Does workplace spirituality influence knowledge-sharing behavior and work engagement in work? Trust as a mediator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Management scholars view workplace spirituality as the main factor behind building trust among employees and playing a pivotal role in enhancing the organization's positive outcomes, i.e., knowledge sharing behavior & work engagement. Underpinning social exchange theory, we explored the linkage between workplace spirituality, knowledge sharing behavior, and work engagement. We further studied to look at the mediating effect of trust between workplace spirituality and positive outcomes. Data was collected from six private companies, the total number of respondents was (n=196). The study's analysis showed that workplace spirituality substantially positively impacts knowledge sharing behavior and work engagement. Furthermore, the link between workplace spirituality, knowledge sharing behavior, and work engagement is positively and statistically significantly mediated by trust. Thus, this work contributes significantly to the research paradigm by presenting workplace spirituality as a solution for high-rise trust among employees, fostering employee engagement in their work, and improving the capacity of knowledge-sharing behavior. Additionally, at the end of this study, theoretical and managerial suggestions, future avenues, and limitations are stated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".