the relationship between spiritual...

Dec. 2014. Vol. 4, No.8 ISSN 2307-227X

International Journal of Research In Social Sciences © 2013-2014 IJRSS & K.A.J. All rights reserved www.ijsk.org/ijrss

1

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPIRITUAL LEADERSHIP,

SPIRITUAL WELL-BEING AND JOB SATISFACTION IN THE

MALAYSIAN SHIPPING INDUSTRY: A PILOT STUDY

1JUHAIZI MOHD YUSOF,

2MAHADZIRAH MOHAMAD

1School of Maritime Business & Management, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu,

Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia

2Faculty of Business Management & Accountancy, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin,

Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia.

E-mail: [email protected],

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

Spiritual leadership is a relatively new concept in leadership literature. It aims to intrinsically motivate the

leaders and the followers for their spiritual well-being. Job satisfaction is a critical concept with various

antecedents and consequences. The situational and dispositional factors or the combination of both factors

determine the level of satisfaction of the employees toward their job. This pilot study aims to validate the

26-items of Spiritual leadership Theory scale (SLT) measuring spiritual leadership and spiritual well-being

constructs, and 25-items of Abridged Job Descriptive Index (aJDI) measuring job satisfaction in the

Malaysian shipping industry. The study was conducted among 175 employees of 20 shipping agents

companies in the East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. The results of exploratory factor analysis and

confirmatory factor analysis led to some modifications of the survey instruments for future comprehensive

research on the spiritual leadership theory in the Malaysian context.

Keywords: Spiritual Leadership, Spiritual Well-being, Job satisfaction, Exploratory Factor Analysis,

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

1. INTRODUCTION

The relationship between spirituality and work-

related variables such as job satisfaction has been

the subject of a limited number of empirical

studies (Duffy 2006). Ghazzawi and Smith (2009)

noted employees who view work as a means of

spiritual expression will have a more positive

outlook, contribute more, ”effectively creating

better working conditions, and leading to higher

levels of job satisfaction” (p. 305). Clark et al.

(2007) remarked that although the past years have

shown a growing interest in the relationship

between spirituality and job satisfaction, only a

few empirical investigations have provided

support for the claimed positive influence of

spirituality on job satisfaction. Millman et al.

(2003) and Garcia-Zamor (2003) have found that

certain dimensions of spirituality, particularly

those associated with life coherency such as

meaning making and sense of purpose, were

positively related with various aspects of work-

related variables such as job satisfaction and

involvement.

Studies on the link between spirituality and

organizational leadership; and the impact of

spirituality to employees outcomes such as

absenteeism, productivity, turnover, ethicality,

stress, and health are growing and have become a

central issue in current trend of spirituality studies

(Fairholm, 1998; Fry, 2003; Giacalone &

Jurkiewicz, 2003). Justin (2010) states that in the

past decade there has been a heightened curiosity

concerning the impact of spirituality on leadership

practices, as there were evident that the

effectiveness of the leaders has been associated

with their spiritual values and practices (Reave,

2005). How spirituality impact the organizations

and individuals; such as leaders and followers

(employees) are the main areas of empirical

research which tend to highlight the importance

of spirituality in the workplace. Nevertheless,

Thompson (2000) states that most leadership

research giving less attention to spiritual issues,

and those spiritual qualities are commonly

http://www.ijsk.org/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Dec. 2014. Vol. 4, No.8 ISSN 2307-227X


2

overlooked in relation to leadership positions.

Previous leadership theory mainly focused on the

aspects of physical, mental, or emotional elements

of human interaction in organisations and

neglected the spiritual component (Fry, 2003).

This pilot study aims to validate the 26-items of

Spiritual leadership Theory scale (SLT)

measuring spiritual leadership and spiritual well-

being constructs, and 25-items of Abridged Job

Descriptive Index (aJDI) measuring job

satisfaction in the Malaysian shipping industry.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW:

Spiritual leadership

Spiritual leadership can be viewed as a field of

inquiry within the broader context of workplace

spirituality. Fry defined spiritual leadership as

“the values, attitudes, and behaviors that are

necessary to intrinsically motivate one’s self and

others so that they have a sense of spiritual

wellbeing through calling and membership”

(2008, p. 108). The theory of spiritual leadership

is developed within an intrinsic motivation model

that incorporates vision, hope/faith, and altruistic

love, theories of workplace spirituality, and

spiritual well-being; where the spiritual well-

being variables are meaning/calling and

membership (Fry et al., 2005).

The spiritual leadership is about creating value for

the organization, through the employees (Fry,

2003). Fry (2005) states that a leader who highly

values honesty, integrity, forgiveness,

compassion, and helping others would have

different attitudes and behave very differently

toward followers than if he or she ultimately

valued egoistic need satisfaction and personal

ambition. It can be said that the followers are

strictly motivated with the spiritual leaders, who

create different atmosphere. This atmosphere

composes a coherence between the leaders and

the followers, which affects the working

environment positively. Fry (2003) mentions that

people have to satisfy some certain needs to

survive and he considers spirituality as one of

these basic needs. Fry and Cohen (2009, p. 267)

also maintained that spiritual leadership involved

tapping into both followers and leaders “for

spiritual well-being”.

Spiritual well-being

Spirituality and spiritual well-being may be used

interchangeably and congruently (Ellison, 1983;

Paloutzian & Ellison, 1982). Well-being is

defined by Merriam Webster Online as “the state

of being happy, healthy, or prosperous”. Spiritual

well-being is defined as people’s perception of

the quality of their spiritual life (Paloutzian &

Ellision, 1982), while Hawks, Hull, Thalman, &

Richins (1995) defined spiritual well-being as “a

sense of relatedness or connectedness to others, a

provision for meaning and purpose in life, the

fostering of wellbeing (through a stress buffering

effect), and having a belief in and a relationship

with a power higher than the self”. Spiritual well-

being has been conceptualized as satisfaction with

one’s spiritual life domain (Lee, Sirgy, Efraty, &

Siegel, 2003). In the context of this study,

spiritual well-being is defined as a “self perceived

state of the degree to which one feels a sense of

purpose and direction” (Fry, 2005).

