Email this article 
Download PDF
Contents
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (Religion is a cultural factor that acts as an antecedent of behavior (Frederick, 1995; Lonner & Adamopoulos, 1997). It is through religion that one can address existential questions (Batson & Stocks, 2004) including on meaning in life (Abeyta & Routledge, 2018; Routledge, Roylance, & Abeyta, 2017). At the same time, the link between religion and people is not as simple as it seems. It can become a point of contention among scholars, and is still being studied extensively today (McCullough & Willoughby, 2009). This is especially true in the context of work variables, where the influence of religion cannot be dismissed easily (Day, 2005; Harpaz, 1998; Parboteeah, Paik, & Cullen, 2009). In the domain of Islam and ethical work behavior, previous studies had investigated on assessing Islamic work ethic (e.g., Chanzanagh & Akbarnejad, 2011; Possumah, Ismail, & Shahimi, 2013; Wan Husin, 2012), using theory of planned behavior to predict it (e.g., Aminnuddin, 2019), and its outcome, impact, and relationship with other variables (e.g., Khan, Abbas, Gul, & Raja, 2015; Tufail, Ahmad, Ramayah, Jan, & Shah, 2017; Wan Husin & Zul Kernain, 2019).
The direction of most studies was on measuring Islamic ethical work behavior, and its effect and relationship with other variables, while very few were on predicting it. However, no studies were found to be done on predicting Islamic ethical work behavior through both sociodemographic factors and religiosity dimensions. There is a void in the current literature on this. By knowing these predictors, Islamic ethical work behavior can be understood more comprehensively. Therefore, this present paper attempted to address this issue. The present study aimed to examine demographic factors and religiosity dimensions as predictors of Islamic ethical work behavior.
Literature Review [TOP]
Religiosity and Mental Health, Physical Health, and Behavior [TOP]
Many studies in literature found that religiosity was associated with mental health (e.g., Aflakseir & Coleman, 2009), physical health (e.g., Benjamins, 2004), and behavior (e.g., Hoskin, Hartley, Ellis, & McMurray, 2017; Muhamad & Mizerski, 2010, 2013). Some of the associations observed with high religiosity were lower anxiety and lower depression (Davis, Kerr, & Kurpius, 2003). It has been linked to lower mortality (Benjamins, 2004), a sense of a meaningful life (Batson & Stocks, 2004), higher self-esteem (Musick, Traphagan, Koenig, & Larson, 2000), and higher life satisfaction (Krause, 1995). Religion can help with coping in life (Ellison, 1991). This can be attributed to religiosity acting as a self-regulating and self-controlling mechanism (McCullough & Willoughby, 2009). Through religion, it leads to acceptance of and coming to terms with stressful events (Koenig, George, & Siegler, 1988). The same role was observed among war veterans with regards to their general mental health and specific issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder (Aflakseir & Coleman, 2009). In fact, following a period of war and conflict, people tend to have an increase of religiosity even years after that (Henrich, Bauer, Cassar, Chytilová, & Purzycki, 2019). Similarly, this tendency of using religion and the values it brings as a coping mechanism can also be found among students (see Kane & Jacobs, 2010).
Religion also influences human behavior including misuse of drugs, prosocial behavior, morality, non-marital physical relationship, and prejudicial attitudes (for comprehensive reviews of literature, see Batson & Stocks, 2004; Gorsuch, 1988; Gorsuch & Aleshire, 1974; Hood, Hill, & Spilka, 2009; Spilka, Hood, & Gorsuch, 1985). There is also merit in employing religion as a process of socialization—as well as using socialization to improve religiosity—within families (see Krauss et al., 2012, 2013). As an example, religious socialization can be employed within the family structure to reduce the likelihood of sexual initiation (Taggart et al., 2018). Other notable effects of religiosity are a reduction in crime (Hoskin et al., 2017), greater corporate community involvement (Cui, Jo, & Velasquez, 2019), and religion-based consumer boycott (Muhamad, Khamarudin, & Fauzi, 2019). Previous studies had also shown religiosity predicting sexism, albeit with limited effect (e.g., Van Assche, Koç, & Roets, 2019).
