Example of Theory

8/10/2019 Example of Theory

1/19

1

Spirituality, Integrity and Counterproductive Work Behaviours among Employees

of Selected Islamic Organisations in Malaysia

Professor Dr Junaidah Hashim

Department of Business Administration,Kulliyyah of Economics & Management Sciences

INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIAJalan Gombak, 53100 Kuala Lumpur

[email protected]

This research examines the mediating effect of integrity on spirituality andorganisation performance. A total of 1203 employees responded to the survey. Measuresused were Human Spirituality Scale (Wheat, 1991), workplace spirituality (Petchsawangand Duchon, 2009), counterproductive work behaviour (Gruys and Sackett, 2003), and

the Substance, Production loss, and Interpersonal Problem Inventory (SPI). The findingsfailed to support the hypothesised model.

Keywords: Spirituality, Integrity, Islam, Counterproductive Work Behaviour

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the StudyOver the last decade, there is a steady increase of interest in spirituality at work

issues among management researchers and practitioners (Giacalone and Jurkiewicz,2003a; Karakas, 2010). The growing interest in spirituality is evident in corporationsand business world as well. Although the literature and interest on spirituality at work isgrowing rapidly; there is confusion around how spirituality influences organisational

performance. Furthermore, most of the previous studies examined the effects ofspirituality on organisational performance not in term of profitability or productivityincrease; but on some indicators such as spirituality enhances employee well being,spirituality provides employees a sense of purpose and meaning at work, and spirituality

provides employees a sense of interconnectedness and community; and these in turnsupport organisational performance. There are some authors who claimed that there was a

positive and causal relationship between spirituality and productivity (Enander, 2000;Thompson, 2000), but the validity of those claims were questionable since they wereeither theoretical or lacked supporting data (Valasek, 2009).

Practitioners are seeking to understand the topic of spirituality at work andbusiness leaders in general are desirous to leverage spirituality as a means to promoteethical compliance and improve workplace behaviours (Smith, 2006). Workplace

behaviours such as counterproductive work behaviour (CWB) have always been an issuefor employers because of its widespread nature (Lanyon and Goodstein, 2004). CWB atwork is clearly a major social and economic issue for both employers and society. Thecost of CWB in terms of dollars and hour lost is virtually incalculable. Personal

attributes such as integrity has always been used to explain the counterproductive workbehaviour. Integrity is the foundation of all true goodness and greatness. Hence, the
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/19

2

concept of integrity has arisen often in discussions of spirituality (Arrizza, 2006).Integrity summons the courage for the spirituality expression at work. Integrity is notonly the realm of ethical conduct but also an individuals sense of wholeness (Watson,

2001).The objective of this research is to determine if and how spirituality affect

integrity which in turn influences organisation performance. Organisation performanceis measured in terms of the occurrence of CWB. While most employees spend theirworking time in ways which benefit the organisation, a substantial portion is involved in

behaviours which are disruptive or damaging to the organisation, including theft,absenteeism, production slow-downs and sabotage.

This research is significant and unique. Organisational research tends to focus onthe positive-normative behaviour of individuals such as increasing job satisfaction,organisational commitment, and production levels (Impelman, 2006). The darker side oforganisational behaviour has not received the same attention. Researchers, however, are

beginning to focus on these critical behaviours that leave a profound effect on the

organisation and its individual members. Following recent trends in scientific literature,this research conceptualises spirituality and integrity as different constructs that measuredifferent behaviours.

Spirituality has generally been assumed to have an effect on individual behaviour,but much of the research has failed to define variables in a theoretical context and thusmuch of the literature in this area was inconsistent and has merited suggestions that therelationship between spirituality and anti-social and deviant variables is spurious.Clearly, a theoretical model must be proposed when studying spirituality and behaviouroutcomes. This will lead to more valid, consistent, and replicable measures of spiritualitythat provide a better understanding of the role of spiritual constructs in influencingindividual behaviours. This research is intended, theoretically and quantitatively, todelineate the social mechanisms leading from spirituality to deviance behaviours,explaining the relationships between spirituality, integrity and deviance behavioursamong employees.

2.0 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Related TheoriesSpillover theory (Wilensky, 1960) provides the theoretical foundation for this

study. The spillover theory, as proposed by Wilensky (1960), asserts that individuals

(employees) do not live compartmentalised lives. All beings are whole and integrated,which implies that attitudes, actions, beliefs, and activities in one domain spill over intoanother domain (p. 544). Wilensky (1960) further argued that failure to recognise thespillover effect would create fragmented individuals, organisations, and societies (pp.544-545). Furthermore, Bruce and Plocha (1999) stated, The ancient Celts believed that spirituality is not separated from who one is or what one does (p. 326). Taken together,Bruce and Plocha (1999) and Wilensky (1960) statements support the idea that anindividuals work and personal lives are naturally connected.

Organisational context is an important element of the present study. Cappelli andSherer (1991) noted that context was the surrounding that illuminates a phenomenon.

Johns (2006) depicts context as constraints on or opportunities for behaviour and attitudesin organisations settings that can serve as a main effect or moderator of organisational


3/19

3

behaviour at another level of analysis. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1973, 1977) andsocial exchange theory (Gould, 1979; Levinson, 1965) also support the role of context onindividual behaviour. Social learning theory is based upon the proposition that individual

behaviour is learned via a continuous reciprocal interaction with contextual influences.Social exchange theory describes the reciprocity that occurs between the context and the

individual. The communality between these theories is the dependence on context tostimulate behavioural action.

2.2 Human Spirituality and Workplace Spirituality

Tepper (2003) defines spirituality as the extent to which an individual ismotivated to find sacred meaning and purpose to his or her existence. Mitroff andDenton (1999a, p. 83) describes spirituality as "the basic feeling of being connected withone's complete self, others, and the entire universe. If a single word best captures themeaning of spirituality and the vital role that it plays in people's lives, that word isinterconnectedness." Spirituality does not necessarily have to be associated with aspecific religion. Irrespective of the tradition or religion one draws upon, spirituality

requires an individual willingness to explore oneself (Collins and Kakabadse, 2006).

