Abstract
The current dataset examines the relationship between workplace spirituality and workplace deviance through the improvement of organizational commitment. The instruments from previous studies were adapted and validated through content validity. Further, it was translated from English to Indonesian language. In the data preparation, the computation of Skewness and Kurtosis, as well as Histogram, was done. Reliability assessment was done through Cronbach's alpha. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were addressed for the three constructs; workplace spirituality, organizational commitment, and workplace deviance. In an academic standpoint, the dataset can extend in-depth contributions and references for further researchers as a basis of the empirical evidence in relation to the relationship between the workplace spirituality, organizational commitment, and the workplace deviance. It is also beneficial for a model for reducing the workplace deviance from employee perspectives in the context of developing countries. Access to this dataset may contribute to stakeholders in establishing policies to reduce the workplace deviance.
Keywords: Civil servant, Workplace deviance, Workplace spirituality, Organizational commitment
Specifications Table
| Subject | Management |
| Specific subject area | Human resource management; organizational behavior |
| Type of data | Table Figure |
| How data were acquired | Face and content validity, survey, and SEM AMOS |
| Data format | Raw Analyzed Filtered |
| Parameters for data collection | The instrument includes workplace spirituality, improvement of organizational commitment, and workplace deviance. |
| Description of data collection | The instruments from previous studies were adapted and validated through content validity. Further, it was translated from English to Indonesian language. In the data preparation, the computation of Skewness and Kurtosis, as well as Histogram, was done. Reliability assessment was done through Cronbach's alpha. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were addressed for the three main constructs; workplace spirituality, improvement of organizational commitment, and workplace deviance. |
| Data source location | Region: Jambi Country: Indonesia Latitude and longitude (and GPS coordinates) for collected samples/data 1.6101° S, 103.6131° E |
| Data accessibility | On a public repository: Repository name: Mendeley Data Data identification number: DOI: 10.17632/79y9ntcxzs.1 Direct URL to data: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/79y9ntcxzs/1 |
Value of the Data
the dataset can extend in-depth contributions and references for further researchers as a basis of the empirical evidence in relation to the relationship between the workplace spirituality, organizational commitment, and the workplace deviance.
The dataset is beneficial for a model for reducing the workplace deviance from employee perspectives in the context of developing countries
Access to this dataset may contribute to stakeholders in establishing policies to reduce the workplace deviance
1. Data description
Data were adapted from previous related studies [1], [2], [3]. Data of this survey study include three primary constructs, namely workplace spirituality, organizational commitment, and workplace deviance. Workplace spirituality include three sub-constructs; meaningful work (6 items), sense of community (8 items), alignment with organization's value (7 items). In addition, organizational commitment refers to three sub-constructs e.g. affective (8 items), normative (7 items), and continuance (8 items). Finally, workplace deviance contains two sub-constructs; interpersonal (7 items) and organizational (11 items). A 5-scale Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree) was used for workplace spirituality and organizational commitment. Meanwhile, we reversed the scale for working deviance (1 = Strongly Agree; 5 = Strongly Disagree). The proposed model of the relationship among constructs in this study is informed in Fig 1. A summary of data presented in this dataset is shown in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4. Table 1 informs EFA result of workplace spirituality; Table 2 performs EFA result of organizational commitment; and Table 3 describes EFA result of workplace deviance. In addition, the CFA results of the three constructs are shown in Table 4.
Fig. 1.
Proposed model.
Table 1.
EFA Result; workplace spirituality.
| Sub construct | Item | eigenvalue | communality | Cross loading | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alignment with organization's value | AOV1 | 4.371 | .661 | .784 | ||
| AOV7 | .590 | .764 | ||||
| AOV3 | .556 | .743 | ||||
| AOV2 | .563 | .733 | ||||
| AOV6 | .505 | .689 | ||||
| AOV5 | .468 | .652 | ||||
| Meaningful work | MW3 | 2.942 | .698 | .833 | ||
| MW4 | .626 | .784 | ||||
| MW2 | .634 | .772 | ||||
| MW1 | .554 | .738 | ||||
| Sense of community | SC3 | 1.699 | .615 | .715 | ||
| SC4 | .542 | .678 | ||||
| SC6 | .554 | .672 | ||||
| SC2 | .525 | .653 | ||||
| SC1 | .380 | .607 | ||||
| SC7 | .539 | .410 | ||||
Table 2.
