Having explored the relationship between spirituality and religiosity, leading to the articulation of how “spirituality” will be used here, we now need to consider spirituality in the workplace. Again there is lack of universal agreement over this and indeed this is partly why the topic is so intriguing. While the research base for this area is not huge, there are a number of key articles that illustrate the development of the concept of workplace spirituality. Within these, two issues seem to emerge; first how is spirituality/spirit in the workplace defined and second, at what level does it occur (individual or communal/organisational)? These two issues are explored in this section in which seven prominent empirical studies addressing workplace spirituality are reviewed.
Pioneering empirical work to define and measure spirituality in the context of work was carried out by Ashmos and Duchon (2000). Drawing on literature available at the time, they proposed following conceptual definition of spirituality at work: “Spirituality at work is defined as the recognition that employees have an inner life that nourishes and is nourished by meaningful work that takes place in the context of community” (p. 137). They see spirituality at work in this definition as having three components: the inner life, meaningful work, and sense of connection and community. Also, in their research they developed and validated a measurement instrument for three levels of analysis: individual, work team and organisation which their study results showed the measurement instrument was valid only at the individual level rather than work unit and organisational level. They extracted seven dimensions for individual level (conditions for community; meaning at work; inner life; blocks to spirituality;
personal responsibility; positive connections with other individuals; and contemplation), two for the work-team level (work-unit community; positive work-unit values) and two for the organisation level (organisational values; individual and organisation).
Based on Ashmos and Duchon’s formulation, the study by Milliman, Czaplewski, and Ferguson (2003) placed forward three components as the central dimensions of spirituality in the workplace: (1) meaningful work means the degree to which people experience a deep sense of meaning and purpose at work; (2) sense of community represents that people see themselves as connected to each other and that there is some type of relationship between one’s inner self and the inner self of other people; and (3) alignment of values measures whether or not individuals experiences a strong sense of alignment between their personal values and the larger organisational mission/purpose. Moreover, Milliman et al. (2003) examined how three workplace spirituality dimensions (meaningful work, sense of community, value alignment) explain five work attitudes: effective organisational commitment, intentions to leave, intrinsic work satisfaction, job involvement, and organisational-based self esteem. The main findings of Milliman et al. were the following (1) the meaningful work dimension explains affective commitment, intrinsic work satisfaction, job involvement and self- esteem; (2) the sense of community dimension explains all the fives attitudes; and (3) value alignment explains commitment and intension to quit. Milliman et al. (2003) specified workplace spirituality at three levels: individual level in term of meaning in work, group level in terms of sense of community, and organisational level in terms of alignment with organisational values.
In contrast, based on their inductive reading of workplace spirituality literature, Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2003) defined workplace spirituality as “a framework of organisational values evidenced in the culture that promotes employees' experience of transcendence through the work process, facilitating their sense of being connected to others in a way that provides feelings of completeness and joy” (p. 13). Workplace spirituality as constructed by Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2003) therefore is conceptualised at both individual and organisational levels of analysis. They view spirituality at work on three levels: (1) individual level as the incorporation of one’s own spiritual values in the work setting; (2) organisational level as the organisation’s spiritual climate or culture which reflecting an individual‘s perception of the spiritual values within an organisational setting; and (3) interactive level as the interaction between an individual’s personal values and the organisation’s values.
Based on a review of the literature, Sheep (2004) argues that a conceptual convergence of Workplace Spirituality Person – Organisation Fit (WSP-OF) occurs in four recurring themes: a self-workplace integration; meaning in work; transcendence of self; and personal growth/development of one’s inner self at work. He viewed workplace spirituality through the lens of the concept of person-organisation fit (P-O fit) which is different perspective in emphasis of other scholars.
Kinjerski and Skrypnek (2004) conducted a qualitative study of 14 professionals who not only experienced workplace spirituality, but whose work also involved researching or promoting spirituality in the workplace. The study consisted of in-depth interviews and written surveys in order to ask the participants to describe a personal experience of spirit at work. As a result of this work, rather than focus on workplace
spirituality, Kinjerski and Skrypnek repositioned the construct into what they term “spirit at work”. This formulation is distinct workplace spirituality in that it focuses on the individual’s experience at work, in contrast to other investigators (e.g., Mitroff & Denton, 1999a, b; Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Milliman et al., 2003; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003), who have tended to focus on attitudinal aspects such as desires to express their being and to be engaged in meaningful work versus experience-based aspects. Their definition of spirit at work characterises it as a distinct state that is characterised by physical, affective, cognitive, interpersonal, spiritual, and mystical dimensions. Most individuals describe the experience as including: a physical sensation characterised by a positive state of arousal or energy; positive affect characterised by a profound feeling of well-being and joy; cognitive features involving a sense of being authentic, an awareness of alignment between one’s values and beliefs and one’s work, and a belief that one is engaged in meaningful work that has a higher purpose; an interpersonal dimension characterised by a feeling of connectedness to others and common purpose; a spiritual presence characterised by a sense of connection to something larger than self, such a high power, the Universe, nature and humanity; and a mystical dimension characterised by a sense of perfection, transcendence, living in the moment, and experiences that were awe-inspiring, mysterious, or sacred” (p. 37).