Job satisfaction

Porter and Lawler (1968) define job satisfaction

as an unidimensional construct; that is, you are

generally satisfied or dissatisfied with your job.

They further explain that job satisfaction is

people’s affective (emotional) response to their

current job conditions. Locke (1976) then defined

job satisfaction as “a pleasurable or positive

emotional state resulting from one’s job or job

experiences” (p.1300). Job satisfaction is a critical

construct because job dissatisfaction has been

acknowledged as the single most important reason

people leave their job (Sturges & Guest, 2001).

However, the actual aspects of job satisfaction

that caused people to leave their job are not

specified and vary according to circumstances

around the people’s experience in the

organisation. The situational and dispositional

factors or the combination of both factors

determine the level of satisfaction of the

employees toward their job.

The most notable situational influence on job

satisfaction is the nature of the work itself - often

called “intrinsic job characteristics.” Managers

need to be aware that they can shape

organisational (situational) factors through job

enrichment such as task significance, task

identity, work autonomy, role clarity, an effective

communication (feedback) system and allowing

participation in the decision making process, as

these factors all affect the employee’s satisfaction

attitude (Fried & Ferris, 1987). To achieve a high


Dec. 2014. Vol. 4, No.8 ISSN 2307-227X


3

level of job-satisfaction, it is important to have a

good fit between an employee and his or her work

environment because the work environment (e.g.,

leaders and organizational culture) could be an

important predictor of the employee’s job

satisfaction (Taris & Feij, 2001). Snyder (1990)

found that the degree of an employee’s job

satisfaction could be different depending on the

leadership style of his or her managers or leaders.

In another perspective, Davis-Blake & Pfeffer

(1989) claim that an accumulating body of

evidence indicates that differences in job

satisfaction across employees can be traced, in

part, to differences in their disposition or

temperament (House, Shane, & Herold, 1996).

However, how exactly disposition affect job

satisfaction is inconclusive despite its

contributions to the understanding of the causes

of job satisfaction (Erez, 1994). Judge and Bono

(2001) found that a key personality trait, core

self-evaluation, correlates with employee job

satisfactions which indicate that there is in fact a

relationship between disposition or personality

and job satisfaction. In 1965, Kornhauser have

assumed that person variables such as mental

health and personality are primarily influenced by

satisfaction and not vice versa (Arvey et al.,

1991). Konhauser also established that job

satisfaction is significantly associated with

general mental health indices. Hammermeister et

al. (2005) conclude that “spiritual well-being

happens to have a positive influence on most

aspects of health” (p. 80), including mental

health. In that sense, it is posited that spiritual

well-being is positively associated with mental

health of the employees, and also a significant

influencer of job satisfaction. Individual

spirituality has been empirically found to be

positively associated with life satisfaction (Wolf,

1998) and more specifically with job satisfaction

(Brown 2003, Komala & Ganesh 2007).

Relationship Between Spiritual Leadership,

Spiritual Well-Being and Job satisfaction

Many studies across diverse arrays of

organisations so far support a significant positive

influence of spiritual leadership through spiritual

well-being on employee life satisfaction,

organizational commitment and productivity,

various measures of work unit performance, and

sales growth (Fry, 2005). Spiritual leadership

fosters spiritual well-being, which then positively

influences employee life satisfaction, corporate

responsibility, organizational commitment and

productivity, and financial performance (Fry &

Slocum, 2008).

Fry et al. (2011) utilised a SLT scale of spiritual

well-being to test a dynamic relationship between

spiritual leadership and spiritual well-being (i.e., a

sense of calling and membership), and key

organizational outcomes in a sample of emerging

military leaders. The findings revealed a positive

and significant relationship between spiritual

leadership and spiritual well-being; and spiritual

well-being was found to mediate the relationship

between spiritual leadership and organisation

commitment. The study also concludes that

overall spiritual leadership model provides

support that the variables comprising spiritual

leadership (i.e., hope/faith, vision, and altruistic

love) form a higher order formative construct that

positively influences spiritual well-being in

groups (i.e., calling and membership).

There are no studies found to date that attempted

to examine specifically the relationship between

spiritual leadership and overall job satisfaction; or

spiritual leadership and facets of job satisfaction.

This area of study is largely remained unexplored

and need to be addressed to further understand the

impact of spiritual leadership to various

organizational outcomes. However, there is a

study by Aydin and Ceylan (2009) to investigate

the relationship between spiritual leadership,

organizational culture and employee satisfaction

on workers of metal working manufacturing

industry in Turkey. The findings of the study

revealed that employee satisfaction has strong

correlation with organizational culture and

spiritual leadership. In addition to that, results

also indicate that spiritual leadership does not

have as much considerable effect as the cultural

dimensions on employee satisfaction in metal

working area.

Many studies on the relationship between spiritual

well-being and job satisfaction have been

conducted in health care related settings, and

found a positive relationship between these two

constructs (Clark, et al., 2007; Duggleby, Cooper

& Penz, 2009; Smalls, 2011). Nevertheless, all

the empirical studies on spiritual well-being

mentioned above utilised a various survey

instrument of spiritual well-being which included

religious aspects as one of its dimensions. This

current study adopts Fry’s spiritual leadership

theory (SLT) scale which is free from any

religious elements. Bodla & Ali (2012)

conducted a research to investigate whether


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Cooper%20D%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=19737323

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Cooper%20D%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=19737323

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Penz%20K%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=19737323

Dec. 2014. Vol. 4, No.8 ISSN 2307-227X


4

leadership spirituality affect the individual

outcomes i.e. performance, organisation

commitment and job satisfaction and the role of

spiritual well-being as mediator on the banking

sector in Pakistan. The results found a positive

relationship between spiritual leadership and

elements of spiritual survival/well-being.

Caling/meaning and membership as the

dimensions of spiritual well-being were found to

have positive relationship with individual

outcomes. In the nutshell, spiritual well-being was

found significantly correlated with job

satisfaction. The study also observed a mediation

effect of spiritual well-being to the relationship

between spiritual leadership dimensions and

organizational outcomes.