Workplace spirituality as defined by Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2003b) is aframework of organisational values evidenced in the culture that promotes employees

experience of transcendence through the work process, facilitating their sense of beingconnected to others in a way that provides feelings of completeness and joy. This viewfocuses on organisational aspects and through them seeks to induce employeeexperiences of spirituality at work. This approach focuses on several organisationalfeatures such as spiritual values, business plans and goals, and HRM practices that aresupportive of these values. Based on extensive review of workplace spiritualitydefinition, Petchsawang and Duchon (2009) identified five themes in spirituality at work:connection, compassion, mindfulness, meaningful work and transcendence.

Spirituality in the workplace may manifest itself in several ways, but at twodifferent levels: the individual and the organisational. At the first level, the peopleinvolved are spiritual ones who may have had concerns about the adequacy of theirworkplace for their spiritual life even before accepting employment. At the second level,the organisation emphasises spirituality in order to improve productivity. They try toconnect faith and work ethics (Garcia-Zamar, 2003). Human spirituality encompassesthe individual values brought to the workplace (Kolodinsky et al., 2008).

Some researchers argue that spirituality can be used to improve organisationalperformance and spirituality research should demonstrate spiritualitys links withproductivity and profitability (Ashmos and Duchon, 2000; Bierly et al., 2000; Delbecq,1999; Fry, 2005; Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, 2003; Giacalone et al.,2005; Korac-Kakabadse and Korac-Kakabadse, 1997; Mitroff and Denton, 1999b).Additional research reveals that organisations that have voluntary spirituality

programmes have had higher profits and success (Dehler and Welsh, 1994; Konz andRyan, 1999; Mitroff and Denton, 1999b; Turner, 1999). There is little evidence of aninteraction between personal spiritual values and organisational spiritual values for theworkers consequence examined in their study.


4/19

4

2.3 Spirituality and IntegrityTo what extent if any does spirituality influence integrity? How integrity in turn

influences CWB? According to Arrizza (2006) the word integrity includes words such ashonesty, soundness and wholeness. Honesty basically refers to being truthful to ones

self and others about everything including cheating, deceiving, and stealing. Soundness

refers to the rightness or correctness on ones position. Wholeness refers to a sense ofcompleteness. Arrizza (2006) further defined being spiritual is essentially the same as

being in integrity. In addition, Miles et al. (2005) asserted that spirituality is linked togood moral habits, virtue, honesty, loyalty, trustworthiness and integrity among its

practitioners.Bird (2006), argued that certain situation will determine whether an individual is

likely to engage in CWB or act without integrity. For example, an individual might neverconsider stealing from a relative or friend, but contemplate theft from the workplace, ifgiven the right opportunity. Mumford et al. (2001) argued integrity is to be a function ofcertain characteristics possessed by an individual. As such, personality traits are alsorelevant factors in CWB, and an entire integrity test industry has grown around the idea

that personality tests can predict these behaviours (Fox et al., 2001). Scott (2007), foundthe connection between integrity and spirituality in three threads: individual experienceswere tied to general elements of the human condition; a dynamic that encourages thecreation of a unique self, and living out that unique creation with engagement andacceptance.

2.4 Counterproductive Work Behaviour (CWB)To what extent spirituality influence CWB? The literature search did not give

much input on CWB per se. However, there is growing evidence in spirituality researchthat workplace spirituality programmes result in positive individual level outcomes foremployees such as increased joy, serenity, job satisfaction, and commitment (Fry, 2003,2005; Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, 2003b; Krishnakumar and Neck, 2002; Paloutzian et al.,2003; Reave, 2005). There is also evidence that these programmes improveorganisational productivity and reduce absenteeism and turnover (Fry, 2003, 2005;Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, 2003b). Interestingly, Han et al. (2010) examined the effectsof spiritual training programme on counterproductive work behaviour in China and theyfound that the programme has encouraged honest, warm and harmonious relationships inthe workplace.

There has been extensive research on religiosity and crime and drug/alcoholabuse; however, the assumption that religiosity and spirituality are protective factors

against deviant behaviour has been criticised as spurious and requires empiricalvalidation (Allen, 2009). Robert and Jarrett (2011) argued that god-fearing, church-goingpeople are not necessarily make better employees. He further argued that religious orspiritual people are not necessarily more honest and responsible. In fact, he found thatorganisational and interpersonal deviance in the workplace correlate with religiosity.Although an individuals spirituality has important impacts on many attitudes and

behaviours, much empirical research in the psychology and sociology of religion alsoindicates that religiosity and spirituality does not automatically lead to ethical behaviours(Weaver and Agle, 2002).

Fox et al.(2001) defined CWB as behaviour that is intended to have a detrimental

effect on organisations and their members. Gruys and Sackett (2003) added that thesebehaviours are viewed by organisation as contrary to its legitimate interests. It can


5/19

5

include overt acts such as aggression and theft or more passive acts, such as purposelyfailing to follow instructions or doing work incorrectly. CWB has been conceptualized ina number of ways, including organisational aggression (Neuman and Baron, 1998; Foxand Spector, 1999), antisocial behaviour (Giacalone and Greenberg, 1997), delinquency(Hogan and Hogan, 1989), deviance (Hollinger, 1986; Robinson and Bennett, 1995),

retaliation (Skarlicki and Folger, 1997), revenge (Bies, Tripp, and Kramer, 1997), andmobbing/bullying (Knorz and Zapf, 1996). A more recent study by Gruys and Sackett(2003) investigated a broader CWB by examining eleven categories of CWB: theft andrelated behaviour; destruction of property; misuse of information; misuse of time andresources; unsafe behaviour; poor attendance; poor quality work; alcohol use; drug use;inappropriate verbal actions; and inappropriate physical actions.

