There are a number of definitions and perspectives of spirituality appearing within the literature. The term ‘spirituality’ means different things to different people and it is a difficult topic to comprehend and to date, scholars have not agreed on a definition. This section will review the development of the concept of spirituality, and focus particularly on its relationship with religiosity.
Spirituality has been described as “the subjective feelings, thoughts, and behaviours that arise from a search for the sacred” where the term “search” refers to “attempts to identify, articulate, maintain, or transform” and the term “sacred” is defined broadly as referring to “a divine being, divine object, Ultimate Reality, or Ultimate Truth as perceived by the individual” (Hill, Pargament, Hood, McCullough, Swyers, Larson, & Zinnbauer, 2000, p. 68). Hill and colleagues (2000) writing from a psychology of religion perspective state that spirituality is a central and essential function of religion. They therefore assert that both spirituality and religiousness can (and often do) co-occur. To the extent that a person engages in spirituality that is prescribed by an identifiable group and whose spiritual pathways and goals receive some support and validation by that group, spirituality also occurs with religiousness. They also highlight the difficulty of separating religion from spirituality. Spirituality can and often does occur within the context of religion, but it also may not. Likewise, the practice of spirituality can lead people to become religious and to become part of an organised or emerging religion, but it also may not.
More recently, Ho and Ho (2007) concluded from their review of the psychology literatures that, spirituality and religiosity are overlapping constructs; accordingly, it is possible for a person to be religious without being spiritual or spiritual without being religious, be both, or be neither. The possibility for considerable overlap exists and attempting to define spirituality as a separate construct from religion is difficult as well as unlikely to establish the definitions of both constructs. In the psychology of religion field, thus to date, the term of spirituality has no universally accepted definition.
However, unlike the psychology of religion field, in the area of management and organisational studies most scholarships and practitioners seem to see and define spirituality as being distinctive from religion. For example the following four definitions of spirituality have been proposed in recent years by organisational thinkers and practitioners (1) A specific form of work feeling that energises action (Dehler & Welsh, 1994; p.19); (2) Deeply held values that guide our life and work practices (Butts, 1999; p. 329); (3) The particular way the human person in all its richness, the relationship of human person to the transcendent, the relationship between human persons, and the way to achieve personal growth are envisioned (Konz & Ryan, 1999; p.202) and (4) Secular or sacred values aimed at transcendence toward our ultimate values (Harlos, 2000; p. 613).
In a similar manner, the most prominent empirical study of spirituality, religion, and values in the US workplace was published in 1999 (Mitroff & Denton, 1999a, b). Mitroff and Denton conducted extensive interviews and discovered common denominators emerging in the participants’ definitions of spirituality. They concluded that spirituality is the basic feeling of being connected with one's complete self, others, and the entire universe. This definition, noted in their work, supported the notion that spirituality was indeed a concept separate from religion: (1) Not formal, structured, or organised; (2) Nondenominational, above and beyond denominations; (3) Broadly inclusive, embracing everyone; (4) Universal and timeless; (5) The ultimate source and provider of meaning and purpose in life; (6) The awe we feel in the presence of the transcendent; (7) The sacredness of everything, the ordinariness of everyday life; (8) The deep feeling of the interconnectedness of everything; (9) Inner peace and calm; (10) An inexhaustible source of faith and willpower; and (11) The ultimate end in itself.
Most recently, after conducting an extensive review of contemporary definitions within the UK samples, Smith and Rayment (2007, p. 220) define spirituality in general as “a state or experience that can provide individuals with direction or meaning, or provide feelings of understanding, support, inner wholeness or connectedness. Connectedness can be to themselves, other people, nature, the universe, a god, or some other supernatural power.”
It is apparent therefore that spirituality is subjective, intangible, complex, multi- dimensional, and almost indefinable. However, Mitroff & Denton (1999a, b) and Smith & Rayment (2007) found similarly in their research both in US and UK about the definition of spirituality in general. First, spirituality is an inherent component of being human. Second, spirituality is a personal search for meaning and purpose in life. Third, spirituality is interconnectedness (Mitroff & Denton, 1999a, b). Fourth, many respondents in their research had a negative perception of religion, but positive of spirituality. Last, they observed as clear differentiation between religion and spirituality.
From a review of the literature discussed above, spirituality is seen as a global concept in that it seeks to express all that is beyond the sensory experiences of human beings. Spirituality involves humans’ search for meaning in life, while religion involves an organised entity with rituals and practices about a higher power or God. Therefore, the researcher propose that spirituality, without religion, is a deep connection that can transcend one’s life’s essence but still remain connected to it. Furthermore, true spirituality can be defined as that, which stresses on one’s integrity, virtue, and the personal meaning one derives from it, rather than on institutional religious practice.