Measuring instrument of spiritual leadership,

spiritual well-being and job satisfaction

1. Spiritual Leadership Scale (SLT)

Fry has developed the only theory of spiritual

leadership that has been extensively tested and

validated in a variety of settings. Many studies

have been conducted in more than 100

organisations including schools, military units,

city offices, and corporations (Malone & Fry,

2003; Fry & Slocum, 2008; Fry et al., 2005). This

study adopted the Spiritual Leadership Scale

created by Fry et al. (2005), totaling 26 items.

The three dimensions of spiritual leadership -

vision, hope/faith, and altruistic love were

measured using survey questions developed and

validated especially for spiritual leadership theory

(Fry, 2008; Fry & Matherly, 2006). The vision

section of the questionnaire measured whether an

organization creates a vision that calls for feelings

of meaningfulness in employees (5 items).

Hope/faith measured employee affirmation for

expected tasks and the firm belief that the

vision/purpose/mission of the organization could

be achieved (5 items). Altruistic love measured

the altruistic love of organisations and leaders

toward the employees (7 items). Fry’s spiritual

leadership theory includes not only these three

dimensions of spiritual leadership but also

spiritual well-being. Two dimensions of spiritual

well-being – meaning/calling and membership are

among the measures included in the Fry’s

spiritual leadership theory. Meaning/calling

measured employees’ feelings of meaningfulness

toward work (4 items). Membership measured

employees’ feelings of being understood and

appreciated (5 items).

Previous studies have consistently confirmed the

spiritual leadership causal model and the

reliability and validity of the items measured (Fry,

2003, 2005, 2008,2009). The questionnaire

utilizes a 5-item Likert scale (from strongly

disagree to strongly agree). The scales exhibited

adequate coefficient alpha reliabilities between

0.83 and 0.93 in previous studies (Fry et al.,

2005). In the Malaysian context, a study by

Jamaludin et al. (2011) showed coefficient alpha

reliabilities of 0.906, while a study by Mansor et

al. (2013) revealed coefficient alpha for spiritual

leadership dimensions were between 0.798 to

0.904.

2. Abridged Job Descriptive Index (aJDI)

Stanton et al. (2001) stated, “The JDI has been

described as the most popular and widely used

measure of job satisfaction. The instrument was

translated into nine different languages and

administered in at least 17 countries” (p. 1105).

According to DeMeuse (1985) and Zedeck

(1987), the JDI is one of the most frequently used

measures of job satisfaction. Stanton et al. (2001)

state that the JDI has been widely used and

considered as the most reliable measure of job

satisfaction. The JDI is a useful tool for spotting

different problem areas in organisations. JDI

scores also can be used to show the affects of

planned or unplanned changes in jobs (Balzer et

al., 1997). It is designed to be a multifaceted

measure of job satisfaction applicable to a wide

range of workers (Balzer et al., 1997; Smith et al.,

1969). Landy and Conte (2004) states that if a

measure is facet-based, overall job satisfaction is

typically defined as a sum of the facets. They

explained that overall job satisfaction can be

determined by mathematically combining scores

based on satisfaction with specific important

aspects of work or a single overall evaluative

rating of the job information related to specific

facets or elements of job satisfaction.

The JDI consists of five scales that are reflective

of common facets of job satisfaction; Satisfaction

with Work, Satisfaction with Supervisor,

Satisfaction with Co-worker, Satisfaction with

Pay and Satisfaction with Promotion. Satisfaction

With Work scale measures employees’

satisfaction with the work itself, for example,

whether the job satisfies a need to increase

knowledge or to use a variety of skills.

Satisfaction With Supervisor scale assesses

employees’ satisfaction with their supervisor,

particularly supervisor’s competency and


Dec. 2014. Vol. 4, No.8 ISSN 2307-227X


5

feedback. Satisfaction With Co-workers scale

measures employees’ satisfaction with their

fellow employees, that is, their satisfaction with

work-related interactions and whether or not

employees like their co-workers. Satisfaction

With Pay scale addresses the employees’ attitudes

about pay and the perceived differences between

actual pay and expected pay. Satisfaction With

Promotion scale reflects employees’ satisfaction

with the company’s promotion policy, for

example, frequencies and importance of

promotions. For each scale, the JDI provides a list

of adjectives or short phrases. Respondents are

asked to indicate whether each word or phrase

applies to the particular facet of his or her job

being assessed.

The JDI has undergone two revisions since its

initial development almost 40 years ago (Balzer et

al., 1997). An abridged version of the JDI was

recently developed and made up of 5 questions

for each facet for a total of 25 questions.

Abridged Job Descriptive Index (aJDI) developed

by Stanton et al. (2001) was used to assess job

satisfaction in this study. The respondents in this

study described how well each of the words or

phrases described their work in a 5-point Likert-

type scale from strongly disagree, disagree,

neutral, agree, strongly agree, on the right side of

each item on the surveys. Even though this

scoring system is different from the standard JDI

scoring system; which based on a 3-point scale

“yes”, “no”, or a question mark (“?”), research

has proven that that the reliability, stability, and

validity of the five JDI subscales are not

significantly different across these two forms of

scoring system (Likert-type vs. yes-no-? scaling);

(Johnson, Smith, & Tucker, 1982). This is also to

address the problems faced by the researchers

using a “yes”, “no” response format (Bartolo &

Furlonger, 2000). Hanisch (1992) found the

(“?”), neutral response was more representative of

dissatisfaction.

Leong and Vaux (1992) reported that the five JDI

scales show excellent internal consistency and

stability and that the dimensional structure of the

measure is “stable, robust, and congruent over a

wide range of occupational types and levels” (p.

330). Regarding internal consistency, Balzer et al.

(1997) reported alpha coefficients for the JDI

scale between .86 and .91; specifically, Work

(.90), Supervision (.91), Co-workers (.91), Pay

(.86) and Promotions (.87). Stanton et al. (2001)

reported alpha coefficients for the aJDI scale

between .75 and .84, specifically, Work (.84),

Supervision (.83), Co-workers (.76), Pay (.75)

and Promotions (.82).

