Work-related issues [e.g., work stress, organizational politics (OP), and interpersonal relationships] often trigger various other problems for the employees those consequently affect their family and the society. Employee wellbeing (EWB) is one of the topics of significance in the area of organizational behavior and management. Organizations develop and implement different training and other programs focused on enhancing employee wellbeing. The major reason for taking this initiative generally lies in the consequences associated with employee wellbeing, which include better work performance, low turnover intentions, less injuries, high work motivation, job engagement and low absenteeism (Keyes, 2005; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005; Boehm and Lyubomirsky, 2008; Bakker, 2015). Before conceptualizing the concept of employee wellbeing, it is important to understand the meaning of wellbeing. There are plentiful explanations of wellbeing in the literature. For instance, Diener (1984) defined wellbeing as an individual’s own overall evaluation of his/her work, life situations, surroundings and emotional experiences. Grounded on his views, employee wellbeing can be defined as employee’s comprehensive subjective discernment of satisfaction and positive attitude toward their work.

Extensive literature review revealed that the concept of wellbeing has been conceptualized in different ways. However, there are two major perspectives that include: (a) hedonic perspective (b) eudemonic perspective. These two perspectives are pointedly distinct in nature. Hedonic perspective consider happiness as an indicator of wellbeing; while the eudemonic perspective believes in character virtues like self-actualization (Ryan and Deci, 2001; Dewe and Cooper, 2012). Further, Diener et al. (1985) maintained that the hedonic perspective advocated the importance of three dimensions of wellbeing, which included having a positive mood, absence of negative mood and life satisfaction. Whereas the eudemonic perspective lays emphasis on an individual’s character, means to achieve happiness and growth as essential components of wellbeing. Ryff (1989, 1995) reported that an individual can attain wellbeing by engaging in six different activities, which included: life purpose, personal growth, self-acceptance, mastery, autonomy and positive relatedness.

Initially, it was believed that both hedonic and eudemonic perspectives were mutually exclusive, but lately scholars pointed out that for a better understanding of wellbeing we need to incorporate the characteristics of both. Completely relying on single (any one) of these perspectives seems insufficient to explain the meaning of wellbeing. As Fisher (2014) pointed out that wellbeing is a very complex concept to understand and explore; it can only be understood if it is taken as a multidimensional concept that includes the unique aspects of both perspectives.

The present study follows the argument that wellbeing is a multidimensional concept, and aspects of both perspectives (hedonic and eudemonic) should be considered while operationalizing employee wellbeing. Therefore, in this study employee wellbeing is operationalized as an amalgamation of hedonism and eudemonia perspectives which includes the dimensions of happiness and self-esteem.

The concept of spirituality at the workplace (SW) has recently gained popularity among business scholars and practitioners. Commonly it is believed that spirituality is another name for the concept of religiosity, but it is not a comprehensive reality. There may be certain similarities in some aspects of religiosity and spirituality, but spirituality as a concept is widely different from religiosity (Milliman et al., 2003). The concept of religiosity encompasses a relatively permanent system and pattern of faith or belief of a group of people (Newberg, 2014; Afsar and Rehman, 2015). On the other hand, the concept of spirituality discusses connectivity among individuals, meaning in life, purpose, integration, growth, truth and mindfulness (Myers, 1990; Harrington et al., 2004; Beheshtifar and Zare, 2013). Therefore, the concept of spirituality discusses beyond the terrestrial and institutional aspects of religiosity (Petchsawang, 2008).

Workplace spirituality has been tried to explain incorporating various aspects including the dimensions such as inner life connection, sense of community, connectedness, compassion, transcendence, mindfulness and meaningful work (Mitroff and Denton, 1999; Jurkiewicz and Giacalone, 2004; Kinjerski and Skrypnek, 2006). In the present study, workplace spirituality is defined as an inner sense of connectedness and completeness with their work. This inner sense of connectedness and completeness is a consequence of an interaction between two characteristics of the workplace named mindfulness and meaningful work.

