagement.
Conclusions
This study contributes to the existing knowledge in several ways. Theoretically, the research indicates that the employees’ spiritual needs – overlooked in research – are important. The study extends previous research findings about the relationship between spiritual leadership and work engagement and the indirect role of spiritual well-being. The study indicated positive and significant correlations between the constructs. Previous studies have shown the associations between different leadership styles and employee engagement. This study also shows that spiritual leadership, like other leadership concepts, impacts work engagement. Moreover, the cultural context does not matter. Spiritual leaders influence employee engagement in Asian, American, and European cultures. Next, many researchers have indicated that well-being is associated with employee engagement. However, scholars have overlooked employees’ spiritual well-being in this context. The research results indicate that employees’ spiritual needs are important. Spiritual well-being promotes a sense of wholeness, happiness, and willingness to work, which translates into a work commitment and can lead to more significant results. The study confirmed the unexplored mediating role of spiritual well-being between spiritual leadership and employee engagement. Thus, I may conclude that in caring for the well-being of employees, the leader should look at all its dimensions, including spiritual well-being.
The research also provides managerial implications. Leaders must take care of the spiritual needs of both themselves and their employees. Leadership is not only about motivating employees by meeting their various needs but also by meeting spiritual needs that are usually ignored in an organizational context. Leaders should provide an environment that fosters a sense of meaning and nurture relationships that give a sense of being a crucial part of the organization to increase work engagement. Leaders who provide a sense of meaning at work and allow their subordinates to feel like they care about the spiritual needs of their subordinates, achieve increased work engagement by their subordinates.
It seems that further in-depth research in this direction is worth exploring. It would be worthwhile to conduct research aimed at identifying the specific factors that influence the formation of the meaning and membership of spiritual well-being. Moreover, it is crucial to discover how leaders can enhance their spiritual leadership within the organization to bolster engagement. Further research should also investigate other factors influencing the impact of spiritual leadership on employee engagement.
The study has some limitations. I used a self-questionnaire, which might result in a bias during the data-gathering process. Thus, future studies should use a different method to collect the data. Moreover, the study was cross-sectional. This approach does not allow for the examination of data collection with a higher degree of confidence. For future research, it would be useful to use a longitudinal approach to draw more consistency. It is also better to conduct a randomized study to confirm the results. However, it does not seem like it would change the research results.
Figures
Figure 1
Conceptual model
Participants’ characteristics
| Item | Category | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | male | 99 | 42% |
| female | 134 | 58% | |
| Age | less than 20 | 21 | 9% |
| 20–35 | 170 | 73% | |
| 36–50 | 28 | 12% | |
| more than 50 years | 14 | 6% | |
| Work experience | Less than 1 year | 48 | 21% |
| 1–3 | 95 | 40% | |
| 4–10 | 49 | 21% | |
| 11–20 | 14 | 6% | |
| more than 20 years | 27 | 12% | |
| Job position | manager | 34 | 15% |
| worker | 199 | 85% |
Source(s): Own elaboration
Item loadings, reliability, and validity of the constructs
| Items | SL | WB | WE | Alfa | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SL1 | 0.836 | 0.930 | 0.925 | 0.554 | ||
| SL2 | 0.915 | |||||
| SP3 | 0.891 | |||||
| SWB1 | 0.848 | 0.834 | 0.816 | 0.529 | ||
| SWB2 | 0.848 | |||||
| WE1 | 0.846 | 0.833 | 0.857 | 0.547 | ||
| WE2 | 0.853 | |||||
| WE3 | 0.904 |
Note(s): SL-spiritual leadership: SL1-vision, SL2-hope/faith, SL3-altruistic love; SWB-spiritual well-being: SWB1-meaning, SWB2-membership; WE-work engagement: WE1-vigor, WE2-dedication, WE3-absorption
Source(s): Own elaboration
Descriptive statistics of the constructs
| Constructs | M | SD | (1) | (2) | (3) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| spiritual leadership (1) | 3.70 | 1.04 | 1 | ||
| well-being (2) | 3.73 | 1.07 | 0.84 | 1 | |
| work engagement (3) | 3.29 | 1.22 | 0.85 | 0.80 | 1 |
Note(s): M – mean, SD – standard deviations; ** significant at 1% significance level
Source(s): Own elaboration
Structural model
| Relations | Coefficient | SE | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1: spiritual leadership→work engagement | 0.459 | 0.028 | 0.000 |
| H2: spiritual leadership→spiritual well-being | 0.974 | 0.054 | 0.000 |
| H3: spiritual well-being→work engagement | 0.495 | 0.032 | 0.000 |
| H4: spiritual leadership→spiritual well-being→work engagement | 0.482 | 0.031 | 0.000 |
Source(s): Own elaboration
Edition of that article was financed under Agreement Nr RCN/SN/0330/2021/11 with funds from the Ministry of Education and Science, allocated to the “Rozwój czasopism naukowych” programme.
