Gail,
I would argue that there already is an emerging consensus on the key aspects necessary for a consensus on the definition of workplace spirituality. See below a section from our forthcoming article on this very issue.
Benefiel, M., Fry, L. & Geigle, D. (In Press). Spirituality and religion in the workplace: History, Theory, and Research. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality.
SRW Theoretical Development
Mitroff and Denton, in A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America (1999), offered the first large-scale empirical study of the SRW phenomenon. Concluding that most organizations suffer from spiritual impoverishment, the authors offered models that can be adopted to promote spirituality in organizations in order to implement and practice SRW without inducing acrimony, conflict, controversy, and division over fundamental beliefs and values. Like many writers of popular literature in the nineties, Mitroff and Denton separated spirituality from religion, advocating for spirituality in the workplace and arguing against religious expression in that sphere. As the concept of spirituality in the workplace gained strength and interest, the Academy of Management created a new special interest group for its members in 2000. The Management, Spirituality, and Religion interest group currently works to legitimize the study of SRW in the workplace while simultaneously paving the way to integrate this emerging concept into the leadership arena (Academy of Management, 2006).
Although SRW has been an ambiguous term, scholars have brought increasing clarity to the definition. Duchon and Plowman (2005) defined SRW in terms of its components: (1) a recognition that employees have an inner life; (2) an assumption that employees desire to find work meaningful; and (3) a commitment by the company to serve as a context or community for spiritual growth. SRW has also incorporated the dimensions of the spiritual well-being construct (SWB), in which one feels a sense of purpose and direction (Paloutzian, Emmons, & Keortge, 2003).
Other scholars have suggested that SRW can be cultivated to increase organizational performance. Reder (1982) found that spirituality-based organizational cultures were the most productive, and through maximizing productivity they reached dominance in the marketplace. In addition, emerging evidence has suggested that spiritually healthy workplaces have performed better (Duchon & Plowman, 2005; Elm, 2003; Fry et al., 2011; Garcia-Zamor, 2003).
In 2003, Douglas Hicks published Religion and the Workplace, analyzing the writings and issues that had surfaced in the SRW literature by that time. Hicks agreed with those who claimed that employees shouldn't be asked to park their souls at the door. At the same time, he argued that efforts to decouple spirituality and religion in the workplace were naïve and ineffective, and proposed an alternative way to integrate spirituality, religion, and work: "respectful pluralism." Hicks claimed that effective leaders should create an environment for employees to express their own faiths and respect one another's faiths.
Also in 2003, Giacalone and Jurkiewicz edited the Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance, the largest collection of essays up to that point, arguing for the necessity of linking SRW to organizational performance, integrating psychology, spirituality, and organizational science. Like Mitroff and Denton, Giacalone & Jurkiewicz (2003) argued that integrating spirituality and work would improve organizational performance. They defined workplace spirituality as:
A framework of organizational values evidenced in the culture that promotes employees' experience of transcendence through the work process, facilitating their sense of being connected in a way that provides feelings of compassion and joy. (p. 13)
This sense of transcendence, of having a calling through one's work or being called (vocationally), and a need for social connection or membership are seen as necessary for providing the foundation for any theory of SRW. SRW must therefore be comprehended within a holistic context of interwoven cultural and personal values. Also, to be of benefit to leaders and their organizations, any definition of SRW must demonstrate its utility by impacting performance, turnover, productivity and other relevant effectiveness criteria (Sass, 2000).
In 2005, a special issue of The Leadership Quarterly addressed theoretical, practical, and empirical issues in SRW as they relate to leadership. From this issue, a theme comprised of three universal spiritual needs emerged (Fry, 2005b): that what is required for SRW is an inner life that nourishes and is nourished by calling or transcendence of self within the context of a community based on the values of altruistic love. Satisfying these spiritual needs in the workplace positively influences health and psychological well-being and forms the foundation for SRW. Benefiel's (2005) article in that issue focused on the epistemological challenges that arise when melding social scientific studies with philosophical/theological studies, and proposed an integrative approach as a way forward.