Counterproductive behaviour at work is clearly a major social and economic issuefor both employers and society. The problem of employee theft of merchandise(sometimes termed shrinkage) and cash is an enormous one. Estimates of the total annualcost of such losses range from $40 billion to $120 billion (Buss, 1993; Camera and

Schneider, 1994). Further, the annual cost of workplace deviance such as violence isestimated at over $4 billion (Bensimon, 1994), and the overall cost of a wide range ofworkplace deviance ranges from $6 billion to $120 billion annually. Regardless of howseriously one takes these estimates, the magnitude of the problem should be self-evident.The common theme is that these behaviours are harmful to the organisation by directlyaffecting its functioning or property, or by hurting employees in a way that will reducetheir effectiveness. A number of researchers (Fox and Spector, 1999; Robinson andBennett, 1995) have found evidence that perceptions of CWBs and/or relations of CWBsto individual and organisational variables allow us to distinguish two categories of

behaviours: those targeting the organisation and those targeting other persons in theorganisation.

The foregoing discussion provides a framework for understanding the ways inwhich spirituality can influence integrity and good behaviours. Thus the followinghypotheses are developed:H1: There is a relationship between human spirituality and integrity.H2: Individuals integrity influences counterproductive work behaviour.H3: There is a relationship between workplace spirituality and integrity.H4: There is a relationship between integrity and counterproductive work behaviour.H5: There is an interactive effect of human spirituality and workplace spirituality onintegrity.

Fig. 1: Conceptual Framework of the Study

Human spirituality

Workplace spirituality

Integrity Counterproductive Work

Behaviours


6/19

6

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Sampling ProceduresSeveral prominent Islamic organisations in Malaysia were selected for this

research. These organisations were selected because they deal with either Islamic

products or services and employ majority of Muslim employees. In addition theorganisations practice values management styles and emphasise on religion requirement.In total, there are more than 100,000 employees in these organisations.

Stratified random sampling was employed where employees were selected fromthe management category as well as from supporting staff category who are proficient inEnglish. This is because the survey was prepared in English although translation inBahasa Malaysia was also provided in the survey form. To achieve 99 per centconfidence level, the sample size needed is 1200 in total.

3.3 MeasurementThe questionnaire developed for this study comprises 5 parts. Part A surveyed the

individual employees spirituality level. Individual spirituality was measured usingHuman Spirituality Scale (HSS) (Wheat, 1991), a measure developed to assesssubstantive individual attributes constituting one spiritual values. Previous work

(Belaire and Young, 2000; Kolodinsky et al., 2007) showed that this measure wassuccessful in assessing an individuals spirituality. The reliability reported by Wheat(1991) was = 0.89. The HSS is a 21-item instrument with Likert-type scaling, rangingfrom 1 (never) to 5 (constantly). For some items, the scale ranging from 1 (stronglydisagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Meanwhile, Part B asked about workplace spirituality.Workplace spirituality was measured by adopting a scale from Petchsawang and Duchon(2009). The scale has 37 items which cover five factor definition of spirituality in theworkplace in Asian context: (a) connection, (b) compassion, (c) mindfulness, (d)meaningful work, and (e) transcendence. The items used a five-point Likert scale where 1= strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.

Part C of the questionnaire asked about counterproductive work behaviour of theemployees. The measures were adapted from dimensionality of counterproductive work

behaviour by Gruys and Sackett (2003). There are 66 behaviours included in the study.The behaviours list was then sorted into 10 separate categories of CWB based on thesimilarity of content. Ten classifications of behaviour were asked to the employees to ratethemselves whether they would engage in the behaviour. The classifications are (a) theftand related behaviour, (b) destruction of property, (c) misuse of information, (d) misuse

of time resources, (e) unsafe behaviour, (f) poor attendance, (g) poor quality work, (h)drug use, (i) inappropriate verbal actions, (j) inappropriate physical actions. The items onalcohol use were omitted to suit the nature of the sample. Participants were asked to ratewhether they would engage in each of the counterproductive behaviours on fivepointscale with 1 being anchored with No matter what the circumstances, I would not engage

in the behaviour and 5 being anchored with In a wide variety of circumstances, I would

engage in the behaviour. Participants were asked to respond according to the

assumption that they will have the opportunity in their workplace to engage in all of thelisted behaviours.

Meanwhile, for Part D, the employees integrity was tested using the Substance,

Production loss, and Interpersonal Problem Inventory (SPI). It is a measure of overtintegrity. The measure includes 39 questions regarding an individuals level of integrity


7/19

7

and the likelihood of engaging in various counterproductive behaviours. The measureused a five-point Likert scale. The reliability of the SPI Inventory has also been assessedand found to be a highly reliable instrument of measurement (Bird, 2006). Lastly, Part Esurveyed the employees demographic background such as gender, level of education,

age, ethnic group, duration of working in the company, staff category, religion, and

previous attendance in any religious school.

3.4 Reliability AnalysisBefore the actual data was collected a pilot test was carried out. This is to see the

reliability of questionnaire. Reliability shows the accuracy or precision of the measuringinstrument, thus a pilot test seeks to answer whether the questionnaire consistentlymeasure whatever it measures. In this study, the pilot test was conducted by collectingdata of 40 respondents of which were not included in the sample. All the items in themeasurement were found reliable with Cronbach Coefficient ranging from 0.705-0.988.Table 1 states the standardised Cronbach Coefficient values for the pilot test and theactual data. All variables showed reliable results except one of the items in workplace

spirituality which is compassion that has been deleted from the actual analysis because itsCronbach Coefficient was below 0.7 and it was not reliable to be included in the analysis.