3. METHODOLOGY

Population and data collection method

The population consisted of 175 employees of 20

shipping agents companies in the East Coast of

Peninsular Malaysia. A cover letter accompanied

the SLT, JDI, and demographics instruments have

been administered to the participants via their

respective human resource personnel. Anonymity

is assured as mentioned in the cover letter of the

questionaires. Employees were directed to read

the instructions and complete the SLT, JDI, and

demographics instruments. The instruments were

returned to the respective human resources

departments and collected by the researcher. A

total 146 questionaires were returned and usable

for analysis using SPSS and AMOS softwares.

Instrumentation

A questionnaire which included questions on (1)

respondents’ demographic details, (2) spiritual

leadership, (3) spiritual well-being, and (4) job

satisfaction was developed for the study.

Demographic details such as (1) age, (2) gender,

(3) education level, (4) years with organisation,

(5) years with leaders, and (6) nature of job, were

asked to provide an understanding of the

background information of the respondents

participating in the study.

Table 1: Instruments

Study variables No of

items

Source of

scale

Type of

scale

Spiritual

leadership

17 Fry (2005) 5-points

Likert

scale

Spiritual well-

being

9 Fr Fry (2005) 5-points

Likert

scale

Job satisfaction 25 Stanton et

al. (2001)

5-points

Likert

scale

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)

version 17.0 and AMOS version 17.0 were used

for the statistical analyses.


Dec. 2014. Vol. 4, No.8 ISSN 2307-227X


6

4. FINDINGS & DISCUSSION

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

For this study, three EFA have been carried out

separately for spiritual leadership, spiritual well-

being and job satisfaction construct. Before

further analysis of EFA could be conducted, the

values of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of

sampling adequacy should be greater than 0.50

(Hair et al., 2010), and Bartlett’s Test of

Spherecity should be statistically significant at p

< 0.05. The results of KMO and Bartletts’s Test

of Sphericity for all constructs satisfy the

minimum requirements as suggested by Hair et al.

(2010).

As recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell

(2001); Pallant (2007); and Hair et al. (2006), the

current study employed the most commonly used

orthogonal approach, the Varimax method, which

aims to minimise the number of variables that

have high loadings on each single factor. In this

study, loading below 0.5 was ignored, because

higher loading provides a clearer guide to what

the factor is measuring (Hair et al., 2006).

Kaiser’s criterion or eigenvalue rule is one of the

most frequently used techniques in EFA. Using

this rule, only factors with an eigenvalue of 1.0 or

more can be retained for further investigation

(Pallant, 2007). The percentage of variance

criterion is a technique based on achieving a

specified cumulative percentage of total variance

extracted by successive factors (Hair et al., 2006).

As stated by Hair et al. (2006), the satisfactory

cut-off point of 60% or less is acceptable in social

science research.

During the EFA for spiritual leadership construct,

seven items did not load higher than .50 on any of

the factors and were dropped from the subsequent

analyses of factors associated with spiritual

leadership domains. One item from the original

‘vision’ scale (VS5) joined items from the

‘hope/faith’ scale. For spiritual leadership

construct, the sub-dimensions were finally

reduced to two (altruistic love, hope/faith) from

the original three (altruistic love, hope/faith,

vision). These dimensions were later renamed

after completing the CFA test. As for the spiritual

well-being construct, the EFA extracted two

factors with factor loading of items more than .50.

However, factor two only consisted of two items

(MC1, MC2). Therefore, EFA was re-run for a

single factor and the results revealed that only

items from original ‘membership’ scale remained

and retained for further analysis. The EFA for job

satisfaction construct resulted in four factors been

extracted with loadings more than .50. All items

from the original co-worker scale were excluded;

whereas, one items from ‘promotion’ and two

items from ‘pay’ were also excluded. The

summary of retained and dropped items for all

constructs were shown as Appendix A.

Measurement Models

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was

conducted using the results from EFA. The aim

of the CFA is to validate the scale before data

collection process for future survey is conducted.

There were four measurement models assessed

for the constructs of the study i.e. spiritual

leadership, spiritual well-being, job satisfaction,

and overall measurement models combining all

the constructs. Based on the CFA, the convergent

validity, discriminant validity, unidimensionality

and reliability of the constructs were established.

Spiritual leadership construct consisted of two

variables i.e. altruistic love (six items) and

hope/faith (four items). All these items were then

subjected to a CFA with initial measures of fit

satisfy the values as recommended by Zainuddin

(2012). However, SMCC for item ‘AL7’ was the

lowest (.39) as compared with other items ;

therefore, it was decided to drop item ‘AL7’ to

improve the validity of the construct. Another

CFA was conducted (without item ‘AL7’) in the

re-specified model and the measures of fit as

recommended by Zainuddin (2012) for spiritual

leadership were summarised by GFI (.956), CFI

(.990), RMSEA (.037) and Chisq/df (1.20) and

hence, the model was judged to have an

acceptable fit. All measures associated with the

construct were statistically significant with the

correct positive signs. With respect to the Squared

Multiple Correlation Coefficient (SMCC) or R-

Squared, all measures for spiritual leadership

have the coefficient of more than 0.4, being

greater than 0.3 as suggested by Hair et al.

(2006). Thus, all observed variables are strongly

significantly associated with spiritual leadership.

Composite reliability for altruistic love (.875) and

hope/faith (.774) exceeds the minimum threshold

of 0.7 while the average variance extracted of

altruistic love (.584) and hope/faith (.534) satisfy

the minimum threshold of 0.5. This indicated that

the retained items were considered reliable as

well as valid for this construct measure (Hair et

al., 2006).


Dec. 2014. Vol. 4, No.8 ISSN 2307-227X


7

After the CFA for first order latent construct had

been conducted, the research was continued by

running the second order CFA for the main

construct that was spiritual leadership. The factor

loadings of the main construct towards its sub-

variables were estimated in order to confirm the

theorized second order construct loads onto its

respective sub-variables. The results show that the

effects of spiritual leadership towards altruistic

love (.54) and hope/faith (.64) were highly

significant. Overall, the model was adequately fit

to the data based on the model fitness indexes

given.