EFA Result; organizational commitment.
| Sub construct | Item | Eigenvalue | Communality | Cross loading | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normative | N3 | 5.794 | .715 | .843 | ||
| N4 | .694 | .774 | ||||
| N1 | .603 | .750 | ||||
| N2 | .567 | .731 | ||||
| N7 | .671 | .731 | ||||
| N5 | .543 | .705 | ||||
| N6 | .539 | .641 | ||||
| Affective | A7 | 3.051 | .494 | .696 | ||
| A1 | .542 | .685 | ||||
| A2 | .436 | .630 | ||||
| A5 | .332 | .552 | ||||
| A4 | .545 | .510 | ||||
| A8 | .317 | .508 | ||||
| A3 | .294 | .481 | ||||
| A6 | .387 | .464 | ||||
| Continuance | C2 | 2.184 | .588 | .737 | ||
| C3 | .647 | .730 | ||||
| C1 | .365 | .589 | ||||
| C8 | .465 | .589 | ||||
| C4 | .460 | .557 | ||||
| C5 | .525 | .531 | ||||
| C7 | .300 | .408 | ||||
Table 3.
EFA Result; workplace deviance.
| Sub construct | Item | Eigenvalue | Communality | Cross loading | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organizational | O5 | 3.902 | .634 | .796 | |
| O9 | .497 | .667 | |||
| O3 | .438 | .654 | |||
| O6 | .503 | .643 | |||
| O8 | .452 | .625 | |||
| O4 | .308 | .552 | |||
| O1 | 335 | .512 | |||
| Interpersonal | I7 | 2.034 | .730 | .854 | |
| I5 | .722 | .830 | |||
| I1 | .505 | .710 | |||
| I3 | .588 | .656 | |||
| I4 | .324 | .470 | |||
Table 4.
CFA assessment values.
| Construct | Loading range | (χ2) | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | Sub construct | CR | AVE | α |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Workplace spirituality | .570–0.830 | p > 0.050 | .931 | .911 | .076 | Alignment with organization's value | .731 | .693 | .858 |
| Meaningful work | .796 | .746 | .762 | ||||||
| Sense of community | .731 | .635 | .735 | ||||||
| Organizational commitment | 520–0.830 | p > 0.050 | .925 | .907 | .078 | Normative | .784 | .725 | .862 |
| Affective | .725 | .683 | .838 | ||||||
| Continuance | .661 | .623 | .703 | ||||||
| Workplace deviance | 550–0.890 | p > 0.050 | .969 | .945 | .079 | Organizational | .772 | .723 | .758 |
| Interpersonal | .803 | .707 | .807 |
2. Experimental design, materials, and methods
The items were validated through content validity [4,5]. Five experts in Human resource management and organizational behaviour were invited to discuss all items for context and setting evaluation. On this stage, two items on workplace deviance were dropped; it was recommended by more than 50% of the experts. Back translation proposed by [6] was done before the distribution of the questionnaire.
The questionnaire was distributed to 350 Indonesian government employees in Jambi. Three hundred and fifteen responses were analysed; Thirty employees did not return the questionnaire while five responses were not completed. For the data preparation, Skewness and Kurtosis values of each construct were found to be normal, ranging from −1 to +1 for the Skewness and −2 to +2 for the Kurtosis [7]. Using histogram, the data were reported to be normally distributed. Cronbach's alpha for all constructs extends 0.700 (acceptable).