However, not all studies observed a positive influence of religiosity. There is a difference in outcome for intrinsic religiosity and extrinsic religiosity. The former was found to be a healthy type of religiosity, while the latter was an unhealthy type of religiosity (Reisner & Lawson, 1992). This suggests that by strengthening and enforcing intrinsic religiosity relative to extrinsic, the benefits that come from the former can be achieved. However, occasionally, the link between religiosity and other variables are not direct, and this relationship can be affected by other factors. For example, while religiosity does positively affect well-being, the effect can be mediated by mastery and purpose in life (Ardelt & Ferrari, 2019). In another study, it was empathy acting as a mediating variable between religiosity and citizenship behavior (Pratono, 2019). At times, religiosity can have less dominant effect compared to the effect of accepted norm concerning a particular behavior in the society, such as attitude toward abortion among Muslims minorities (e.g., Carol & Milewski, 2017).
Religion in the Workplace [TOP]
The emerging growth of interest in religion and spirituality in the workplace has been widely discussed in various studies that offer a number of explanations for the recent surge of interest (for comprehensive reviews of literature, see Bell & Taylor, 2004; Benefiel, Fry, & Geigle, 2014; Carroll, 2013; Casey, 2004; Driver, 2005; Fry & Nisiewicz, 2013; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2014; King & Crowther, 2004; Kinjerski & Skrypnek, 2004; Krishnakumar & Neck, 2002; Marques, 2010; Mitroff & Denton, 1999). These explanations include: employees are turning to spirituality as a coping mechanism dealing with issues in the workplace (Benefiel et al., 2014; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2014); a change in values and an increase of social consciousness and spirituality (Mitroff & Denton, 1999); and the desire to find alternatives other than western values which are seen to be void of religion and spirituality (Fry & Nisiewicz, 2013).
The influence of religion can also be apparent in a person’s attitude toward the other gender, such as having negative attitude toward women’s role in the workplace (Sevim, 2006). Even when religion is not part of the workplace internally, just with the businesses being located in a highly religious society or region, a higher level of corporate community involvement can be seen (Cui et al., 2019). This effect was found where the population is dominantly Catholics and mainline Protestants, but not evangelical Protestants.
The study of religion and spirituality in the workplace emerged from an area outside the typically attributed area of psychology of religion and spirituality, which are mental and physical health, and behavior, instead of concerning specific contexts, such as the workplace. Scholars in management have recently started to integrate the psychology of religion into their work. For example, in a review study, Benefiel et al. (2014) identified 15 studies that investigated the effect of religion and spirituality in the workplace. All the identified studies found beneficial effects. Positive relationships were reported with organizational commitment, unit productivity, job satisfaction, altruism, conscientiousness, self-career management, unit performance, sales growth, involvement, identification, retention, organizational citizenship behavior, attachment, and loyalty. Negative relationships were observed with inter-role conflict and manipulation of earnings.
More recent studies on religiosity have found its impact on socially responsible investment (e.g., Li, Xu, Gill, Haider, & Wang, 2019) and reducing the volatility of stock market speculation (AlAwadhi, 2019). Even when there is a conflict between work and family resulting to lack of energy and time to help others in the workplace, religious ethical work values can moderate this (De Clercq, Rahman, & Haq, 2019).
Culture, Religion, and Values [TOP]
The origin of values is commonly discussed through the nurture versus nature debate. Findings usually show a combination of the two. In one genetic study, it was observed that 40% of work values were hereditary, while the environment influenced 60% (see Keller, Bouchard, Arvey, Segal, & Dawis, 1992). This supports the notion that values are not caused by one specific factor, but it is due to both nurture and nature. Studies on nurture versus nature include on having entrepreneurial behavior (e.g., White, Thornhill, & Hampson, 2007) and investor behavior (e.g., Barnea, Cronqvist, & Siegel, 2010), showing similar findings that both plays a role; although one might have a more dominant influence relative to the other, depending on the behavior and context.
For values nurture by external factors, it varies according to culture (Gatewood & Carroll, 1991). Culture can be defined as “a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life” (Geertz, 1973, p. 89). Others defined it as “the acquired knowledge that people use to interpret experience and generate social behavior” that “forms values, creates attitudes, and influences behavior” (Hodgetts & Luthans, 2000, p. 108).