After conducting an extensive review of contemporary definitions, Smith & Rayment (2007) identify the pragmatic definition of spirituality in the workplace as “individuals and organisations seeing work as a spiritual path, as an opportunity to grow and to contribute to society in a meaningful way. It is about care, compassion and support of others; about integrity and people being true to themselves and others. It means individuals and organisations attempting to live their values more fully in the
work they do.” (p. 221). This definition highlights that nurturing spirituality in the workplace has both an individual and organisational focus. At the individual level, they observe how leaders support and make it safe for individuals in the workplace to express their spirituality. For organisational focus they suggest leaders also need to consider how the organisation itself operates in order to build up the spiritual climate/culture in the workplace.
More recently, based on the findings of Marques, Dhiman, & King’s phenomenological study (2007), they assert the definition of spirituality in the workplace as “an experience of interconnectedness among those involved in a work process, initiated by authenticity, reciprocity, and personal goodwill; engendered by a deep sense of meaning that is inherent in the organisation’s work; and resulting in greater motivation and organisational excellence.” (p. 12). They seem to emphasise that workplace spirituality focus on at an individual level.
According to the literature reviews above, scholars have provided definitions or identified components of workplace spirituality, and while there are differences in emphasis, there is also considerable overlap. As mentioned earlier, there are many possible levels of analysis for workplace spirituality such as individual, group, work unit, organisational level, or interactive perspectives. In spite of the obvious overlap in conceptualisations, the field still does not have a clear definition. To date, scholars have not yet agreed on a definition of spirituality in the workplace.
Drawing on Kinjerski & Skrypnek’s (2006a) revised definition of spirit at work in Figure 2.1, the present study conceptualises workplace spirituality at the individual
level. Based on Kinjerski & Skrypnek’s (2004) empirical-grounded work, they recently offer a refined definition as follow:
Spirit at work is a distinct state that is characterised by cognitive, interpersonal, spiritual, and mystical dimensions. Spirit at work involves: (1) engaging work characterised by a profound feeling of well-being, a belief that one is engaged in meaningful work that has a higher purpose, an awareness of alignment between one’s values and beliefs and one’s work, and a sense of being authentic; (2) a spiritual connection characterised by a sense of connection to something larger than self; (3) a sense of community characterised by a feeling of connectedness to others and common purpose; and (4) a mystical or unitive experience characterised by a positive state of energy or vitality, a sense of perfection, transcendence, and experiences of joy and bliss (Kinjerski & Skrypnek, 2006a; p. 12)
Figure 2.1: The Four Dimensions of Spirit at Work (Kinjerski & Skrypnek, 2006a)
The present study adopts this concept applied as the definition of individual spirit at work because this definition includes all dimensions discussed by previous researchers and also is consistent with the conceptual definitions of others (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Milliman et al, 2003; Mitroff & Denton, 1999a, b; Sheep, 2004; Smith & Rayment, 2007; Marques, Dhiman, & King’s study, 2007). Moreover, individual spirit at work refers to the desire of employees to express all aspects of their being at work, to be engaged in meaningful work (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Mitroff & Denton, 1999a, b) and to archive their personal fulfilment through work (Krishnakumar & Neck, 2002; Mitroff & Denton, 1999a, b; Neck & Milliman, 1994). Specifically, this concept addresses the spiritual dimension of work and more clearly describes the nature of the individual experience of spirit at work. Some researchers have restricted themselves to only attitudinal aspects of work and totally ignored or neglected the dimensions falling under the realm of spirituality (Milliman et al., 2003; Sheep, 2004). This often leads to question regarding the uniqueness of the concept of spirituality at work in comparison to already existing concepts in the organisational behaviour literature. The researcher therefore has chosen this definition in the present study in order to have further empirical investigation of the new concept of spirit at work and ultimately contribute back to the knowledge of workplace spirituality as a whole.