Table 1: Pilot Test Reliability Statistics of Research Variables

Variables Pilot (n = 40) Actual (n = 1203)

Human spirituality 0.931 0.844

Workplace spirituality 0.943 0.871

(a) connection 0.910 0.815

(b) mindfulness 0.871 0.927

(c) meaningful work 0.890 0.705

(d) transcendence 0.894 0.777

Counter-productive work behaviour 0.983 0.988

(a) theft and related behaviour 0.934 0.949(b) destruction of property 0.977 0.964

(c) misuse of information 0.905 0.942

(d) misuse of time resources 0.933 0.948

(e) unsafe behaviour 0.864 0.939

(f) poor attendance 0.920 0.923

(g) alcohol use 0.987 0.938

(h) drug use 0.890 0.956

(i) inappropriate verbal actions 0.953 0.939

(j) Inappropriate physical actions 0.975 0.966

Integrity 0.927 0.958

The process of analysing the variables in the questionnaire required all negativestatements to be recoded. Moreover, all statements were grouped according to theirvariables and they were computed into total scores to find the mean scores of thosevariables. For example, 36 statements from workplace spirituality were grouped into fivevariables, which are connection, compassion, mindfulness, meaningful work, andtranscendence. These five variables were then computed as total scores for workplacespirituality. Descriptive statistics, one sample test and correlation were performed.


8/19

8

4.0 FINDINGS

4.1 Respondents BackgroundThe total number of respondents from 13 organisations surveyed for this study

was 1203 employees who came from various backgrounds. Table 2 shows the

demographic background of the respondents. The study was answered by females with49.1 percent, another 43.9 percent was males, and the rest 7 percent of the respondentsdid not indicate their genders. The respondents were from Malaysia which the ethnicgroup comprises of Malay (86.4 percent), Chinese (3.1 percent), Indian (0.9 percent), andothers (1.1 percent). In term of duration of working experience, 31.2 percent of therespondents had worked in the organisations for less than three years, 12 percent was

between four to five years, 16.9 percent was between six to 10 years, 11.5 percent wasbetween 11 to 15 years, 5.8 percent was between 16 to 20 years, 7.3 was between 21 to30 years, and 0.8 percent worked there more than 30 years. Moreover, the supportingstaff category employees had mostly answered the questionnaire with 53.0 percent, 36.7

percent of the employees were from management category, and the rest 9.4 percent did

not indicate their staff category. The respondents were also asked whether they haveattended any religious school before and 59.9 percent said yes, 27.5 said no, and another12.6 percent did not specify the answer.

Table 2: Respondents Demographic Background

Variables Frequency Percent

Gender:

Female 591 49.1

Male 528 43.9

Missing value(s) 84 7.0

Level of education:

Some high school or less 55 4.6

High school 311 25.9

Diploma 287 23.9

Degree 399 33.2

Professional degree 61 5.1


Age:

Up to 30 years old 423 35.2

31 to 40 years old 405 33.7

41 to 50 years old 195 16.2

51 and above 28 2.3


Ethnic group:

Malay 1039 84.4Chinese 37 3.1

Indian 11 0.9

Other(s) 13 1.1


Religion:

Muslim 1059 88.0

Non-Muslims 55 4.6


Working experience in the company:

Less than or equal to 3 years 375 31.2

4 to 5 years 144 12.0

6 to 10 years 203 16.911 to 15 years 138 11.5

16 to 20 years 70 5.8


9/19

9

21 to 30 years 88 7.3

More than 30 years 10 0.8


Job function:

Management category 441 36.7

Supporting staff category 649 53.9

Missing value(s) 113 9.4Attendance in any religious school before:

Yes 721 59.9

No 331 27.5


4.2 Spirituality, Integrity, and CWB

As shown in Table 3, the respondents demonstrated a moderate mean scores ofhuman spirituality (Mean = 3.8892), slightly lower mean score of workplace spirituality(Mean 3.5269), and a moderate mean score of integrity (Mean = 3.7426), and quite lowmean scores of CWB (Mean = 1.3044). Further analysis of one sample t-test was done to

test these mean scores against the expected mean (test value of 4) for human spirituality,workplace spirituality and integrity. For CWB, since the items are negative statements, itused a test value of 2. The mean scores of human spirituality was lower than theexpected mean (t = -8.433; df = 1200; p = 0.000). Similarly for workplace spirituality,the mean scores was very much lower than expected (t = -30.295; df = 1195; p = 0.000).For integrity, the difference in mean score was lower as well (t = -9.732; df = 1200; p =0.000). For CWB, the respondents also demonstrated lower mean scores than expected (t= -38.865; df = 1195; p = 0.000).

Table 3: Mean Scores and One-Sample t-test of the Variables

Variables Mean Std. Dev. t-value df p-value

Human spirituality 3.889 0.455 -8.433 1200 0.000*

Workplace spirituality 3.527 0.540 -30.295 1195 0.000*

(a) connection 3.809 0.710 -9.314 1202 0.000*

(b) mindfulness 2.729 1.001 -43.926 1197 0.000*

(c) meaningful work 3.776 0.630 -12.322 1200 0.000*

(d) transcendence 3.801 0.657 -10.513 1202 0.000*

CWB 1.304 0.619 -38.865 1195 0.000*

(a) theft and related behaviour 1.371 0.736 -29.634 1201 0.000*

(b) destruction of property 1.270 0.744 -34.048 1202 0.000*

(c) misuse of information 1.337 0.765 -30.096 1202 0.000*

(d) misuse of time resources 1.492 0.718 -24.559 1202 0.000*

(e) unsafe behaviour 1.365 0.766 -28.727 1202 0.000*

(f) poor attendance 1.350 0.748 -30.329 1201 0.000*

(g) alcohol use 1.208 0.668 -41.086 1201 0.000*(h) drug use 1.179 0.605 -47.060 1200 0.000*

(i) inappropriate verbal actions 1.296 0.656 -37.228 1199 0.000*

(j) Inappropriate physical actions 1.180 0.590 -48.231 1202 0.000*

Integrity 3.743 0.917 -9.732 1200 0.000*

(Notes: *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed))(Notes 1: Scale for workplace spirituality; 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree); test value=4(Notes 2: Scale for CWB; 1 = No matter what the circumstances, I would not engage in the behaviour

and 5 = In a wide variety of circumstances, I would engage in the behaviour.); test value=2

Meanwhile, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7 show the correlationcoefficient scores of the variables. Table 5 shows that human spirituality and workplace

spirituality have moderate positive and significant relationship (r = 0.630, p = 0.000).This means that employees who are spiritual do exercise workplace spirituality. Further


10/19

10

in the table it shows the details relationship of human spirituality with each of workplacespirituality dimensions.