Spiritual well-being construct is a one-factor

construct after EFA and consisted of five items.

All these items were then subjected to a CFA with

the measures of fit as recommended by Zainuddin

(2012) for spiritual well-being were summarised

by GFI (.972), CFI (.983), RMSEA (.082) and

Chisq/df (1.979) and hence, the model was judged

to have an acceptable fit. All measures associated

with the construct were statistically significant

with the correct positive signs. With respect to the

Squared Multiple Correlation Coefficient

(SMCC) or R-Squared, all measures for spiritual

leadership have an acceptable coefficient, being

greater than 0.3 as suggested by Hair et al. (2006).

Thus, all observed variables are strongly

significantly associated with spiritual well-being.

Composite reliability (CR) for spiritual well-

being (0.857) exceeds the minimum threshold of

0.7 while the average variance extracted (AVE) of

0.547 satisfy the minimum threshold of 0.5. This

indicated that the retained items were considered

reliable as well as valid for this construct measure

(Hair et al., 2006). Overall, the model was

adequately fit to the data based on the model

fitness indexes given.

Job satisfaction construct consisted of four

variables i.e. work (five items), supervisor (5 five

items), pay (three items), and promotion (four

items). All these items were then subjected to a

CFA with the measures of fit as recommended by

Zainuddin (2012) for job satisfaction were

summarised by GFI (.925), CFI (.975), RMSEA

(.065) and Chisq/df (1.607) and hence, the model

was judged to have an acceptable fit. All

measures associated with the construct were

statistically significant with the correct positive

signs. With respect to the Squared Multiple

Correlation Coefficient (SMCC) or R-Squared, all

measures for job satisfaction have an acceptable

coefficient, being greater than 0.3 as suggested by

Hair et al. (2006) . Thus, all observed variables

are strongly significantly associated with job

satisfaction. Composite reliability (CR) for work

(.888), supervisor (.919), pay (.895) and

promotion (.812) exceeds the minimum threshold

of 0.7 while the average variance extracted (AVE)

of work (.728), supervisor (.791), pay (.744) and

promotion (.592) exceed the minimum threshold

of 0.5. This indicated that the retained items were

considered reliable as well as valid for this

construct measure (Hair et al., 2006).

After the CFA for first order latent construct had

been conducted, the research was continued by

running the second order CFA for the main

construct that was job satisfaction. The factor

loadings of the main construct towards its sub-

variables were estimated in order to confirm the

theorized second order construct loads onto its

respective sub-variables. The results show that the

effects of job satisfaction towards work (.87),

supervisor (.60), pay (.41) and promotion (.58)

were highly significant. Overall, the model was

adequately fit to the data based on the model

fitness indexes given.

Overall Measurement Model Fit

In this section, an overall measurement model test

consisted of all constructs has been conducted to

test the adequacy of the measurement model. The

results show that all standardised factor loadings

were above 0.60. The measures of fit as

recommended by Zainuddin (2012) were

summarised by GFI (.837), CFI (.940), RMSEA

(.057) and Chisq/df (1.466) and hence, the model

was judged to have an acceptable fit. All

measures associated with the construct were

statistically significant with the correct positive

signs. With respect to the Squared Multiple

Correlation Coefficient (SMCC) or R-Squared, all

measures have an acceptable coefficient, being

greater than 0.3 as suggested by Hair et al.

(2006). Composite reliability (CR) for all

constructs exceeds the minimum threshold of 0.7

while the average variance extracted (AVE) of all

constructs exceed the minimum threshold of 0.5.

Therefore, the CFA results for overall constructs

exhibited a satisfactory values with regards to the

fit indices, unidimensionality, convergent validity

and reliability. Overall measurement model was

depicted in Appendix B.

Validity of the Constructs

In the validation process of the research survey

instruments, there are two basic validities, namely


Dec. 2014. Vol. 4, No.8 ISSN 2307-227X


8

content and construct that can be assessed to get

the uniqueness of the measures. Content validity

is the subjective assessment of the measures

affiliated with the face validity for informal as

well as common sense evaluation of the scales

and measures by the expert judges (Malhotra,

2002). Content validity involves the subjective

assessment of scale measures or characteristics of

the included variables (Malhotra, 2002). For this

study, all construct measures were derived from

the close extant studies having a higher reliability

consistency (not less than .70).

Convergent validity refers to “the extent to which

the scale correlates positively with other measures

of the same construct” and “discriminant validity

is the extent to which a measure does not

correlate with other constructs from which it is

supposed to differ” (Malhotra, 2002, p.294). In

other words, convergent validity is evidenced

when correlations between theoretically similar

measures are high, while for discriminant validity,

correlations between theoretically dissimilar

measures should be low (Trochim, 2006). Spector

(1992, p. 47) notes that, “discriminant and

convergent validities were frequently studied

together and involve investigating the

comparative strengths or patterns of relations

among several variables”. As both convergent and

discriminant coefficients are used to support or

refute a claim of construct validity (Zhu, 2000,

p.190), these were assessed and discussed in the

following section.

Convergent Validity

Towards assessing convergent and discriminant

validity, correlation coefficients and measurement

of constructs in CFA along with standardized

loadings were reviewed and discussed. In order to

demonstrate convergent validity, correlations

between constructs in respective measures were

positively correlated with moderate to high

coefficients. Further, CFA findings reported

earlier indicated that all construct measures were

unidimensional (loadings more than 0.60), and

having an acceptable construct realibility (more

than 0.70) which suggested that the construct

measures achieved not only convergent validity

but also discriminant validity (Ping, 2009).

Discriminant Validity

There are many methods suggested by literature

to assess discriminant validity of the construct.

Gaski (1984) recommends that the correlations

among composite constructs must be lower than

the respective standardised composite reliabilities.

Fornell and Larcker (1981) further recommend

that the average variance extracted (AVE) is 0.50

or to be greater than all corresponding squared

construct correlations which is an additional

evidence of discriminant validity of the

constructs. While, Zainududdin (2010) states that

the correlation between construct must be lower

than 0.85 and also must be lower than the square

root of AVE to establish a discriminant validity of

the construct.