The impact of these values, for example, toward prosocial behaviors, can also be moderated by age (see Benish-Weisman, Daniel, Sneddon, & Lee, 2019). This supports the notion that culture or acquired knowledge—through experience and time—forms values and influences behaviors are not without evidence. In the field of psychology, it can be seen that the “overwhelming majority” and even “alternatives” viewed culture as an antecedent to cognition and behavior (Lonner & Adamopoulos, 1997, p. 61).
Frederick (1995) attributed religion as one of these cultural factors and that religious background and beliefs of a person have a significant influence on work values. Similarly, Harpaz (1998, p. 143) believed religion to be a dominant variable in a person, stating “work and religion and their interrelationship are part of the foundations of human society.” The importance of religion may already exist internally within people prior to them being employed, for example, among students in higher education. One study had observed the majority of students perceived values from religion as important, to the point they depend on these values to deal with life, and act on religious behaviors in order to be closer to God (see Kane & Jacobs, 2010). This mindset is arguably being carried forward after they graduated and then joined the workforce.
Researchers had attempted to anchor work values on general values, viewing values as universal (e.g., Ros, Schwartz, & Surkiss, 1999). Schwartz (2012, p. 4) argued that “Values transcend specific actions and situations.” Studies had shown that the values a person hold important as influenced by cultural factors were relatively stable (see Beyer, 1981), even when they fluctuate due to external factors for a short period (see Schulenberg, Vondracek, & Nesselroade, 1988). While people do have a universal set of values (Schwartz, 2012), the priority of these values can be influenced depending on context (De Wet, Wetzelhütter, & Bacher, 2019). One study—in this context, a period of global financial crisis—observed some values return to its previous level at the end of the assessment period, while others did not; although it was argued that there is a need to assess further how long these changes can persist in the long run (see Sortheix, Parker, Lechner, & Schwartz, 2019).
Other researchers had discussed individual- and group-level values, clearly delineating the differences and how each can be affected in tandem with the other, including contextual values (e.g., Kendal & Raymond, 2018). The same is argued on the mechanism of religion. Batson and Stocks (2004, p. 153) explained the mechanism of religion and its impact “vary over time, person, situation, and culture.”
Factors Affecting Ethical Behavior [TOP]
In a study where people were provided with scenarios of morally questionable behaviors, if they perceived the behavior as ethical, they would be more likely to view it as being legal (Sobolev & Voege, 2019). This suggests an interplay between legal judgment and ethical judgment being dependent on perception and context. It is argued here that religion plays a prominent role in influencing behaviors (Agarwala, Mishra, & Singh, 2019). Studies had shown religious people will strongly align their behavior with their religious beliefs (Keller, Smith, & Smith, 2007), more likely to be against unethical acts (Razzaque & Tan, 2002; Wagner & Sanders, 2001), and having more ethical awareness (Singhapakdi, Salyachivin, Virakul, & Veerayangkur, 2000). While millennials are typically viewed to be more flexible when it comes to ethics and behavior, the influence of religion is still significant among them (Arli, Tkaczynski, & Anandya, 2019).
The effect of religion may also be stronger than other variables. For example, between religious message and environmental message in advertising to promote green purchasing behavior, the effect was found to be greater using Islamic values as part of the religious message (Siyavooshi, Foroozanfar, & Sharifi, 2019). However, in some cases where the behavior may run contrary to what the religion says, such as spending on luxury items, religion was not a significant predictor (Forghani, Kazemi, & Ranjbarian, 2019). This contradicts with other studies where researchers found religion acts as a self-regulating and self-controlling mechanism in individuals (e.g., McCullough & Willoughby, 2009). Such contradictory behavior can be argued to be due to individuals legitimizing their actions, for example, by interpreting religious notions differently (see Forghani et al., 2019).
There are also evidences to support taking into consideration individual differences. For example, several studies found differences in ethical behavior based on gender (e.g., Ones & Viswesvaran, 1998; Ross & Robertson, 2003; Smith & Oakley, 1997), while others had not observed any differences or had mixed results (e.g., Jones & Kavanagh, 1996; Lund, 2000; Shafer, Morris, & Ketchand, 2001). One study observes that age does not make any difference in ethical intention (see Shafer et al., 2001).