Table 4: Mean, Standard Deviation, and Correlation Analysis of Human Spirituality and Workplace

Spirituality Variables

Variables Mean Std.Dev.

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Human spirituality 3.889 0.455 -

2. Workplace spirituality 3.527 0.540 0.630** -

3. Connection 3.809 0.710 0.635**

4. Mindfulness 2.729 1.001 0.335**

5. Meaningful work 3.776 0.630 0.428**

6. Transcendence 3.801 0.657 0.470**

Notes: **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

4.3 Hypothesis TestingTable 5 show that human spirituality has negligible relationship with CWB (r =

0.049; p = 0.091). Similarly, the relationship between human spirituality and integrity isnegligible and is not statistically significant (r = -0.041, p = 0.154). For workplacespirituality, it has a very low positive relationship with CWB (r = 0.238, p = 0.000) and itis significant. However, workplace spirituality has a very low negative and significantrelationship with integrity (r = -0.113, p = 0.000). Finally, the relationship betweenintegrity and CWB is very low and it is negative (r = -0.176, p = 0.000). The results inTable 6 further showed the relationship of integrity with each dimension of workplacespirituality.

Table 5: Mean, Standard Deviation, and

Correlation Analysis of Human Spirituality and Integrity Variables

Variables Mean Std.Dev.

1 2 3 4

1. Human spirituality 3.889 0.455

2.Workplace spirituality 3.527 0.540 0.630**

3. CWB 1.304 0.619 0.049 0.238**

4. Integrity 3.743 0.917 -0.041** -0.113** -0.176**

Notes: **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 6: Mean, Standard Deviation, and Correlation Analysis of Workplace Spirituality and

Integrity Variables

Variables Mean Std. Dev. 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Integrity 3.743 0.917

2. Workplace

spirituality

3.527 0.540-0.113**

3. Connection 3.809 0.710 -0.059*

4. Mindfulness 2.729 1.001 -0.388**

5. Meaningful work 3.776 0.630 0.175**

6. Transcendence 3.801 0.657 0.107**

Notes: **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

In order to test whether human spirituality and workplace spirituality are relatedto counterproductive work behaviour, mediated by integrity variable, structural equationmodelling analysis approach for data analysis and evaluation of the fit of the

hypothesised measurement was applied. To test multiple fit indices, fit statistics such asoverall model chi-square measure (X), comparative fit index (CFI), and root-mean-


11/19

11

square error of approximation (RMSEA) were utilised. According to Hu and Bentler(1999), to test the parsimony adjusted fit indices for the overall model fit, CFI must bemore than or equal to 0.96 and RMSEA must be less than or equal to 0.06. Moreover, p-value of the chi-square must also be higher than 0.05 to achieve a fit model.

Before conducting the analysis of structural equation modelling, factor analysishad to be conducted first to group the questionnaires statements so that they accurately

measure the variables. Figure 2 shows the full diagram of the analysis after factoranalysis was conducted. As a result of factor analysis, the items in workplace spiritualityand counterproductive work behaviour variables remained unchanged, whereas forhuman spirituality, it was divided into three items; Human1, Human2, and Human3. Forintegrity variable, the new items constructed are Integrity1, Integrity2, Integrity3,Integrity4, and Integrity5.

Table 7 shows the results of the model. The overall results indicate that thehypothesised model did not achieve a fit model (p-value = 0.000; CFI = 0.731; RMSEA =

0.165), thus the role of integrity as a mediator, linking human spirituality and workplacespirituality with counterproductive work behaviour is not supported. This is according tothe results that demonstrate the p-value to be less than 0.000, CFI to be less than or equalto 0.96 and RMSEA to be more than or equal to 0.06.

Table 7: Results of Structural Equation Modelling

X df p-value CFI RMSEA

Mediating Model 6914.734 205 0.000 0.731 0.165

Fig. 2: Path Analysis Illustrating the Relationship among Human Spirituality,

Workplace Spirituality, Integrity, and Counter-productive Work Behaviour


12/19

12

5.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This study aims to find out the individual and workplace spirituality of employeesin Islamic organisations in Malaysia. Further, it aims to determine if and how spiritualityaffect integrity which in turn influences organisation performance in term on the

occurrence of counterproductive work behaviour. The results showed that theemployees have moderate level of individual spirituality, workplace spirituality andintegrity. The results further show that the employees would not engage incounterproductive work behaviour. In addition, the current findings suggested thatindividual spirituality has negligible relationship with CWB and also with integrity.While the relationship between workplace spirituality and CWB is very low andsignificant. However, workplace spirituality has a very low negative and significantrelationship with integrity. The findings further revealed that the relationship betweenintegrity and CWB is very low and it is negative.

It is interesting to note that the relationship analysis showed negligible

relationship and the overall results indicate that the hypothesised model did not achieve afit model (p-value = 0.000; CFI = 0.731; RMSEA = 0.165), thus the role of integrity as amediator, linking human spirituality and workplace spirituality with counterproductivework behaviour is not supported. The present study seems in line with Kolodinsky et al.(2008). In their study, Kolodinsky et al. (2008), found there was little evidence of aninteraction between personal spiritual values and organisational spiritual values for theworker consequences they examined such as job involvement, organisationalidentification, and rewards satisfaction. In addition, Weaver and Agle (2002) commentedthat although an individuals spirituality has important impacts on many attitudes and

behaviours, much empirical research in the psychology and sociology of religion alsoindicates that religiosity and spirituality does not automatically lead to ethical behaviours.Moreover, Robert and Jarrett (2011) argued that is not necessary for god-fearing, church-going people make better employees. He further argued that it is not necessary that thereligious or spiritual more honest and responsible? In fact, he found that organisationaland interpersonal deviance in the workplace correlate with religiosity.