In this study, discriminant validity was examined

by methods suggested by Zainuddin (2010). The

correlation values among constructs are less than

0.85, and the value of square root of AVE are

greater than the correlation values among

constructs as shown in Appendix C. Based on the

above discussion, it was established that the

constructs of this study had overall demonstrated

sufficient evidence of convergent and

discriminant validity.

Reliability analysis was conducted using

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for internal

consistency. The coefficient for all constructs

range from .833 to .864 which were within

acceptable limit. The coefficient for spiritual

leadership construct was .833, the coefficient for

spiritual well-being was .855, and the coefficient

for job satisfaction construct was .864 and all

values are well above the recommended value.

Table 2: Reliability of the instruments

Construct Number of

Items

Cronbach’s

Alpha

Spiritual

Leadership 9 0.833

Spiritual Well-

being 5 0.855

Job Satisfaction 12 0.864

Modifications of Questionnaires

Based on the results of the pilot survey and after

consulting with the expert in questionnaire

design, several modifications were made to the

questionnaire to be used in the future survey.

First, the headings of the questionnaires have

been re-worded to reflect the contents of the

statements and to assist the target respondents in

understanding the issues. The translation should


Dec. 2014. Vol. 4, No.8 ISSN 2307-227X


9

always aim at the conceptual equivalent of a word

or phrase, not a word-for-word translation, i.e. not

a literal translation (Billin, 2000). The examples

were ‘Spiritual Leadership’ heading have been

reworded to ‘Leadership Characteristics’,

‘Altruistic Love’ reworded as ‘Welfare Of The

Employees’. An idiom was also rewritten by its

meaning such as in Item 3 of Section 2 (Welfare

of the Employees); “The leaders in my

organization “walk the walk” as well as “talk the

talk” has been changed to “The leaders in my

organization always do what they say”.

Final Items for Future Survey

The data collected for pilot study were subjected

to EFA and CFA analysis to test the reliability

and validity of the research instrument. Following

the analyses, the items in every construct were

reduced and renamed accordingly before

conducting a future survey. Based on the

wordings of the retained items for spiritual

leadership construct, the sub-dimensions were

renamed as ‘Trust’ and ‘Inspiration’, as Fairholm

(1997) states that trust and inspiration are among

the areas that the leaders must be competent to

gain follower acceptance. Appendix D presented

the arrangement of the research instrument that to

be used in future survey to measure spiritual

leadership, spiritual well-being and job

satisfaction.

5. CONCLUSION

This pilot study aimed to validate the measuring

instruments of spiritual leadership, spirital well-

being and job satisfaction. The study was

conducted in the shipping agents companies in the

East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. The findings

from EFA and CFA revealed that some items

were deleted to improve the validity of the

instruments. As some items were deleted to

improve the model’s fit and the measurement

model was respecified, it may not have measured

the latent variables in the manner originally

intended by the developers of the instruments.

The study shows that at least some of the

constructs contained in the measuring instruments

are not directly applicable to the kind of sample

on which this study was done. The study results

using the respecified factor structures are limited

to the population and setting in this study. The

importance of re-validating measuring

instruments developed in one culture and to be

used in a different country or culture, or even in a

different kind of sample, is strongly emphasised

by the outcomes of the analyses done in the

present study. Future research could replicate the

study by using a different population to shed more

light on the structure underlying the study

constructs.

REFERENCES

1. Arvey, R.D; Carter, G. W; & Buerkley, D. K.

(1999). Job Satisfaction: Dispositional And

Situational Influences. International review of

industrial and organizational psychology Vol

6, pp 359-383

2. Aydin, B., & Ceylan, A. (2009). The effect of

spiritual leadership on organizational learning

capacity. African Journal of Business

Management, pp 184–190.

doi:10.5897/AJBM09.015

3. Balzer, W. K., Kihm, J. A., Smith, P. C.,

Irwin, J. L., Bachiochi, P. D., Robie, C., Sinar,

E. F., & Parra, L. F. (1997). User’s manual for

the Job Descriptive Index (JDI: 1997

Revision) and the Job in General (JIG) Scales.

Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State

University.

4. Bartolo, K., & Furlonger, B. (2000).

Leadership And Job Satisfaction Among

Aviation Fire Fighters In Australia. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 15(1), pp87–93.

doi:10.1108/02683940010305324

5. Bodla, M. A., & Ali, H. (2012). Workplace

spirituality : a spiritual audit of banking

executives in Pakistan. African Journal of

Business Management, 6(11), 3888–3897.

doi:10.5897/AJBM10.1242

6. Brown C. (2003). Low morale and burnout; is

the solution to teach a values-based spiritual

approach?. Complementary Therapies in

Nursing & Midwifery 9, 57–61

7. Clark L., Leedy S., McDonald L., Muller B.,

Lamb C., Mendez T., Kim S. & Schonwetter

R. (2007) Spirituality and job satisfaction

among hospice interdisciplinary team

members. Journal of Palliative Medicine 10,

1321–1328.

8. Clark, C.E. and Larkin, J. (1992). Internal

auditors: job satisfaction and professional

commitment. Internal Auditing, Vol. 8 No. 1,

pp. 9-17.

9. Davis-Blake, A., & Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a

mirage: The search for dispositional effects in

organizational research. Academy of

Management Review, 14, 385–400

10. DeMeuse, K.P. (1985). A compendium of

frequently used measures in

industrial/organizational psychology. The


Dec. 2014. Vol. 4, No.8 ISSN 2307-227X


10

Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 23,

53-59.

11. Duffy R.D. (2006). Spirituality, religion, and

career development: current status. The

Career Development Quarterly 55, 52–63.

12. Duggleby, W., Cooper, D., & Penz, K. (2009).

Hope, self-efficacy, spiritual well-being and

job satisfaction. Journal of Advanced Nursing,

65(11), pp 2376–85. doi:10.1111/j.1365-

2648.2009.05094.x

13. Ellison, C. W. (1983). Spiritual well-being:

Conceptualization and measurement. Journal

of Psychology and Theology. 11: 330-340

14. Emmons, R. A. (1999). The psychology of

ultimate concerns: Motivation and spirituality

in personality. New York: Guilford Press.