References
Ahmed, S. S., Khan, M. M., & ur Rahman, M. (2023). Unlocking employees resilience in turbulent times: The role of spiritual leadership and meaning. Continuity & Resilience Review, 5(11-12), 249–261. doi: 10.1108/CRR-12-2022-0036.
Akoglu, H. (2018). User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine, 18(3), 91–93. doi: 10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001.
Amor, A. M., Vάguez, J. P. A., & Faina, J. A. (2020). Transformational leadership and work engagement: Exploring the mediating role of structural empowerment. European Management Journal, 38(1), 169–178. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2019.06.007.
Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. C. (2007). Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 193–203. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.193.
Arshad, A., & Abbasi, A. S. (2014). Spiritual leadership and psychological ownership: Mediating role of spiritual wellbeing. Science International (Lahore), 26(3), 1265–1269.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human Relations, 48(2), 97–125. doi: 10.1177/001872679504800201.
Babcock-Roberson, M. E., & Strickland, O. J. (2010). The relationship between charismatic leadership, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Jornal of Psychology, 144(3), 313–326. doi: 10.1080/00223981003648336.
Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., & Fletcher, L. (2017). The meaning, antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement: A narrative synthesis. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(1), 31–53. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12077.
Bakker, A. B., & Oerlemans, W. (2011). Subjective well-being in organizations. In K. S Cameron, & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bakker, A. B., Scharp, Y. S., Breevaart, K., & de Vries, J. D. (2020). Playful work design: Introduction of a new concept. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 23, 1–6. doi: 10.1017/SJP.2020.20.
Bayighomog, S. W., & Arasli, H. (2022). Reviving employees’ essence of hospitality through spiritual wellbeing, spiritual leadership, and emotional intelligence. Tourism Managemant, 89, 104–406. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104406.
Brunetto, Y., Teo, S. T. T., Shacklock, K., & Farr-Wharton, R. (2012). Emotional intelligence, job satisfaction, well-being and engagement: Explaining organizational commitment and turnover intentions in policing. Human Resource Management Jornal, 22(4), 428–441. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2012.00198.x.
Carasco-Saul, M., Kim, W., & Kim, T. (2015). Leadership and employee engagement: Proposing research agendas through a review of the literature. Human Resource Development Review, 14(1), 38–63. doi: 10.1177/1534484314560406.
Carsten, L. D., Jahn, S., & Boztug, Y. (2017). Conducting mediation analysis in marketing research. Marketing ZFP, 39(3), 76–98. doi: 10.15358/0344-1369-2017-3-76.
Cenkci, A. T., Bircan, T., & Zimmerman (2020). Inclusive leadership and work engagement: The mediating role of procedural justice. Management Research Review, 44(1), 158–180. doi: 10.1108/MRR-03-2020-0146.
Chen, C. Y., & Li, C. I. (2013). Assessing the spiritual leadership effectiveness: The contribution of follower’s self-concept and preliminary tests for moderation of culture and managerial position. Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 240–255. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.11.004.
Chughtai, A., Byrne, M., & Flood, B. (2014). Linking ethical leadership to employee well-being: The role of trust in supervisor. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(3), 653–663. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2126-7.
Cozby, P. C., & Bates, S. C. C. (2012). Methods in behavioral research (11th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cruz, J. P., Alquwez, N., & Balay‐odao, E. (2022). Work engagement of nurses and the influence of spiritual climate of hospitals: A cross‐sectional study. Journal of Nursing Management, 30(1), 279–287. doi: 10.1111/jonm.13492.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Good business: Leadership, flow and the making of meaning. New York: Penguin.
Delbecq, A. (1999). Christian spirituality and contemporary business leadership. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(4), 345–349. doi: 10.1108/09534819910282180.
Dodge, R., Daly, A. P., Huyton, J., & Sanders, L. D. (2012). The challenge of defining wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2(3), 222–235. doi: 10.5502/ijw.v2i3.4.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fagley, N. S., & Adler, M. G. (2012). Appreciation: A spiritual path to finding value and meaning in the workplace. Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, 9(2), 167–187. doi: 10.1080/14766086.2012.688621.
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 693–727. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.001.
Fry, L. W. (2005). Toward a theory of ethical and spiritual well-being, and corporate social responsibility through spiritual leadership. In R. A. Giacalone, & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Positive Psychology in Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Fry, L. W., Vitucci, S., & Cedillo, M. (2005). Spiritual leadership and army transformation: Theory, measurement, and establishing a baseline. Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 835–862. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07.012.