The findings of the present study have important implications. The findingssuggest that employees of Islamic organisations in Malaysia are spiritual and integrity.However, their spirituality scores are not as high as expected by the researcher. Asargued by Cappelli and Sherer (1991), context is the surrounding that illuminates a

phenomenon. As an organisation that deals with and practices Islamic values

management, it expects its employees to demonstrate high scores of spirituality andintegrity. The perception that all employees of Islamic organisations are spiritual andintegrity, however, is not necessarily true in reality. Although, the board of directors ofall these organisations are Muslims, the workplace spirituality seems disappointing. As

pointed by Geh and Tan (2009), the most apparent implication of workplace spirituality isto do with leadership. Cacioppe (2000) argues that leaders have a central role in theevolution of integrating spirituality at work and instilling a sense of the spiritual realm atthe individual, team, and organisational level. This study is the first of its kind as other

previous have studied spirituality (Kolodinsky, 2008) but not on Muslim sample. Itdefinitely extends the existing body of knowledge. It provides evidence that spiritualitydoes not confined to particular religion and negative work behaviours are not necessarily

associated with either spirituality or integrity.


13/19

13

The perception that all employees of Islamic organisations are spiritual andintegrity, however, is not necessarily true in reality. They admitted that they would stillengage in CWB, but very minimum. This study is the first of its kind as previous studieshave studied spirituality (Kolodinsky, 2008) but not on Muslim sample. It definitelyextends the existing body of knowledge. It provides evidence that spirituality does not

confined to particular religion and negative work behaviours are slightly associated withworkplace spirituality. As pointed by Geh and Tan (2009), the most apparent implicationof workplace spirituality is to do with leadership. Cacioppe (2000) argued that leadershave a central role in the evolution of integrating spirituality at work and instilling asense of the spiritual realm at the individual, team, and organisational level.

For the organisation that are keen to incorporate spirituality into all aspects ofwork, explicit efforts must be made to structure the work day and office environment tooffer opportunities for employees to find a place of reflection and silence, bothindividually and collectively. Human resource policies can also be adjusted to be mademore accommodating in terms of allowing employees to take contemplative breaks

during the day. Other effort is by encouraging employees to attend relevant spiritual talksby dishing out appropriate fringe benefits such as time off work or additional leave days.

Human spirituality is revered, respected, and accepted as an element of life inside, as well as outside of work. This manifests through an integrity work behaviour,

but not necessarily contributes to organisational performance. There is little doubt that itis difficult to change people's character in terms of personality traits such as spiritualityand belief. It is not sufficient for employers to point out the benefits of behaviouralchange. Some employees may not be willing to do the hard work required for integritychange. Their individual greed and flawed characters might dispose them to unethical

behaviour. But organisational culture may also play a role. If the opportunity presentsitself and the risk of not getting caught is low, if the organisation does not foster anintegrity climate, then chances are fairly good that CWB will take place. Thisorganisational explanation of governmental mischief, then, sees such conduct as less thefunction of individual, psychological disposition and more the result of institutionaldysfunction. Therefore, the organisation should conduct an integrity audit to redesignwork settings, create proper incentive systems, and modify patterns of interaction amongemployees. Such an audit would identify sensitive situations that may tempt an individualto act unethically.

Spiritual needs are fulfilled by a recognition and acceptance of individual

responsibility for the common good, by understanding the interconnectedness of all life,and by serving humanity and the planet. Therefore, when one speaks about bringingspirituality into the workplace, he or she is talking about changing organisational culture

by transforming leadership and employees so that humanistic practices and policiesbecome an integral part of an organisation's day-to-day function. There has been ampleempirical evidence that spirituality in the workplace creates a new organisational culturein which employees feel happier and perform better. Employees also may feel that

belonging to a work community, which is an important aspect of spirituality, will helpthem when things get rough in the future. Furthermore, a culture of sharing and caringeventually will reach all of the organisation's stakeholders: suppliers, customers, andshareholders.


14/19

14

Limitations of this study include probable loss of meaning through interpretationand translation. In addition, many of the respondents commented the survey was too longand took a lot of their time. Thus they may have not actually responded to the survey

properly. For future research, it would be interesting to examine other moderating effectsof employeespersonality such personal values and religiosity on spirituality with other

organisational outcomes such as with employees commitment and performance. Knowing these moderators is necessary for understanding how and why spirituality isimportant.

6. REFERENCES

Allen, T. M. (2009), Religiosity, Spirituality, and Substance Abuse,Master of ScienceThesis, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Ashmos, D. P. and Duchon, D. (2000), Spirituality at work: a conceptualization andmeasure,Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 134145.

Arrizza, N. (2006), Integrity and core human values, available at:http://ezinearticles.com/?Integrity-and-Core-Human-Values&id=3124867

Belaire, C. and Young, J. S. (2000), Influences of spirituality on counselor selection,Counseling and Values, Vol. 44, pp. 189197.

Bandura, A. (1973), Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis,Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey.

Bandura, A. (1977), Social Learning Theory,General Learning Press, New York.

Bensimon, H. F. (1994), Crisis and disaster management: violations in the workplace,Training and Development, Vol. 28,pp. 2732.

Bierly, P., Kessler, E. and Christensen, E. (2000), Organizational learning, knowledgeand wisdom, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vo. 13 No. 6,

pp.595618.

Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M. and Kramer, R. M. (1997), At the breaking point: cognitive andsocial dynamics of revenge in organizations, In R. A. Giacalone and J. Greenberg

(Eds.),Antisocial Behavior in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1836.

Bird, K. (2006), Integrity in the workplace: an analysis of personality, integrity, andoccupation,Master of Science Thesis, California State University.

