Alojamiento, desplazamientos y comunicaciones

A detailed explanation for each of the measures used in this study is described below. Full questionnaires are presented in appendices: Appendix 4 (questionnaire for employees in English), Appendix 5 (questionnaire for employees in Thai), Appendix 6 (questionnaire for immediate supervisors in English), and Appendix 7 (questionnaire for immediate supervisors in Thai).

Individual Spirit at Work: The Spirit at Work Scale (SAWS) that assess the

individual experience of spirituality at work was developed by Kinjerski & Skrypnek (2006a). It is an eighteen-item measure with four subscales: engaging work, sense of community, spiritual connection, and mystical experience. The Cronbach’s alpha indicated very acceptable internal consistency reliabilities for the total scale (α = .93) and the four subscales (α’s from .86 to .91). Items are rated on a six-point scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 6 (completely agree). Samples items are “I am fulfilling my calling through my work.”, “I feel like I am part of “a community” at work.”, “My spiritual beliefs play an important role in everyday decisions that I make at work.”, and “At moments, I experience complete joy and ecstasy at work.”

Job Satisfaction: Warr, Cook, & Wall’s (1979) Job satisfaction Scale was used.

O’Driscoll & Beehr (1994)’s study was adapted to use only twelve items, the Cronbach alphas was .86. Respondents were asked to rate the various intrinsic and extrinsic job characteristics on a scale ranging from ‘Extremely dissatisfied’ (1) to ‘Extremely satisfied’ (7). Some items include “Your fellow workers”, “the amount of responsibility you are given”, “your rate of pay”, and “your opportunity to use your ability”.

Organisational Identification: The Organisational Identification Measure

(Mael & Ashforth, 1992) was used. This is a well-established measure and has been used extensively in many studies (e.g. Mael & Ashforth, 1995, α = .74; Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002, α = .90; Carmeli, Gilat, & Waldman, 2007, α = .74). The measure was assessed on a seven-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Sample items are “When I talk about my organisation, I usually say ‘we’ rather than ‘they’.”, “My organisation’s successes are my successes.”, and “When someone criticises my organisation, it feels like a personal insult.”

Psychological Well-Being: The eight-item Index of Psychological Well-Being

(Berkman, 1971a, b) was used. Respondents were asked how often they feel at work during the past 2 weeks (coded as Never; Sometimes; Often). After comparing the answers against the metric table of positive and negative affects, final scoring of Psychological Well-Being is become on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (Low PWB) to 7 (High PWB). This is a well-established measure and evidence of the construct validity of this measure has been previously demonstrated in a series of studies i.e. with job performance (Wright & Staw, 1999; α = .74), job satisfaction (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000; α = .72), and turnover (Wright & Bonett, 1992; α = .74). Some

indicative items are “Very lonely or remote from other people.”, “On top of the world”, “Depressed or very unhappy”, and “Pleased about having accomplished something”.

In-role Performance: The six-item In-Role Behavior (IRB) Measure (William

& Anderson, 1991) was used. This is a well-established measure and evidence of the construct validity of this measure has been previously demonstrated in many studies (e.g. Randall, Cropanzano, Bormann, & Birjulin (1999), α = .88; Turnley, Bolino, Lester, & Bloodgood, (2003), α = .93; Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne, (2003), α = .88). The measure was assessed on a seven-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The researcher used this measure for employees rating their own performance and in the same time asking their immediate supervisors rating their performance by adapted the subject of each questions from ‘I’ to ‘He/She’. Some sample items are “He/she fulfils all the responsibilities specified in his/her job description.”, “He/she sometimes fails to perform essential duties of his/her job.(reversed)”, “He/she consistently meets the formal performance requirements of his/her job.”, and “He/she adequately completes all of my assigned duties.”

Organisational Citizenship Behaviours (OCB): The twelve-item of OCB-O

(directed toward the whole organisation) and OCB-I (directed at other individuals) Scale (William & Anderson, 1991) was used. Multiple studies have confirmed strong coefficient alpha values for this scale (e.g. Randall et al (1999), OCB-O α = .70 and OCB-I α = .80; Turnley et al (2003), OCB-O α = .83 and OCB-I α = .88; Cropanzano et al (2003), OCB-O α = .79). The measure was assessed on a seven-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Along the same line of using In-Role Performance measure, the researcher asked both employees and their

immediate supervisors rating in this scale. Some items include “He/she adheres to informal organisational rules devised to maintain order.”, “He/she sometimes complains about insignificant or minor things at work.(reversed)”, “He/she goes out of the way to help new employees.”, and “He/she generally helps others who have heavy workloads.”

Turnover intentions: Konovsky & Cropanzano (1991)’s three-item of Scale

was used. Respondents were asked to rate on seven-point scales which have three different anchors. Multiple studies have confirmed strong coefficient alpha values for this scale (e.g. Cropanzano, R., James, K., & Konovsky, M. A. (1993), α = .91; Grandey & Cropanzano (1999), α = .74; Randall, et al (1999), α = .80; Cropanzano et al (2003), α = .82). For the first item was anchored by very unlikely (1) to very likely (7). The second item was anchored by never (1) to all the time (7). The third item was anchored by strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Sample items are “How likely is it that you will actively look for a job outside of this organisation during the next year?”, and “How often do you think about quitting your job at this organisation?”

Antecedent Conditions of Individual Spirit at Work: The previous research and

literature reviews suggest that these variables would be possibly linked to employee experiences spirituality in the workplace: age, tenure, marital status, current position, and personal religious/spiritual practices (Kinjerski & Skrypnek, 2006a; Kolodinsky, Giacalone, & Jurkiewicz, 2008; Pawar, 2009b). Thus, the researcher developed three following questions in the questionnaires asking the participants to respond about their religious/spiritual practices,: (1) How frequently do you attend religious/spiritual services range (1 to 5) from never to quite often; (2) How often do you pray range (1 to

7) from never to several times a week; (3) How often do you read religious or spiritual scripture or literature range (1 to 7) from never to several times a week.

Apart from demographical variables, in order to explore the potential antecedent conditions of individual spirit at work from the organisational factors, the researcher conducted a survey to investigate the necessary factors for organisations to foster employees’ spirit at work. Also, respondents were asked to assess to what extent their current employment fosters spirit at work. Based on Kinjerski & Skrypnek’s (2006b) qualitative study, they found seven organisational factors that foster an individual’s experience of spirit at work (inspired leadership; strong organisational foundation; organisational integrity; positive workplace culture; sense of community among members; opportunities for personal fulfilment; and appreciation and regard for employees and their contribution). Therefore, these criteria were used as a framework in this part of the study.