15. Erez, M. (1994). Toward a model of cross-

cultural industrial and organizational

psychology. In H. C. Triandis, M. D.

Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook

of industrial and organizational psychology

(Vol. 4, pp. 559–608). Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press.

16. Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating

Structural Equation Models with

Unobservable Variables and Measurement

Error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1):

39-50.

17. Fairholm, G. W. (1998). Perspectives on

leadership: From the science of management

to its spiritual heart. Westport, CT: Praeger.

18. Fried, Y. C., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The

validity of the job characteristics model: A

review and meta-analysis. Personnel

Psychology, 40, 287-322.

19. Fry, L. & Matherly, L. (2006). Workplace

spirituality, spiritual leadership, and

performance excellence. In S. Roglberg & C.

Reeve (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Industrial

and Organizational Psychology. San

Francisco: Sage Publishing.

20. Fry, L. W., & Cohen, M. P. (2009). Spiritual

Leadership as a Paradigm for Organizational

Transformation and Recovery from Extended

Work Hours Cultures. Journal of Business

Ethics, 84(S2),pp 265–

278.doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9695-2

21. Fry, L. W., & Slocum, J. W. (2008).

Maximizing the Triple Bottom Line through

Spiritual Leadership. Organizational

Dynamics, 37(1), pp 86–96.

22. Fry, L. W., & Slocum, J. W. (2008).

Maximizing the Triple Bottom Line through

Spiritual Leadership. Organizational

Dynamics, 37(1), pp 86–96.

23. Fry, L. W., Hannah, S. T., Noel, M., &

Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). Impact Of Spiritual

Leadership On Unit Performance. The

Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), pp 259–270.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.002

24. Fry, L. W., Vitucci, S., & Cedillo, M. (2005).

Spiritual Leadership And Army

Transformation: Theory, Measurement, And

Establishing A Baseline. The Leadership

Quarterly,16(5), pp 835-862.doi:10.1016 /

j.leaqua. 2005.07.012

25. Fry, Louis W. (2003). Toward A Theory Of

Spiritual Leadership. The Leadership

Quarterly 14, pp 693-727

26. Garcia-Zamor, J. C. (2003). Workplace

spirituality and organizational performance.

Public Administration Review, 63(3), 355-363.

27. Gaski, J.F. (1984). The Effects of Discrepant

Power Perceptions in a Marketing Channel.

Psychology & Marketing (pre-1986) 1(3/4):

45-56.

28. Ghazzawi, I, & Smith, Y. S. (2009). Crafting

the whole employee: Job satisfaction, job

commitment, and faith: A new conceptual

framework and research agenda. The Business

Review, Cambridge, 12(2), 300-310.

29. Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003).

Handbook of workplace spirituality and

organizational performance. Armonk, NY:

M.E. S

30. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., &

Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data

Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th Edition.

New Jersey: Pearson Educational Inc.

31. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tathan, R.L.,

Babin, B.J, & Black, W.C. (2006),

Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed., Prentice-

Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

32. Hammermeister, J., Flint, M., El-Alayli, A.,

Ridnour, H., & Peterson, M. (2005). Gender

differences in spiritual well-being: Are

females more spiritually well than males?

American Journal of Health Studies. 20(2):

80-84.

33. Hanisch, K.A (1992). The Job Descriptive

Index Re-Visited: Questions About Question

Marks. Journal Of Applied Psychology, Vol

77, pp 377-88

34. Hawks, S. R., Hull, M., Thalman, R.L., &

Richins, P.M. (1995). Review of Spiritual

health: definition, role, and intervention

strategies in health promotion. American

Journal of Health Promotion. 9: 371-378.

35. House, R. J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D. M.

(1996). Rumors of the death of dispositional


Dec. 2014. Vol. 4, No.8 ISSN 2307-227X


11

research are vastly exaggerated. Academy of

Management Review, 21, 203–224.

36. Jamaludin, Zaini; Rahman N.A;&

Makhbul,M; Idris, F. (2011). Do Transactional

,Transformational And Spiritual Leadership

Styles Distinct ? : A Conceptual Insight.

Journal Of Global Business And Economics,

2(1), pp 73–86.

37. Johnson, S. M., Smith, P. C., & Tucker, S. M.

(1982). Response Format Of The Job

Descriptive Index: Assessment Of Reliability

And Validity By The Multitrait- Multimethod

Matrix. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, pp

500-505

38. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001).

Relationship of core self-evaluations, traits—

self- esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus

of control, and emotional stability—with job

satisfaction and job performance: A meta-

analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,

80–92

39. Justin, R. (2008). Spirituality Among Public

School Principals and its Relationship to Job

Satisfaction and Resiliency. Unpublished

dissertation, Union University, USA

40. Komala, K. and Ganesh, L. (2007). Individual

spirituality at work and its relationship with

job satisfaction and burnout: an exploratory

study among healthcare professionals. The

Business Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 124-9.

41. Landy, F. J., & Conte, J. M. (2004). Work in

the 21st century. Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-

Hill.

42. Lee D.J., Sirgy M.J., Efraty D. & Siegel P.,

(2003). A study of quality of work life,

spiritual well-being, and life satisfaction. In

Hand- book of Workplace Spirituality and

Organizational Performance (Giacalone R.A.

& Jurkiewicz C.L., eds), M. E. Sharpe,

Armonk, NY, pp. 209–230.

43. Leong, F.T.L., Vaux, A. (1992). Job

Descriptive Index. In (Keyser & Sweetland

Eds.) Test Critiques, Vol IX, Austin: Pro-ed.

Pp 319-334.

44. Locke, E. A. (1976). The Nature And Causes

Of Job Satisfaction. In Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.),

Handbook of the Industrial and Organizational

Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.

45. Malhotra, N.K. (2002). Basic Marketing

Research - Applications to Contemporary

Issues. Prentice Hall International: New

Jersey.