The concept of mindfulness is used to express the state of inner awareness and consciousness (Phan et al., 2020). This implies that the individual is consciously aware of his/her present thoughts and actions. It considers active monitoring of actions only through the lenses of the present without any disruptions from the past experiences or expectations from the future (Heaton et al., 2004). A person adorned with the quality of mindfulness lives his/her life in the present; he/she does not behave like a slave of past experiences and does not ruin his/her state of wellbeing with uncertainties of the future (Walach et al., 2006; La Torre et al., 2020). Another important representative of mindfulness is owning freedom from external distractions. A mindful person can get rid of different worldly distractions that deviate the person from putting all his/her efforts into present activities (Brown and Ryan, 2003).

Meaningful work is another essential feature of workplace spirituality. It can be defined as an individual’s belief that his/her work has a significant impact on one’s own life as well as other members of society. Duchon and Plowman (2005) argued that meaningful work has a more positive impact on performance than external rewards (materialistic benefits). Furthermore, meaningful work motivates, energizes and gives a sense of meaning in the life of employees (Overell, 2008).

As far as the availability of resources is concerned, a similarity can be observed between the functioning of organizations and the societies. Members of organizations often struggle to acquire maximum resources similar to the individuals of the certain societies. This struggle leads to interpersonal conflict and engagement into various activities aimed to secure maximum resources without evaluating the righteousness of these activities (Molm, 1997; Hochwarter, 2012). Fundamentally, using inappropriate strategies to maximize personal benefits is a core ingredient of organizational politics (Ferris et al., 1989; Kacmar and Baron, 1999). However, in extended form, organizational politics can be understood as employees’ egocentric and morally illegitimate behaviors (such as exploiting organizational resources and taking advantage of other employees) that are envisioned to accomplish personal interests (Mintzberg, 1985; Ferris and Kacmar, 1992). Therefore, organizational politics is often considered as a negative function and challenge to the collective objectives of the organization (Block, 1988).

Affective event theory (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996) supports the idea that various events at the workplace cause emotional disturbance in the life of employees. Further, this emotional disturbance damages not only the physical health but psychological health and overall wellbeing of the employees. Based on effective event theory, Thiel et al. (2014) advocated that different incidents of organizational politics stimulate the affective state of employees and result in intense emotional responses. Though enough literature has provided evidence of the negative consequences of organizational politics but its impact on employee wellbeing is not explored in depth. Given the meaning and motive of organizational politics, it can be concluded that organizational politics has a negative influence on employee wellbeing. Therefore, the present study focused on how organizational politics influences the relationship between workplace spirituality and employee wellbeing.

Empathic concern (EC) is one of the most discussed concepts in the area of social and organizational psychology. Initially, it was believed that empathic concern is a multidimensional concept (Smith, 1759; Watson and Tellegen, 1985). However, in later years, scholars argued that empathic concern is a unidimensional construct, as its dimensions share a significant commonality in operationalization and measurement (Hoffman, 1977, 2000). Considering this, empathy can be defined as an individual’s ability to experience the emotional strain of others and express concern for them (McNeely and Meglino, 1994). Lazarus (1991, 1999) extended the meaning of empathy and explained it as an individual’s capacity to place himself/herself in the situation of others and experience their sufferings. Further, Eisenberg (2000) and Cliffordson (2002) advocated that empathy encompasses cognitive as well as emotional processes. Cognitive processes include perceiving, examining, understanding and comprehending the situation of others, while emotional processes include sharing the feelings and emotions of others (Davis, 1983; Decety and Jackson, 2004).

Empathic concern is an important tool to make people abide with the social context (Muller et al., 2014). It also assist in facilitating social cognition, personal bonding, interpersonal engagement, healthy relationships and honest apprehension for other’s wellbeing (Davis, 1990; Reynolds and Scott, 2000; Scott et al., 2010). The impact of empathic concern on wellbeing in social context is well discussed (Diener et al., 1999; Haxby et al., 2000). However, in organizational context the role of empathic concern in relation to workplace spirituality and employee wellbeing remains somewhat unattended. This warrants a need to explore this aspect of empathic concern.