Garg, M., Punia, B. K., Garg, N., & Punia, V. (2022). Spiritual leadership and well-being in the context of the modern workplace. In Garg, N., & Punia, B. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Integrating Spirituality in Modern Workplaces (pp. 170–185). Hershey: IGI Global.
Geldenhuys, M., Łaba, K., & Venter, C. M. (2014). Meaningful work, work engagement and organisational commitment. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40(1), 1–10. doi: 10.4102/sajip.v40i1.1098.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th Edition). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. New York: Pearson New International Edition, United States of America.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1-2), 1–12. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_15-2.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLSSEM). European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. doi: 10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128.
Halbesleben, J. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In A. B. Bakker, & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research. New York: Psychology Press.
Howard, S. (2002). A spiritual perspective on learning in the workplace. Journal of Management. Psychology, 17(3), 230–242. doi: 10.1108/02683940210423132.
Huang, Y. (2022). Spiritual leadership and job engagement: The mediating role of emotion regulation. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 844–991. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.844991.
Hunsaker, W. D. (2019). Spiritual leadership and job burnout: Mediating effects of employee well-being and life satisfaction. Management Science Letters, 9, 1257–1268. doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.4.016.
Hunsaker, W. D., & Jeong, W. (2020). Engaging employees through spiritual leadership. Management Science Letters, 10, 3527–3536. doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2020.6.042.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A metanalytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. doi: 10.2307/256287.
Khan, A. N., Khan, N. A., Bodla, A. A., & Gul, S. (2020). Impact of psychopathy on employee creativity via work engagement and negative socioemotional behavior in public health sector: Role of abusive supervision. Personnel Review, 49(8), 1655–1675. doi: 10.1108/PR-02-2019-0072.
Khanna, H., & Srinivas, E. (2000). Spirituality and leadership development. In Presented to the Roundtable Conference on Developing Leaders, Teams, and Organizations: Meeting the Challenges of Global Markets and Technology Gurgaon, India: Management Development Institute.
Lewis, R., & Donaldson-Feilder, E. (2014). Managing for sustainable employee engagement and wellbeing. In 11th Conference of the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology: Looking at the Past – Planning for the Future: Capitalizing on OHP Multidisciplinarity, London. Available from: https://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/id/eprint/30007.
Matthews, R. A., Mills, M. J., Trout, R. C., & English, L. (2014). Family-supportive supervisor behaviors, work engagement, and subjective well-being: A contextually dependent mediated process. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(2), 168–181. doi: 10.1037/a0036012.
McCarthy, G., Almeida, S., & Ahrens, J. (2011). Understanding employee well-being practices in Australian organizations. International Journal of Health, Wellness and Society, 1(1), 181–197. doi: 10.18848/2156-8960/CGP/v01i01/41076.
Mehmood, Q., Nawab, S., & Hamstra, M. R. W. (2016). Does authentic leadership predict employee work engagement and in-role performance? Considering the role of learning goal orientation. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 15(3), 139–142. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000164.
Mendes, F., & Stander, M. W. (2011). Positive organisation: The role of leader behaviour in work engagement and retention. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(1), 1–13. doi: 10.4102/sajip.v37i1.900.
Na-Nan, K. (2020). Organizational behavior scale development. Bangkok: Triple Education.
Nguyen, P. V., Tran, K. T., Dao, K. H., & Dinh, H. P. (2018). The role of leader’s spiritual leadership on organization outcomes. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 23(2), 45–68. doi: 10.21315/aamj2018.23.2.3.
Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, J., & Brenner, S. O. (2008). The effects of transformational leadership on followers’ perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being: A longitudinal study. Work and Stress, 22(1), 16–32. doi: 10.1080/02678370801979430.
Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Randall, R., & Munir, F. (2009). The mediating effects of team and self-efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership, and job satisfaction and psychological well-being in healthcare professionals: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(9), 1236–1244. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.03.001.
Peterson, U., Demerouti, E., Bergstrom, G., Samuelsson, M., Asberg, M., & Nygren, A. (2008). Burnout and physical and mental health among Swedish healthcare workers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 84–95. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04580.x.
Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91–127. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.00.
Russell, J. E. A. (2008). Promoting subjective well-being at work. Journal of Career Assessment, 16(1), 117–131. doi: 10.1177/1069072707308142.
Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behaviour. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(1), 116–131. doi: 10.1080/09585190701763982.
Samul, J. (2020). Spiritual leadership: Meaning in the sustainable workplace. Sustainability, 12(1), 1–16. doi: 10.3390/su12010267.
Samul, J., & Wangmo (2021). Spiritual dimensions in leadership: A comparative analysis of polish and Bhutanese managers. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 14, 847–856. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S311456.