Other behaviors relevant to ethics include corporate social responsibilities, consumer behaviors, and citizenship behaviors. Studies had shown support that religiosity positively affects corporate social responsibility, both attitude and actual behavior (e.g., Agnihotri & Bhattacharya, 2019; Harjoto & Rossi, 2019). Gender—in this case, female directors—also plays a role where together with religiosity they affect corporate social responsibility of businesses (see Harjoto & Rossi, 2019). This suggests the importance of leadership of organizations on their role to provide a conducive and supportive environment for ethical behaviors. Similarly, in India where consumers have a poor perception of the institutional environments such as within the government and others, they tend to act more unethically when it comes to consumption or purchasing behavior (see Agnihotri & Bhattacharya, 2019).
The impact can even be seen geographically. For example, areas or regions with strong religious community may have an impact on business leaders making decisions in favor of more corporate community involvement (Cui et al., 2019). Religious heritage or past and current religious history of a country can also have similar effect among its population, such as on work ethic (see Aminnuddin, 2019; Stam, Verbakel, & De Graaf, 2013).
In summary, current literature has shown that most studies support the role of demographic factors and religiosity being linked to ethical behaviors—but not Islamic ethical behaviors—and other relevant behaviors, with some studies finding mixed results or no effect at all (for a comprehensive review, see Benefiel et al., 2014; O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005). However, none had examined these variables as predictors in the context of Islamic ethical work behavior. Most studies examined the outcome and the effect of it (e.g., Alhyasat, 2012; Khan et al., 2015). Hence, this present study attempted to investigate demographic factors and religiosity dimensions as predictors of Islamic ethical work behavior.
Method [TOP]
Research Design [TOP]
This study used an existing data set that had been employed previously (see Aminnuddin, 2019). Although the population—Malay Muslims in Brunei—remained the same, the objective and analysis were different. In the previous study (see Aminnuddin, 2019), the framework was based on using the theory of planned behavior which was augmented with religiosity as a model to predict Islamic ethical work behavior, and this was done using structural equation modeling.
In this present paper, demographic factors and religiosity dimensions were examined as predictors of Islamic ethical work behavior. The analysis method used in this present paper was binomial logistic regression, instead of structural equation modeling. Therefore, this present paper is distinct than the previous paper (see Aminnuddin, 2019). It is a novelty, and it contributes to the literature. Ethical approval is not necessary due to this present paper using an existing data set which had already been peer-reviewed and was given the appropriate approval by Universiti Brunei Darussalam and departments involved during data collection (for details, see Aminnuddin, 2019).
Participants [TOP]
The demographic details of 370 participants were presented (see Table 1). However, there were some missing data. Because of this, the numbers of responses were also clearly stated to show that the missing data is minimal and negligible. All of them are Malay Muslims in Brunei, employed as teaching staff at public schools. No identifying data was collected for anonymity reason.
Table 1
Demography of Participants
| Variables | N |
|---|---|
| Age group | 367 |
| 21-25 | 10 |
| 26-30 | 59 |
| 31-35 | 98 |
| 36-40 | 85 |
| 41-50 | 96 |
| 50 and above | 19 |
| Sex | 368 |
| Male | 79 |
| Female | 289 |
| Marital status | 367 |
| Not married | 90 |
| Married | 277 |
| Education level | 362 |
| Diploma | 18 |
| Bachelor’s degree | 253 |
| Master’s degree | 91 |
| Work experience | 369 |
| 5 years or less | 79 |
| 6-10 years | 94 |
| 11-20 years | 149 |
| 21 years or more | 47 |
Measures and Analysis [TOP]
Binomial logistic regression analysis was used. Demographic factors analyzed were age, gender, marital status, education level, and work experience.
Religiosity dimensions examined in the analysis were Islamic ethical principles, Islamic universality, Islamic duty, and global religiousness. These religiosity dimensions were instruments from the Psychological Measures of Islamic Religiosity (see Abu-Raiya, Pargament, Mahoney, & Stein, 2008).