Bruce, W. and Plocha, E. F. (1999), Reflections on maintaining spirituality ingovernment workplace: What it means and how to do it,International Journal ofOrganization Theory & Behavior, Vol. 2 No. (3/4), pp. 325-347. available athttp://pracademics.com/toc-ijotb.html#v2_3-4

Buss, D. (1993), Ways to curtail employee theft,Nations Business, 3638.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Integrity-and-Core-Human-Values&id=3124867http://ezinearticles.com/?Integrity-and-Core-Human-Values&id=3124867http://pracademics.com/toc-ijotb.html#v2_3-4http://pracademics.com/toc-ijotb.html#v2_3-4http://pracademics.com/toc-ijotb.html#v2_3-4http://ezinearticles.com/?Integrity-and-Core-Human-Values&id=3124867


15/19

15

Cacioppe, R. (2000), Creating spirit at work: re-visioning organization development andleadership part I, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol.21

No. 1, pp. 4854.

Camera, W. and Schneider, D. L. (1994), Integrity tests: facts and unresolved issues,

American Psychologist, Vol. 49, 112119.

Capelli, P. and Sherer, P. D. (1991), The missing role of context in OB: The need for ameso-level approach, In Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press,Greenwich, CT. pp. 55-110.

Chan, K. W. and Wyatt, T. A. (2007), Quality of work life: a study of employees inShanghai, China,Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 501-517.doi:10.1080/13602380701250681.

Collins, P. and Kakabadse, N. K. (2006), Perils of religion: need for spirituality in the

public sphere,Public Administration and Development, Vol. 26, 109121.

Dehler, G. E. and Welsh, M. A. (1994), Spirituality and organizational transformation,Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 1726.

Delbecq, A. (1999), Christian spirituality and contemporary business leadership,Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 345349.

Dent, E. B., Higgins, M. E. and Wharff, D. M. (2005), Spirituality and leadership: anempirical review of definitions, distinctions, and embedded assumptions,Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 625653.

Enander, J. O. (2000), Prayer groups on company time,Industrial Distribution, Vol. 89No. 2, p.78.

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Beliefs, Attitudes, Intention, Behavior. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Fornaciari, C., Dean, K. L. and McGee, J. J. (2003) , Research in spirituality, religion,and work: walking the line between relevance and legitimacy, Journal ofOrganizational Change Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 378395.

Fox, S. and Spector, P. E. (1999), A model of work frustration-aggression,Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 915931.

Fox, S., Spector, P. E. and Miles, D. (2001), Counterproductive work behavior (CWB)in response to job stressors and organizational justice: some mediator andmoderator tests for autonomy and emotions,Journal of Vocational Behavior,Vol.59, pp. 291309. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803, available online athttp://www.idealibrary.com on.

Fry, L. W. (2003), Toward a theory of spiritual leadership,Leadership Quarterly, Vol.

14 No. 6, pp. 693727.


16/19

16

Fry, L. W. (2005), Toward a theory of ethical and spiritual well-being, and corporatesocial responsibility through spiritual leadership, in R. Giacalone, C. Jurkiewiczand C. Dunn (eds.), Positive Psychology in Business Ethics and Corporate

Responsibility, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, pp. 4783.

Garcia-Zamor, Jean-Claude (2003), Workplace spirituality and organizationalperformance, PublicAdministration Review, Vol.63 No. 3, pp. 355363.

Geh, E. and Tan, G. (2009), Spirituality at work in a changing world: managerial andresearch implications,Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion. Vol. 6 No.4, pp. 287300 DOI: 10.1080/14766080903290093

Giacalone, R. A., and Carol L. Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003a), Right from wrong: theinfluence of spirituality on perceptions of unethical business practices,Journal of

Business Ethics, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 8597.

Giacalone, R. A. and Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003b), Toward a science of workplacespirituality, in R. A. Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, C. L. (eds.), Handbook ofWorkplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance, M.E. Sharpe Publishers,Armonk, NY, pp. 328.

Giacalone, R. A., Jurkiewicz, C. L. and Fry, L. W. (2005), From advocacy to science:the next steps in workplace spirituality research,Handbook of Psychology and

Religion,Sage Publication, Newbury Park, CA.

Giacalone, R. A. and Greenberg, J. (Eds.). (1997), Antisocial Behavior in Organizations.Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Gibbons, P. (2000), Spirituality at work: definitions, measures, assumptions, andvalidity claims, in J. Biberman and M. Whitty (eds.), Work and Spirit: A Reader of

New Spiritual Paradigms for Organizations, University of Scranton Press,Scranton, PA, pp. 111131.

Gould, S. (1979), An equity-exchange model of organizational involvement,Academyof

Management Review, Vol.4,pp.53-62.Gruys, M. L. and Sackett, P. L. (2003), Investigating the dimensionality of

counterproductive work behaviour, International Journal of Selection andAssessment, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 30-42.

Han, Y., Lu, X. and Li, Z. (2010), In search of excellence: spiritual training program andjunior managers' counterproductive work behavior in China: Guangxi State FarmGroup grows moral managers of the future - course seeks to combat"counterproductive" work behaviour,Human Resource Management International

Digest, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 10-12.

Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structureanalysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternations, Structural Equation

Modeling, Vol. 6, 155.


17/19

17

Hogan, J. and Hogan, R. (1989), How to measure employee reliability,Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 74,pp.273279.

Hollinger, R. C. (1986), Acts against the workplace: social bonding and employeedeviance.Deviant Behavior, Vol. 7,pp.5375.

Impelman, K. (2006), Predicting Counter-Productive Workplace Behavior: Item LevelAnalysis of An Integrity Test, Master of Science Thesis, University of NorthTexas, August 2006.

Johns, G. (2006), The essential impact of context on organizationalbehaviour,Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 31No. 2, pp. 386-408.

Karakas, F. (2010), Spirituality and performance in organizations: a literature review,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 94, pp. 89106, DOI 10.1007/s10551-009-0251-5

Kolodinsky, R. W, Giacalone, R. A. and Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2008), Workplace valuesand outcomes: exploring personal, organizational, and interactive workplacespirituality,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 81, pp. 465480.