Sanders, J. E., Hopkins, W. E., & Geroy, G. D. (2003). From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(4), 21–31. doi: 10.1177/107179190300900402. Available from: link.gale.com/apps/doc/A105440117/AONE?u=googlescholar&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=c748ef37
Sani, F., Madhok, V., Norbury, M., Dugard, P., & Wakefield, J. R. (2015). Greater number of group identifications is associated with healthier behaviour: Evidence from a Scottish community sample. British Journal of Health Psychology, 20(3), 466–81. doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12119.
Saripudin, W., & Rosari, R. (2019). Does spiritual leadership model enhance work engagement? Empirical evidence from an islamic hospital in yogyakarta. Journal of Leadership in Organizations, 1(2), 112–133. doi: 10.22146/jlo.45520.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25(3), 293–315. doi: 10.1002/job.248.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 147–154. doi: 10.1002/job.515.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Roma, V. G., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two samples confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Study, 3(1), 71–92. doi: 10.1023/A:1015630930326.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471.
Seppälä, P., Harju, L., & Hakanen, J. J. (2020). Interactions of approach and avoidance job crafting and work engagement: A comparison between employees affected and not affected by organizational changes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(23), 1–20. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17239084.
Singh, J., & Chopra, V. G. (2018). Workplace spirituality, grit and work engagement. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 14(1-2), 50–59. doi: 10.1177/2319510X18811776.
Smith, G., Minor, M., & Brasher, H. (2018). Spiritual leadership: A guide to A leadership style that embraces multiple perspectives. Journal of Instructional Research, 7(1), 80–89. doi: 10.9743/JIR.2018.7.
Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management, 23(5), 679–704. doi: 10.1177/0149206397023005.
Srivastava, S., Mendiratta, A., Pankaj, P., Misra, R., & Mendiratta, R. (2022). Happiness at work through spiritual leadership: A self-determination perspective. Employee Relations, 44(4), 972–992. doi: 10.1108/ER-08-2021-0342.
Stains, D. M. (2018). Spiritual well-being, job meaningfulness, and engagement for human resource managers. Minneapolis: Walden University Scholar Works.
Su, R., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2014). The development and validation of the comprehensive inventory of thriving (CIT) and the brief inventory of thriving (BIT). Applied Psychology. Health and Well Being, 6(3), 251–279. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12027.
Truss, C., Shantz, A., Soane, E., Alfes, K., & Delbridge, R. (2013). Employee engagement, organisational performance, and individual well-being: Exploring the evidence, developing the theory. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(14), 2657–2669. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2013.798921.
Vaezipour, F., Atef-Vahid, M., Amini, M., & Ramezani Farani, A. (2021). Investigating the relationships between spiritual well-being and other well-being dimensions, and attitude toward high-risk behaviors in adolescents, with emphasis on the mediating role of personality traits. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 15(3). doi:10.5812/ijpbs.110586.
VanderWeele, T. J. (2017). On the promotion of human flourishing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(31), 8148–8156. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1702996114.
Wakefield, J. R. H., Sani, F., Herrera, M., Khan, S. S., & Dugard, P. (2016). Greater family identification – but not greater contact with family members – leads to better health: Evidence from a Spanish longitudinal study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(4), 506–513. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2171.
Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, careers, and callings: people’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(1), 21–33. doi: 10.1006/jrpe.1997.2162.
Wu, W. L., & Lee, Y. C. (2020). How spiritual leadership boosts nurses’ work engagement: The mediating roles of calling and psychological capital. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17, 6364. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17176364.
Yang, F., Huang, X., & Wu, L. (2019). Experiencing meaningfulness climate in teams: How spiritual leadership enhances team effectiveness when facing uncertain tasks. Human Resource Management, 58(2), 155–168. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21943.
Yang, F., Chen, G., Yang, Q. L., & Huang, X. (2022). Does motivation matter? How leader behaviors influence employee vigor at work. Personnel Review, 52(9), 2172–2188. doi: 10.1108/PR-10-2021-0734.
Yusof, J. M., & Mohamad, M. (2014). The influence of spiritual leadership on spiritual well-being and job satisfaction: A conceptual framework. International Review of Management and Business Research, 3(4), 1948–1957.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering baronand kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. doi: 10.1086/651257.
Zou, W., Zeng, Y., Peng, Q., Xin, Y., Chen, J., & Houghton, J. D. (2020). The influence of spiritual leadership on the subjective well-being of Chinese registered nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 28(6), 1432–1442. doi: 10.1111/jonm.13106.
Zuhaena, F., Tjahjono, H. K., El Qodri, Z. M., Prajogo, W., & Palupi, M. (2018). The proposition model of employees’ involvement, innovative behavior and spiritual leadership as a moderating variable. In Proceedings of the 31st International Business Information Management Association Conference, IBIMA.