For the EFA, component principal analysis (PCA) approach was used to formulate uncorrelated linear combination against observable constructs; Kaiser Meyer Olkin (>0.500), Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (p < 0.05), eigenvalue (factor = > 1.0), communality (>0.30), and factor loading (>.0 40) [7]. For workplace spirituality with Varimax rotation, three factors were achieved. Kaiser Meyer Olkin (0.743) and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (p = 0.000) exceed the threshold values. Table 1 informs the eigenvalue, communality, and cross-loading of the sub-constructs. Some items were deleted due to low loading and cross-loading as well as low communality values. The deleted items were MW5, MW6, AOV4, SC5, and SC8. For organizational commitment, three factors are informed; Normative, Affective, and Continuance. Kaiser Meyer Olkin (0.756) and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (p = 0.000) values are also acceptable. The eigenvalue, communality, and cross-loading of the sub-constructs of organizational commitment are shown in Table 2. One item (C6) was deleted from organizational commitment. Finally, workplace deviance's refers to two factors which the Kaiser Meyer Olkin is satisfactory (0.732). Similarly, its Bartlett's Test of Sphericity extends the required score (p = 0.000). A complete elaboration of the eigenvalue, communality, and cross-loading is reported in Table 3. Several items; O2, O7, O10, O11, I2, I6, were dropped due to low loading values and cross-loading [8].
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) steps was computed in AMOS 23.0. Goodness of fit is assessed using the chi-square (χ2) (p > 0.050), the comparative fit index (CFI >0.90), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI> 0.90), as well as the root mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA < 0.08) [7,9]. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients, Composite Reliability (CR), and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) were implemented in calculating the reliability of the questionnaire. Alpha should be ranging of 0.60–0.70 in exploratory research [7]. CR should not be less than 0.60, and AVE should not be less than 0.50 [10]. For CFA, standardized loading estimates should be 0.50 or more. The initial measurements of the three CFA processes did not achieve the fit model. Some items were dropped since they have low loading and some modifications by drawing covariance among error variances were applied (Figs. 1–3). All values of constructs and sub-constructs through the CFA process have met the cut off values (Table 4). All loadings value are above 0.50 as the standardized cut off value (Figs. 2–4)
Fig. 3.
CFA of organizational commitment.
Fig. 2.
CFA of workplace spirituality.
Fig. 4.
CFA of working deviance.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships which have, or could be perceived to have, influenced the work reported in this article.
Acknowledgments
We thank all participants. This survey is funded by Universitas Jambi.
Footnotes
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.dib.2020.105872.
Appendix. Supplementary materials
References
- 1.Milliman J., Czaplewski A.J., Ferguson J. Workplace spirituality and employee work attitudes: an exploratory empirical assessment. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2003 doi: 10.1108/09534810310484172. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Allen N.J., Meyer J.P. Construct validation in organizational behavior research: the case of organizational commitment. Probl. Solut. Hum. Assess. 2000 doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-4397-8_13. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Bennett R.J., Robinson S.L. The past, present, and future of workplace deviance research. In: Greenberg J., editor. Organizational behavior: The state of science. 2nd ed. Erlbaum; Mahwah, NJ: 2003. pp. 247–281. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Habibi A., Yusop F.D., Razak R.A. The dataset for validation of factors affecting pre-service teachers’ use of ICT during teaching practices: indonesian context. Data Br. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2019.104875. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Prasojo L.D., Habibi A., Wibawa S., Hadisaputra P., Mukminin A., Muhaimin, Yaakob M.F.M. An Asian Perspective: the dataset for validation of Teachers’ Information and Communication Technology Access (TICTA) Data Br. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2020.105592. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Behr D. Assessing the use of back translation: the shortcomings of back translation as a quality testing method. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2017 doi: 10.1080/13645579.2016.1252188. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Hair J.F., Black W.C.W.C., Babin B.J., Anderson R.E., Babin B.J., Black W.C.W.C. Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective. Multivar. Data Anal. Glob. Perspect. 2009 doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2011.02.019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Prasojo L.D., Habibi A., Yaakob M.F.M., Pratama R., Yusof M.R., Mukminin A., Suyanto, Hanum F. Dataset relating to the relationship between teacher self-concept and teacher efficacy as the predictors of burnout: a survey in Indonesian education. Data Br. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2020.105448. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Awang Z. A handbook on Structural Equation Modeling using AMOS. Universiti Technologi MARA Press; Malaysia: 2012. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Bryne B. Routledge; New York: 2010. Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.