Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance

Robert A Giacalone, Carole L. Jurkiewicz

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2010
• ISBN:
  9781317468974
• Edition: 3
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

An explanation of how and why the economic downturn of 2007 became the Great Recession of 2008 and 2009. It explores the root causes of the cycle of boom and bust of the economy. It describes social equity in terms of its arguments and claims in political, economic, and social circumstances.

I

THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT OF WORKPLACE SPIRITUALITY

---

---

1

---

---

THE SCIENCE OF WORKPLACE SPIRITUALITY

ROBERT A. GIACALONE AND CAROLE L. JURKIEWICZ

INTEREST IN WORKPLACE SPIRITUALITY

Interest in spirituality continues to grow, both in the United States and globally. Whether instigated by widespread values shifts, increasing social anomie, or a search for meaning in a world seemingly increasingly chaotic, the search for spiritual meaning has extended well beyond the personal to the professional arena. This evolution is clearly evident in the organizational sciences, where the topic of workplace spirituality is being embraced by academic researchers (see Cavanagh 1999; Sass 2000) and practitioners alike (Laabs 1996). Some assert that spiritual solutions have been sought to ease tumultuous social and business changes (e.g., Cash, Gray, and Rood 2000; Mitroff and Denton 2000), others argue that profound changes in values globally have brought a growing social consciousness and spiritual renaissance (e.g., Inglehart 1997; Neal 1998), and a few attribute it to a growing interest in philosophies Eastern (Brandt 1996). While the reasons for this emergent paradigm likely extend beyond a single source (see Giacalone and Jurkiewicz 2003 for a full review), the increasing attention is undeniable.

Interest in workplace spirituality has spurred curiosity beyond the capacity of scholars to keep pace either theoretically or methodologically. Elementary attempts at a noetic understanding of workplace spirituality began in the early 1990s, as evidenced in books, articles, and special journal issues or sections (e.g., Journal of Managerial Psychology, Journal of Management Inquiry, Journal of Management Education, and Journal of Organizational Change Management). Organizational consultants have also embraced the value of workplace spirituality for their clients, with some (Barrett 1998) taking a pragmatic, data-based approach and others providing training seminars and coaching on the topic. In the Academy of Management, the professional organization for scholars in business management, the Management, Spirituality, and Religion interest group has emerged, focusing on issues of spirituality and religion in organizational life. More recently, the Journal of Management, Spirituality, and Religion has become the journal for research in this burgeoning area.

As is common in new endeavors, “the emerging body of academic literature on spirituality in organizations exhibits more breadth than depth” (Sass 2000, 195). This proliferation of ideas with no discernible set of rules constitutes a normal research tradition while simultaneously presenting a frustrating circumstance for objectivists. As Kuhn explains:

Recognizing that frustration, however, makes it possible to diagnose its source. Scientists … can … agree in their identification of a paradigm without agreeing on, or even attempting to produce, a full interpretation or rationalization of it. Lack of a standard interpretation or of an agreed reduction to rules will not prevent a paradigm from guiding research. Normal science can be determined in part by the direct inspection of paradigms, a process that is often aided by but does not depend upon the formulation of rules and assumptions. Indeed, the existence of a paradigm need not even imply that any full set of rules exists. (1970, 37)

Development of a paradigm involves an extensive process of conceptual assimilation, and, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, more than one theoretical construction can always be imposed upon a given collection of data (Kuhn 1970). This drive toward nomothetic universals and the attendant frustration represents “the essential tension” implicit in all scientific research (Kuhn 1959, 162). Intellectual foraging for confirmation or falsification thus ensues to build consensus for a predominant way of viewing the data, and offering a framework into which elements of the data can be placed toward a normative understanding of the phenomenon. Some first steps in this process toward an ontology of workplace spirituality are offered here.

A Scientific Inquiry Into Workplace Spirituality

It is essential first that workplace spirituality be separated from “soaring rhetoric” (Sass 2000, 198), denominational polemics, and the faith blanket in which it is frequently cloaked. The goal is neither to confirm nor disconfirm particular belief systems, but rather to separate scientific inquiry from such suppositions entirely. This effort explores methods by which workplace spirituality might be objectively studied in ascertaining its utility to work organizations and their stakeholders.

Decades of research in the psychology of religion and spirituality have effectively employed the scientific method (see, e.g., Paloutzian 1996) in empirical investigations. Substantive efforts to develop empirical assessments and measurement tools for workplace spirituality (e.g., Ashmos and Duchon 2000) provide further evidence that a scientific approach is feasible. Yet even with this empirical base, workplace spirituality is still equated by some with particular religious or faith-based doctrines. While for most scholars the two are arguably separate constructs (Cavanaugh 1999), populist notions tend to meld them into a generalized conception of workplace spirituality as faith-based business. It is essential that this distinction between populist beliefs and epistemological inquiry be clarified before engaging in a more explicative dialogue.