In 2008, Biberman and Tischler edited Spirituality in Business: Theory, Practice, and Future Directions, summarizing the various integrative approaches in the SRW field to date, such as: founding SRW on religiously-inspired compassion, drawing on appreciative inquiry, using "intentional intelligence," employing meditation, and integrating aspects of spiritual leadership (Biberman & Tischler, 2008; Heaton & Schmidt-Wilk, 2008). Drawing on the definition of SRW from Giacalone and Jurkiewicz offered above, the authors attempted to summarize and organize existing research in the area of spirituality and work using a three dimensional model based on the level of analysis, type of measures, and validity.
Hill, Jurkiewicz, Giacalone, & Fry (2013) noted that SRW in the organizational sciences emerged from a very different mindset than one would expect. Organizational behavior, for example, borrowed heavily from psychology and sociology in its early development. Similarly conjoined, the field of human resource management developed a symbiotic relationship with industrial psychology. Contrary to what many may have expected, SRW did not emerge from research on the psychology of religion. For example, Emmons & Paloutzian (2003), in their discussion of the rapid growth and progress in the psychology of religion over the last twenty-five years, failed to even mention SRW. More recently, as Carroll, citing Hall and Chandler (2005) and Dik and Duffy (2009), points out, "psychologists have begun to examine the concept of calling in studies of religion and spirituality in the workplace (2013, 599)." Carroll himself (2008) "extended studies of calling to other work-related outcomes," connecting sanctification of work to job satisfaction, turnover, and organizational commitment. Oates, Hall, and Anderson (2005) and Oates (2008) discovered a connection between spirituality and the ability to cope with the stress of dual roles. While the research may now sometimes parallel or intersect, the field of SRW was born of organizational and social psychology, ethics, and management.
The disconnection between these fields has occurred primarily because the psychology of religion, particularly over the past 30 years, has been characterized by empirical research, while the study of SRW emerged through theoretical advocacy and organizational case study rather than by data sets compiled from individual respondents. Thus, the concept of SRW emerged from recognition and documentation of the phenomenon, and an articulated need for formalized study to address this salient aspect of organizational life. The stream of research that has arisen from this ontological tradition (see Biberman & Whitty, 1997) has led to important emerging issues regarding SRW in the social sciences that will be discussed in more detail in the section on challenges associated with integrative work and future research in SRW (Fairholm, 1997; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003; Hill et al., 2013; Mitroff & Denton, 1999; Neal, 2001).
Dr. Louis W. (Jody) Fry
Professor, Texas A&M University - Central Texas
1001 Leadership Way
Killeen, TX 76549
lwfry@ct.tamus.edu
From: "Gail Riley" <integrity_ministries@HOTMAIL.COM>
To: lwfry@ct.tamus.edu
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2014 9:22:24 PM
Subject: Spirituality in the Workplace: Definition and Integration
RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS NEEDED
I am a doctoral student as well as an ordained minister. My research study is designed to obtain consensus on a definition of spirituality in the workplace and for gathering consensus on a list of best practices for the integration of spirituality in the workplace. Data collection will begin in May 2014. I am seeking the participation of American experts with a minimum of five years experience researching spirituality in the workplace, in leadership or in educational institutions and who have published work on spirituality in the workplace.
The study will be conducted in three phases. In the first phase, panelists will be asked five open-ended questions on the definitions and main traits of workplace spirituality, and best practices for the integration of spirituality in the workplace. In phases two and three, panelists will be asked to help refine the data. The phases will be approximately three to four weeks apart and should take no more than 30 minutes each time. The phases will all be conducted through e-mail and online survey software.
If you are willing to participate, please email me at integrity_ministries@hotmail.com and I will send you an electronic version of the consent form for your electronic signature and a link to the first survey. Please indicate your willingness to participate as soon as possible.
If you know anyone who meets the criteria specified for this research study please feel free to forward this information to them.
Sincerely,
Rev. Gail Riley
Doctoral Candidate
_______________________________________________________________________ To send a message to the MSR Listserv, please send your email to: MSR@AOMLISTS.pace.edu To visit the Academy's MSR Web site, please visit: http://group.aomonline.org/msr/ To manage you MSR Listserv subscription, please visit: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=MSR&A=1