Islamic ethical principles had ten items (α = .91) which evaluated the extent of belief whether agreeing or disagree on recommended and prohibited behavior based on Islamic belief. Islamic universality had four items (α = .81) that measured a respondent's stance on universal principles in Islam, which were commonly shared by all Muslims. Islamic duty used five items (α = .67) to assess the frequency of ritualistic behavior of a Muslim. Finally, global religiousness used two items (α = .89) in evaluating a Muslim's perception of the level of their religiosity and spirituality. All religiosity dimensions were rated using a scale with 5 rating points with Cronbach’s alpha ranging between .67 and .91.
Islamic ethical work behavior was measured using a statement that asked respondents to what extent did they act on such behaviors in the workplace. This was rated on a 7-point scale. However, the responses were coded into binary form to reflect low and high occurrences of Islamic ethical work behavior.
Research Question [TOP]
The dependent variable was Islamic ethical work behavior. The independent variables were demographic factors and religiosity dimensions. The analysis was done based on the proposed research question: Can demographic factors and religiosity dimensions predict Islamic ethical work behavior?
Results [TOP]
Descriptive Statistics [TOP]
Descriptive statistics of religiosity dimensions and Islamic ethical work behavior were also presented (see Table 2). Descriptive analysis showed that for religiosity dimensions, most of the sample population were leaning toward having high level of religiosity, with mean values ranging between 3.69 and 4.68. Not only did Islamic ethical principles dimension had the highest mean, it also had the lowest standard deviation, which was 0.41. While global religiousness not only had the lowest mean, it also had the highest standard deviation at 0.80. The item to measure Islamic ethical work behavior had a mean value of 0.71 with a standard deviation of 0.46, which means that the sample population had a higher number of people indicating they acted ethically in the workplace based on Islam.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of Religiosity Dimensions and Islamic Ethical Work Behavior
| Measures | Min | Max | M | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Islamic ethical principles | 3.00 | 5.00 | 4.68 | 0.41 |
| Islamic universality | 1.50 | 5.00 | 4.54 | 0.53 |
| Islamic duty | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.99 | 0.64 |
| Global religiousness | 2.00 | 5.00 | 3.69 | 0.80 |
| Islamic ethical work behavior | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.71 | 0.46 |
Binomial Logistic Regression Model [TOP]
Results from binomial logistic regression analysis were presented (see Table 3). However, only 357 out of 370 participants were included in the model due to missing data.
Table 3
Demographic Factors and Religiosity Dimensions as Predictors of Islamic Ethical Work Behavior
| Predictors | OR | p | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.92 | 0.69 | [0.61, 1.39] |
| Gender | 0.64 | 0.21 | [0.31, 1.30] |
| Marital status | 1.26 | 0.46 | [0.68, 2.31] |
| Education level | 0.67 | 0.13 | [0.40, 1.13] |
| Work experience | 1.27 | 0.37 | [0.76, 2.13] |
| Islamic ethical principles | 2.34 | 0.04 | [1.02, 5.35] |
| Islamic universality | 2.07 | 0.03 | [1.05, 4.05] |
| Islamic duty | 1.72 | 0.02 | [1.10, 2.68] |
| Global religiousness | 1.78 | 0.01 | [1.17, 2.71] |
Note. OR = Odds ratio; χ2(9, N = 357) = 87.85, p ≤ .001.
As indicated in Table 3, using a threshold of p ≤ 0.5, demographic factors were not found to be predictors of Islamic ethical work behavior. However, all religiosity dimensions were observed to be predictors in this model. The model also correctly classified 77% of cases.
The strongest predictor of Islamic ethical work behavior was Islamic ethical principles (OR = 2.34, p = 0.04). The greater a person’s religiosity involving Islamic ethical principles, the greater the likelihood of acting on Islamic ethical work behavior. Other predictors, large to small OR, were Islamic universality (OR = 2.07, p = 0.03), global religiousness (OR = 1.78, p = 0.01), and Islamic duty (OR = 1.72, p = 0.02).
Discussion [TOP]
This study had shown that demographic factors were not significant predictors of acting on Islamic ethical work behavior. However, all religiosity dimensions were found to be significant predictors. This suggests that personal religiosity is a better predictor than a person’s demographic background in predicting Islamic ethical work behavior. Overall, the model correctly classified 77% of cases.
