Page 2 of 42

393

Biaggi, C., & Issa, J. (2022). Failing to Live the Sermon: The Influence of Spirituality and Nationality on Unethical Behavior Among Leaders of Christian

Organizations. European Journal of Applied Sciences, 10(6). 392-433.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.106.13528

extra work from the teachers, and harassed one who opposed him until resignation (Nuñez &

Gonzalez, 2009).

Why do leaders of Christian organizations fail to live what they preach? What are the causes for

such unethical behaviors? If religiosity has a correlation with ethical beliefs and behavior (e.g.

Swimberghe et al., 2011; Vitell et al., 2011), why do religious leaders behave unethically? Is it

possible that leaders of Christian organizations going through a period of low spirituality are

more vulnerable to committing unethical behaviors (Biaggi, 2013)? Are Christian leaders from

nations with high levels of corruption more prone to unethical behavior? Does spirituality

counteract (moderate) the influence of nationality on unethical behavior (Biaggi, 2013)?

Although conceptual and theoretical models emphasizing antecedents and causes of

misbehavior abound, empirical research is relatively sparse (Andreoli & Lefkowitz, 2009;

Collins, 2000; Vardi & Weitz, 2004). The subject index of a review of the Journal of Business

Ethics between 1982 and 1999, revealed the absence of causes or antecedents of unethical

behavior (Collins, 2000). Even though empirical research began after the year 2000 (Berry et

al, 2006; O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005), an important drawback of most empirical research was

the use of student samples and testing misbehavior outside the organizational setting (Andreoli

& Lefkowitz, 2009). Therefore, a strength of this study is the use of a sample involving both

students and employees.

Why is it important to study the misbehavior of religious leaders? In a review study published

in ‘The Academy of Management Annals’, Tracey (2012) pointed out three future directions in

the intersection of religion and organizations: 1) Religious leaders constitute an influence in

certain societies and play a key role in the formation of what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, and they are

supposed to be role models of ethical behavior; 2) Research that explores unethical behavior in

the religious context will make a compelling contribution to the understanding of misconduct;

3) “Understanding more about how individual religiosity affects behavior has the potential to

shed light on a range of key issues in management including leadership, power and politics, and

decision-making” (p. 26). In addition, a qualitative study of the ethical pitfalls among leaders of

the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church suggested that future research should assess the

antecedents of misbehavior in the SDA Church, considering spirituality as a starting point

(Biaggi, 2013b).

Although spirituality is an extensively-studied phenomenon in the business ethics literature,

there is little research specifically exploring the link between spirituality and unethical

behavior among leaders of Christian organizations. Therefore, by adopting a hypothetical- deductive (post-positivist) paradigm (Guba and Lincoln 1994; Brand 2009), this paper

proposes a theorized model that describes the dimensions of spirituality, its influence on

unethical behavior, as well as the influence of nationality on unethical behavior. By knowing if

spirituality, nationality, and other demographics influence unethical behavior, leaders of

religious organizations may promote activities that prevent such behavior and foster ethical

behavior. Furthermore, secular and for-profit organizations that employ Christian leaders may

also benefit from this study. Thus, this research enhances a manager’s understanding of

‘unethical behavior avoid-ability’, and the extent to which unethical behavior can be prevented.

Page 3 of 42

394

European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 10, Issue 6, December-2022

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review has five parts: a psychological understanding of spirituality, the construct

of unethical behavior, the direct influence of spirituality on unethical behavior, a measurement

of nationality, and the moderator role of spirituality between nationality and unethical

behavior.

A Psychological Understanding of Spirituality

Several researchers have used psychological definitions of spirituality or religiosity (e.g. Hill et

al., 2000; Cornwal et al., 1986; Parboteeah, Hoegl, & Cullen, 2008). In addition, the spirituality

construct has been confused and often overlaps with the construct religiosity. On one end, some

researchers argue that spirituality and religion are synonymous, because people look to

religious denominations in their quest to have communion with God (Conger 1994), or sustain

that religious beliefs are core to spirituality (e.g. Lynn, Naughton and VanderVeen 2011). On

the other extreme, other researchers assert that there seems to be no connection between

spirituality and religion, and they attempt to differentiate the two constructs (e. g. Ashforth and

Pratt 2003; Giacalone and Jurkiewicz 2003; Mitroff and Denton 1999), or argue that even

though “formal religion can encourage spiritual experiences... spirituality and religion are not

necessarily one and the same” (Conger, 1994, p. 12). In the middle ground, there are

researchers who see proximity between the concepts and argue that religiosity is strongly

related with spirituality (e.g. Emmons 1999; Vitell, Keith and Mathur 2011). They also argue

that spirituality is a psychological and multidimensional phenomenon, which partially overlaps

with religion (Biaggi, 2013; Hill et al., 2000). Therefore, for the purpose of choosing the

dimensions of Christian spirituality, this study will review research that uses psychological

understandings of both spirituality and religiosity.

Cornwall et al. (1986) developed a conceptual model of religiosity, which they empirically

tested. The base for their model is “familiar to social psychologists who generally recognize the

importance of making a distinction between knowing (cognition), feeling (affect), and doing

(behavior)” (Cornwall et al, 1986, p. 227). Their empirical test of the model, done on 1,874

Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) in the United States, revealed five

dimensions: one cognitive, two affective, and two behavioral. Using Cornwall et al.’s (1986)

model Parboteeah, Hoegl, and Cullen (2008) empirically tested the relationship between

religion and ethics. Using data from the World Values Survey (2000), a sample of 63,087

respondents from 44 countries, Parboteeah et al. found support for three dimensions of

religiosity and their negative relationship to ethics: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. They

argued that a multidimensional model better explained the relationship between religion and

ethics than a unidimensional construct of religiosity, such as religious affiliation or church

attendance.

Other researchers argued that religiosity could be measured by the cognitive and behavioral

dimensions, leaving out the affective dimension (McDaniel and Burnett 1990; Rashid and

Ibrahim 2008). McDaniel and Burnett (1990) posited that religiosity is formed by a belief in

God and a commitment to live by God-given principles. However, early studies of religiosity

have distinguished between religious beliefs, religious feelings, and religious practices (Hall

1891; Starbuck 1899; Leuba 1912).