Konz, G. N. P. and Ryan, F. X. (1999), Maintaining an organizational spirituality: noeasy task,Journal of Organizational Change Management,Vol. 12, pp. 200-210.

Knorz, C. and Zapf, D. (1996), Mobbing - an extreme form of social stressors in theworkplace, in Einarsen, S. Zapf, D. And Cooper, L. (eds)Developments in Theory,

Research, and Practice, Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL. p. 198.

Korac-Kakabadse, A. and Korac-Kakabadse, N. (1997), Best Practice in the AustralianPublic Service (APS): an examination of discretionary leadership, Journal of

Managerial Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 187193.

Krishnakumar, S. and Neck, C. P. (2002), The what, why and how ofspirituality in the workplace,Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 3,

pp. 153164.

Lanyon, R. I. and Goodstein, L. D. (2004), Validity and reliability of a pre-employment

screening test: the counterproductive behavior index (CBI), Journal of Businessand Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 4, Summer, pp. 533-553.

Levinson, H. (1965), Reciprocation: the relationship between man and organization,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 9, pp.370-390.

Lips-Wiersma, M. (2003), Making conscious choices in doing research on workplacespirituality,Journal of Organisational Change Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp.406425.

Luther, N. J. (2000), Understanding workplace deviance: an application of primary

socialization theory,Ph.D dissertation. Colorado State University.


18/19

18

Marcus, B. and Schuler, H. (2004), Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work:a general perspective,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89, pp. 647660.

Marques, J., Dhiman, S. and King, R. (2005), Spirituality in the workplace: developingan integral model and a comprehensive definition,Journal of American Academy

of Business, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 81-91. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jaabc.com/journal.htm

McConkie, M. L. (2008), Spirituality and the public sector: an introduction,International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 337-341.doi:10.1080/01900690701590736

Miles, A. K., Sledge, S. and Coppage, S. (2005), Linking spirituality to workplaceperformance: a qualitative study of the Brazilian Candomble, Academy ofManagement Best Conference Paper, 2005 MSR: C1

Mitroff, I. and Denton, E. (1999a), A study of spirituality in the workplace, SloanManagement Review, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 8392.

Mitroff, I. and Denton, E. (1999b),A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America: A Hard Lookat Spirituality, Religion, and Values in the Workplace. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,CA.

Mumford, M., Connelly, M., Helton, W., Strange, J. M., and Osburn, H. (2002), On theconstruct validity of integrity tests: individuals and situational factors as predictorsof test performance,International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 9, pp.240-257.

Neuman, J. H. and Baron, R. A. (1998), Workplace violence and workplace aggression:evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets,

Journal of Managements,Vol. 24, 391419.

Paloutzian, R. F., Emmons, R. A. and Keortge, S. G. (2003), Spiritual well-being,spiritual intelligence, and healthy workplace policy, in R. A. Giacolone and C. L.Jurkiewicz (eds.), Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational

Performance, M.E. Sharpe, New York, pp. 123137.

Petchsawang, P. and Duchon, D. (2009), Measuring workplace spirituality in an Asiancontext, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 12 No. 4, September,pp. 459468.

Reave, L. (2005), Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness, TheLeadership Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 655687. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07.003.

Robert, S. and Jarrett, T.(2011), Are spiritual people really less evil? A study exploringthe influence of spirituality on deviance in the workplace, available athttp://midwestacademy.org/Proceedings/2011/OB-ROBERTS_JARRETT-1320.pdf
http://www.jaabc.com/journal.htmhttp://www.jaabc.com/journal.htmhttp://midwestacademy.org/Proceedings/2011/OB-ROBERTS_JARRETT-1320.pdfhttp://midwestacademy.org/Proceedings/2011/OB-ROBERTS_JARRETT-1320.pdfhttp://midwestacademy.org/Proceedings/2011/OB-ROBERTS_JARRETT-1320.pdfhttp://www.jaabc.com/journal.htm


19/19

19

Robinson, S. L. and Bennett, R. J. (1995), A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: amultidimensional scaling study,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp.555572.

Scott, D. J. (2007), Integrity and spirituality: a phenomenologicalexamination of elders'

experiences, Ph.D Dissertation, Loyola College in Maryland, 3274284.

Skarlicki, D. P. and Folger, R. (1997), Retaliation in the workplace: the roles ofdistributive, procedural, and interactional justice,Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 82, pp. 434-443.

Smith, N. (2006). Workplace Spirituality,Axial Age Publishing, Peabody, MA.

Tepper, B. J. (2003), Organizational citizenship behavior and the spiritual employee,InHandbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance, ed. R.A.Giacalone and C.L. Jurkiewicz, M.E. Sharpe Armonk, NY, pp. 181190.

Thompson, W. D. (2000), Can you train people to be spiritual?, Training andDevelopment, Vol. 54 No. 12, pp. 1819.

Turner, J. (1999), Spirituality in the workplace, CAMagazine, Vol. 132 No. 10, pp. 41-42.

Valasek, A. J. (2009), Examining the relationship of spirituality and religiosity toindividual productivity in the United States, Doctoral dissertation, NorthcentralUniversity, 2009). Dissertation Abstract International, 177 pages; AAT 3353667.(UMI No. 3353667).

Vardi, Y. and Weitz, E. (2004), Misbehavior in Organizations: Theory, Research, andManagement, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ.

Watson, C. (2001), The search for soul in the workplace,Master of Arts Thesis, RoyalRoads University.

Weaver, G. R. and Agle, B. R. (2002), Religiosity and ethical behavior in organizations:a symbolic interactionist perspective,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27

No. 1, pp. 7798.

Wheat, L. W. (1991), Development of a scale for the measurement of humanspirituality, Dissertation Abstracts International,5209A, 3230.

Wilensky, H. L. (1960), Work, careers, and social integration, International SocialScience Journal, pp. 543-560. available athttp://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0020-8701&site=1

Example of Theory

Documents

Transcript of Example of Theory