Separating Religion From Workplace Spirituality

To many the process of separating religion from spirituality is effortless; to others it is equivalent to surgically dividing conjoined twins. Yet spiritual concerns are not synonymous with religious ones; spiritual concerns are separate from participation in and the sharing of beliefs with any particular religious groups (Veach and Chappel 1991). Additionally, viewing workplace spirituality through the lens of religious tradition is divisive: it excludes those who do not share in the denominational tradition (Cavanaugh 1999) and in some cases may conflict with the social, legal, and ethical foundations of business and public administration (Nadesan 1999). Adherence to a religious workplace orientation can lead to the belief that a particular company, faith, or even nation is somehow “better” or more worthy than another. Insolent statements and demeaning ideals may arise as a result. Nash (1994, 61), quoting a Christian evangelical businessman, provides such an example: “When you look at the success of the American economic system in relation to the poorer countries of the world, you have to believe it’s more than good luck. You feel there is some connection with God’s will.” Views such as these implicitly disparage those who do not subscribe to similar beliefs and presume that poorer nations are disassociated from God.

But the term spirituality has developed a negative religious connotation (see Mitroff and Denton 2000) as a function of the way it has been used and experienced by the general public. Individuals have extrapolated from corrupt television evangelists such as Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker and from religion-invoking politicians such as Jesse Jackson and George W. Bush to the entire domain of spiritual pursuits. The spirituality attached to such devotional-based endeavors is more a religiosity driven by fear (of eternal damnation, divine retribution, loss of a reference group) rather than trust (as workplace spirituality is configured) (Corrington 1989; Pargament 1999). The spirituality associated with such dogmatic, profit-centered proselytizing can diminish a person’s capacity for a good life (from a resulting obsessiveness), take on the form of self-righteousness, and be used as a political tool against others (Nadesan 1999). Translating religion of this nature into workplace spirituality can foster zealotry at the expense of organizational goals, offend constituents and customers, and decrease morale, performance, and job satisfaction for employees.

Fundamentally, because religious doctrine is based on faith, the rigors of proof necessary for scientific study do not apply. One can espouse any belief as divine providence without need for substantiation. For example, under the rubric of papal infallibility, the pope can make a decree on matters of faith without having the legitimacy of his decree questioned, at least among devout Catholics. Organizational principles are not so readily embraced. The disciplines of management and administration are premised on a scientific model and admonish against embracing non-verifiable approaches to understanding workplace behavior. From a scientific stance, religion is ill-defined and untestable and therefore cannot contribute to a scientific body of knowledge. The use of religious principles in the workplace cannot and should not usurp principles of management and administration, which are the backbone of current scholarship and practice. Allowing them to do so is tantamount to physicians practicing medicine based upon idiosyncratic religious beliefs rather than scientifically proven protocols. While one can certainly take a religious approach, doing so in either medicine or organizational science removes the approach from the accepted paradigm of practice and scholarship.

In moving toward a scientific understanding of workplace spirituality, this chapter is divided into two parts. The first part addresses the weaknesses to date in the development of spirituality generally and workplace spirituality particularly as areas of study. The second part suggests methods for strengthening these areas and establishing a common language, a theoretical map of the new paradigm.

WEAKNESSES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF WORKPLACE SPIRITUALITY AS A DISTINCT AREA OF STUDY

From our vantage, the key weaknesses hampering the emergence of a scientific study of workplace spirituality are fourfold:

1. the lack of an accepted conceptual definition;

2. inadequate measurement tools;

3. limited theoretical development; and

4. legal concerns.

Defining Workplace Spirituality

The roots of workplace spirituality lie in spirituality as an isolate, an amorphous megatrend identified by Naisbitt (1982) nearly two decades ago (Hoge 1996). Spohn (1997) notes that there is a great variety of spiritualities, ranging from New Age practices to twelve-step programs. In fact, spirituality can have many meanings, ranging from religion to “anything intangible” to the occult (DiPadova 1998) and, as a dimension of human experience, can include a variety of values, attitudes, perspectives, beliefs, and emotions (Elkins et al. 1988).

The absence of a clear definition of spirituality is not for lack of effort. Table 1.1 provides a representative listing of some of the many definitional attempts to date. While most include a descriptor of transcendence, ultimacy, or divinity, other components of the definitions vary greatly. Some treat spirituality as a behavior (the personal expression), others as an objective reality, others specifically describe it as a “subjective experience.” In some definitions it is described as a search (emerging from moments in which the individual questions the meaning of personal existence), while in others it is “an animating force” or a “capacity.” The lack of a consensus in defining spirituality poses a significant conceptual impediment to achieving an understanding of workplace spirituality.

Identifying the scope of dimensionality is essential in moving toward a consensus definition. Table 1.2 develops a typology of the definitional components found in the literature. Ten discrete dimensions of spirituality are outlined and a brief explanation is given, along with the citation. A meta-analysis of this data would be most helpful in advancing the study of workplace spirituality, but is beyond the scope of this endeavor. Still, we hope this typology may encourage further investigation and assessment.

Just as spirituality is ambiguous in scope, more so is a definition of what constitutes workplace spirituality (see Kahnweiler and Otte 1997; McGee 1998). The lack of clarity in defining spirituality is only compounded by extrapolating it to the workplace (Sass 2000). One approach is to define workplace spirituality in terms of its component parts. Ashmos and Duchon (2000), for example, have identified three: a recognition that employees have an inner life, an assumption that employees desire to find work meaningful, and a commitment by the company to serve as a context or community for spiritual growth. Yet even if one were to accept these components, they do not entail a method for operati...