46. Malone, P. F. & Fry, L. W. (2003).

Transforming schools through spiritual

leadership: A field experiment. Paper

presented at the Academy of Management

conference, Seattle, WA.

47. Mansor, N., Ismail, A. H., Alwi, M. A. M., &

Anwar, N. (2013). Relationship between

Spiritual Leadership and Organizational

Commitment in Malaysians’ Oil and Gas

Industry. Asian Social Science, 9(7), 179–191.

doi:10.5539/ass.v9n7p179

48. Milliman, J., Czaplewski, A. J., & Ferguson,

J. (2003). Workplace spirituality and

employee work attitudes. Journal of

Organizational Change Management, 16(4),

426.

49. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual.

Open University Press, Maideuhead,

Berkshire.

50. Paloutzian, R. , & Ellison, C. (1982).

Loneliness, spiritual well-being, and the

quality of life. In Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D.

(Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current

theory, research and therapy. New York:

Wiley.

51. Ping, R. A. (2009). Is there any way to

improve Average Variance Extracted (AVE) in

a Latent Variable (LV) X (Revised)?.

Extracted from

http://home.att.net/~rpingjr/ImprovAVE1.doc)

. Retrieved August 2014.

52. Porter, Lyman W. & Lawler III, Edward E.

(1968). Managerial Attitudes and

Performance.Harvard Business Review. Vol.

46 Issue 1, pp 118-126.

53. Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and

practices related to leadership effectiveness.

The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 655–687.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07.003

54. Smalls, E. W. (2011). The Impact Of Spiritual

Well-Being On Job Satisfaction And

Performance For Nonprofit Employees.

Unpublished Dissertation, Walden University.

55. Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., & Hullin, C.L.

(1969). The measurement of satisfaction in

work and retirement: A strategy for the study

of attitudes. Chicago. Rand McNally

56. Snyder, C. J. (1990). The effects of leader

behavior and organizational climate on

intercollegiate coaches’ job satisfaction.

Journal of Sport Management, 4, 59 – 70.

57. Spector, E.P. (1992). Summated Rating Scale

Construction: An Introduction. Sage

Publications: Newbury Park, California.

58. Stanton, J. M., Sinar, E. F., Balzer, W. K.,

Julian, A. L., Thoresen, P., Aziz, S., Fisher, G.

G., et al. (2001). Development Of A Compact

Measure Of Job Satisfaction: The Abridged

Job Descriptive Index, Educational and


http://home.att.net/~rpingjr/ImprovAVE1.doc

Dec. 2014. Vol. 4, No.8 ISSN 2307-227X


12

Psychological Measurement, 61(6), pp 1104–

1122.

59. Sturges, J., & Guest, D. (2001). Don’t Leave

Me This Way! A Qualitative Study Of

Influences, The Organizational Commitment

And Turnover Intentions Of Graduates Early

In Their Career. British Journals of Guidance

and Counseling, 29(4), pp 447– 462.

60. Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using

Multivariate Statistics. Allyn and Bacon:

Boston, Mass.

61. Taris R. & Feij F.A. (2001) Longitudinal

examination of the relationship between

supplies-values fit and work outcomes.

Applied Psychology 50 (1), 52–81.

62. Thompson, William, David. (2000). Can You

Train People to Be Spiritual? Training and

Development 54(12): 18-19

63. Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Research methods

knowledge base. Web Center for Social

Research. Retrieved from

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb

/order.php. Retrieved June 2014

64. Wolf, D.B. (1998). The Vedic personality

inventory: A study of the Gunas. Journal of

Indian Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 13-33.

65. Zainudin, A. (2010). Research Methodology

and Data Analysis 5th Edition. Shah Alam:

University Technology MARA Publication

Centre (UiTM Press).

66. Zainudin, A. (2012). Structural Equation

Modelling Using AMOS Graphics. Shah

Alam: University Technology MARA

Publication Centre (UiTM Press).

67. Zedeck, S. (1987). Satisfaction in union

members and their spouses. Paper presented

at the Job Satisfaction. In Advances in

Research and Practice Conferences, Bowling

Green, Ohio

68. Zhu, W. (2000). Which Should It be Called:

Convergent validity or Discriminant Validity?.

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

71(2): 190.

APPENDIX A: DROPPED AND RETAINED ITEMS AFTER EFA

Construct /Sub-dimension Initial items Dropped items Retained items

Spiritual leadership

Vision 5 4 1*

Hope/faith 5 2 3

Altruistic love 7 1 6

Total 17 7 10

Spiritual well-being

Meaning/calling 4 4 0

Membership 5 5 5

Total 9 4 5

Job satisfaction

Work 5 0 5

Supervisor 5 0 5

Co-worker 5 5 0

Pay 5 2 3

Promotion 5 1 4

Total 25 8 17

Note: * item joined Hope/faith


Dec. 2014. Vol. 4, No.8 ISSN 2307-227X


13

APPENDIX B: OVERALL MEASUREMENT MODEL

APPENDIX C: CORRELATION MATRIX AND SQUARE ROOT OF AVE

Constructs PY PR WK SV SWB ALT HOP

PY .866

PR .247 .770

WK .374 .483 .854

SV .178 .391 .525 .890

SWB .325 .335 .686 .471 .739

ALT .192 .428 .363 .225 .517 .763

HOP .070 .239 .161 .012 .302 .347 .712

Note: Square root of AVE in bold (diagonal)

APPENDIX D: ARRANGEMENT OF QUESTIONAIRES

Questionaire

Section Descriptions

Part 1 Demographic profiles (6 items)

Part 2 9 items measuring Spiritual Leadership

(Trust: 5 items, Inspiration: 4 items)

Part 3 5 items measuring Spiritual Well-being

Part 4 12 items measuring Job Satisfaction

(Work:3 items, Supervisor: 3 items,

Pay: 3 items, Promotion: 3 items)

Fitness Indexes

ChiSq = 407.441

df =278

P-Value = .000

ChiSq/df = 1.466

GFI=.837

AGFI=.795

TLI=.930

CFI = .940

NFI = .836

RMSEA = .057


the relationship between spiritual...

Documents