On the basis of review of literature a research gap was established and present study was aimed at exploring these issues. Following hypotheses were formulated for the study:

In this research, a survey was conducted on police personnel of Uttar Pradesh Police Department (UPPD, India). Convenient sampling (a method of Non-probability sampling) was used to select the participants for data collection. For the survey, 300 employees of UPPD, India were contacted. However, only 253 participants have responded and completed the survey. Thus, responses from 253 participants (male = 177, female = 76) were analyzed. The participants’ age ranged from 22 to 57 years (Mean = 37.40, S.D. = 9.29); and their work experience ranged from 0.2 to 26 years (Mean = 10.10, S.D. = 8.74).

Before initiating the data collection for the study, Uttar Pradesh Police Service departments, located in different districts of Uttar Pradesh, were approached. Prior appointments were fixed with the concerned authorities. They were informed about the study’s objectives and the procedure of data collection in detail. Questionnaires were administered among the participants after attaining their consent. Overall, 300 sets of questionnaires were distributed to the employees of the police department located in different districts of Uttar Pradesh. Out of 300 employees, 278 employees provided their consent for the data collection and 253 completed the questionnaires.

Table 1 illustrates the descriptives (Mean, S.D.), reliability and correlation coefficients among research variables. Aligned with the research hypotheses, workplace spirituality was found to be positively correlated with empathic concern (r = 0.55^**) and employee wellbeing (r = 0.36^**); similarly empathic concern was found to be positively associated with employee wellbeing (r = 0.37^**). Table 1 shows that organizational politics owns a negative association with workplace spirituality (r = −0.23^**), empathic concern (r = −0.17^**) and employee wellbeing (r = −0.48^**).

Figure 1 demonstrates, the standardized regression coefficients between workplace spirituality and empathic concern (β = 0.55^***); empathic concern and employee wellbeing (β = 0.20^***); workplace spirituality and employee wellbeing (β = 0.22^***); organizational politics and employee wellbeing (β = −0.41^***) and all these coefficients were found to be statistically significant. Table 2 illustrates the importance of each predictor in forecasting employee wellbeing. Table 2 also shows that all predictor variables together could predict thirty percent variance (R² = 0.30) in probability of employee wellbeing. It also depicts the conditional indirect effect of empathic concern on the relationship between workplace spirituality and employee wellbeing using organizational politics as moderator. Conditional indirect effect was found to be strongest when the perception of organizational politics was low (−1 S.D.; indirect effect = 0.189; LLCI = 0.081; ULCI = 0.302 at 95%). In case of average perception (Mean) of organizational politics, indirect effect was found lower than low perception of organizational politics but statistically significant (Mean; indirect effect = 0.109; LLCI = 0.038; ULCI = 0.187 at 95%). Whereas, indirect effect was found lowest and statistically not significant if the perception of organizational politics was noted high (+1 S.D.; indirect effect = 0.030; LLCI = −0.056; ULCI = 0.122 at 95%).

Moderated mediation analysis (Table 2 and Figure 2) highlighted that organizational politics moderates the path of spirituality and employee wellbeing (β = 0.24; t = 4.26; LLCI = −0.353; ULCI = −0.120 at 95%); and empathic concern and employee wellbeing (β = 0.14; t = 2.66; LLCI = −0.251; ULCI = −0.037 at 95%). The overall structural (Moderated-Mediation) model was found significant on moderated-mediation Index (Index = −0.079; Boot SE = 0.03; LLCI = −0.145; ULCI = −0.013 at 95%).

Organizational politics emerged as a significant moderator in the data analysis, the trends of its moderating effects being depicted in Figure 2. It clearly shows that the level of perception of organizational politics (1 S.D above mean, mean and 1 SD below mean) had notable impact on the effects of workplace spirituality and empathic concern on employee wellbeing. In both cases (workplace spirituality and empathic concern) low level of organizational politics fosters the strength of the effects, but in occasion of average and high level of organizational politics the strength of effects become weak and weaker simultaneously.

The sample studied was limited to a single organization (Police department) only. Therefore, data from other service organizations (hospital, bank, corporate, etc.) and manufacturing organizations would have encompassed various aspects of work environment and may have provided comprehensive understanding of interactions among research variables. Other compelling variables such as age, work experience and gender were not included in the data analysis. Future studies may include demographic details to identify impact of these variables. A comparative research plan may be executed in the future to identify salient characteristics of diverse work settings and their interactive effect on concerned variables.