The demographic variables in this study—age, gender, marital status, education level, and work experience—are among the common factors to be examined. Past studies had shown these variables to be significant toward ethical behavior (see Ones & Viswesvaran, 1998; Ross & Robertson, 2003; Shafer et al., 2001; Smith & Oakley, 1997). However, the result of this present study did not show any support for this, adding up instead more support for studies that did not find any effect or link (see Jones & Kavanagh, 1996; Lund, 2000; Shafer et al., 2001).
However, this present study also contributed by providing more evidence for religion or religiosity dimensions being a factor in a person’s ethical behavior, similar to other studies in the past (e.g., Keller et al., 2007; Razzaque & Tan, 2002; Singhapakdi et al., 2000; Wagner & Sanders, 2001). Therefore, there is compelling evidence that religion acts as a self-regulating and self-controlling mechanism in individuals (McCullough & Willoughby, 2009).
The predictors—in order of strong to weak effect—were Islamic ethical principles, Islamic universality, global religiousness, and Islamic duty. The strongest predictor being the religiosity dimension concerning adhering to Islamic ethical principles is not unexpected, considering the behavior in question was Islamic ethical work behavior. However, what is surprising was that the religiosity dimension of practicing Islamic duty—i.e., ritualistic actions such as prayers—was the weakest predictor.
This challenges the notion that those who pray daily and consistently perform ritualistic actions are pious and externalize their beliefs by acting religiously ethical in life including in the workplace. The finding suggests—or can be interpreted—that ritualistic actions may be practiced only due to external pressure and societal norm, or that ritualistic actions have become more of a day to day routine, rather than internalizing the behaviors as how they are supposedly to be viewed and to be acted out according to the religion. This is consistent with one study observing similar findings where religious-related behaviors were more of an Islamic lifestyle in order to be identified as Muslims with religious worldview and values (see Karoui & Khemakhem, 2019). However, this needs further investigation. Furthermore, this religiosity dimension of Islamic duty was found to be a significant predictor, although the effect was only weak relative to the religiosity dimension of Islamic ethical principles.
As argued earlier, religion is a powerful cultural factor in society and among individuals. In the context of Brunei, religion plays a significant role in the government, society, and individuals (see Gin, 2015; Ibrahim, 2003; Mail, 2011; Tinkong, 2009) to the extent it influences behavior (Aminnuddin, 2019). Therefore, one possible reason for the findings observed in this study is that religion is strongly dominant over demographic factors, causing the former overshadows the latter. A factor that is dominant in the society can dominate over the others. This is consistent with previous studies, such as religious values of minorities being dominated over by the accepted norm (e.g., Carol & Milewski, 2017) and how business leaders being influenced by the population and their religious norms (e.g., Cui et al., 2019). In the context of the present study, Islam is a dominant factor in the Bruneian society; this can be the explanation for why religiosity dimensions were found to be significant predictors, and demographic factors were not.
Conclusion [TOP]
This study offers valuable information concerning predictors of Islamic ethical work behavior. Using the data collected, the results provide understanding on religiosity dimensions—but not demographic factors—as predictors. The findings also suggest there are varying degrees of prediction likelihood of religiosity dimensions toward Islamic ethical work behavior, which may be due to contexts, such as individuals, society, and culture. Overall, on the objective of this present research, no comparable studies had been found at this point. Implications in real life include on organizations strengthening and enforcing specific religiosity dimensions among employees to improve ethical behavior, in this case, Islamic ethical work behavior in the workplace. Thus, this research and its findings further expand information concerning individuals, society, and work ethics, bringing new insights into the field of psychology, religion, and Islam.
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Studies [TOP]
Several limitations of this study are identified. This present study only focused on Malay Muslim employees in Brunei. Therefore, the findings cannot be generalized to other populations. Another limitation of this study is gender imbalance, where there were 289 females but only 79 males. Similarly, the total number of sample population is arguably small, which may affect validity. It is recommended that future studies should attempt to examine other populations using a larger sample, as well as to consider other religiosity dimensions and other religions. Future studies may also look into replicating the study within the same population to further assess the validity of the findings. Another issue that needs to be addressed is on the reason behind varying degree of effects of religiosity dimensions on individuals and the outcome. Qualitative study is also recommended as this method can be used to explore the rationale behind the findings of this present study. This could explain more in-depth regarding the predictors and the motivation behind acting on Islamic ethical work behavior.
