The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.

com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm

Mapping the terrain of spirituality in organizations research

Margaret Beneel
Andover Newton Theological School, Newton Centre, Massachusetts, USA
Keywords Beliefs, Organizations, Research methods Abstract Researchers in the burgeoning new eld of spirituality in organizations face a number of signicant eld-shaping questions, e.g. how should spirituality in organizations be dened and what research methods are most appropriate for this work quantitative, qualitative, a combination of the two, or entirely new methods? The answers given to these questions will determine the shape of this new eld and the direction research will take over the next several decades. This article addresses these questions by mapping the terrain of current spirituality in organizations research, in three stages. It begins by examining trails being blazed by pioneers venturing into this new territory, considering the progress these pioneers have made and the work remaining to be done. It then moves to questions lurking in the background of this pioneering work. Finally, it articulates the new frontier in spirituality in organizations research, a frontier which beckons adventurous pioneers to enter.

Spirituality in organizations research 367

Introduction Researchers in the burgeoning new eld of spirituality in organizations face a number of signicant eld-shaping questions. As they seek to dene what this eld is and experiment with research methods appropriate to it, they nd themselves faced with such questions as: . How should spirituality be dened? . How should spirituality in organizations be dened? . What research methods are most appropriate for this work quantitative, qualitative, or a combination of the two? . Is it appropriate to measure spirituality in quantiable units? . Are new research methods needed, methods outside the boundaries of mainstream management scholarship? The answers given to these questions will determine the shape of this new eld and the direction research will take over the next several decades. Thus, it is important that researchers address these questions consciously and carefully, rather than slipping into an approach which inadvertently becomes normative. This article will address these questions by mapping the terrain of current spirituality in organizations research, in three stages. It will begin by examining trails being blazed by pioneers venturing into this new territory, considering the progress these pioneers have made and the work remaining to

Journal of Organizational Change Management Vol. 16 No. 4, 2003 pp. 367-377 q MCB UP Limited 0953-4814 DOI 10.1108/09534810310484136

JOCM 16,4

be done. It will then move to questions lurking in the background of this pioneering work. Finally, it will articulate the new frontier in spirituality in organizations research, a frontier which beckons adventurous pioneers to enter. Four trails Surveying the terrain of current spirituality in organizations research illumines four trails being blazed. These might be named the quantitative trail, the broad how and why trail, the deep how and why trail, and the radical how and why trail. This section will examine each of these trails in turn, considering representative pioneers on the trail, the trails destination, how much progress has been made toward that destination, and what each trail contributes to a map of the terrain. The quantitative trail What is the destination of the quantitative trail? To achieve a quantitative demonstration of how spirituality in the workplace contributes to organizational performance. How much progress have the pioneers blazing this trail made toward their destination? Trott (1996) has discovered high correlation between spiritual wellbeing and organizational openness, self-efcacy, and organizational commitment. Beazley (1997) has developed an instrument to measure individual spirituality. He has discovered a correlation between a high level of spirituality and honesty, humility, and service to others. Ashmos and Duchon (2000) have constructed a denition of spirituality in the workplace which, their study shows, is valid at the individual level. Each of these quantitative researchers has done important foundational work. At the same time, they have a long road ahead to their ultimate destination, demonstrating a positive correlation between organizational spirituality and organizational performance. Some would critique this quantitative approach by claiming that it attempts to compare apples and oranges. They conclude that this trail is a dead end. In my view, it is too early to predict what might be gained by going down this trail. The quantitative approach is important because it allows spirituality in organizations researchers to be in dialogue with mainstream management scholars. As quantitative researchers continue down this path, exploring to what degree they can measure spirituality in the workplace quantitatively and discover a correlation between spirituality and organizational performance, they will discover to what degree they can present their case in a way that speaks traditional management language. Researchers need to explore this trail, even if they do discover ultimately that it is a dead end. The broad why and how trail While the quantitative researchers just examined proposed conceptual frames and then tested them using quantitative research methods, Mitroff and Denton

368

(1999) used their research methods (a combination of quantitative and qualitative) to arrive at a conceptual frame. The destination of their trail? They sought to answer the two broad questions, Why should spirituality be integrated into organizations? and How can spirituality be integrated into organizations? How much progress have they made toward their destination? First, in response to the question why should spirituality be integrated into organizations? they found that people who perceive their organizations as more spiritual also perceive them as more protable, more caring, and more ethical (Mitroff and Denton, 1999, pp. 39, 50). (Whether these organizations actually are more protable, more caring, and more ethical is a question requiring more research, say Mitroff and Denton (1999, p. 241).) Second, in response to the question how can spirituality be integrated into organizations? they arrived at a composite best practice model through outlining ve basic models which they observed in their interviews and in their review of the literature, and through examining the strengths and limitations of each. Mitroff and Dentons (1999) contribution is important because they have succeeded in providing the rst wide-ranging spiritual audit of business organizations in America. They have arrived at a conceptual frame, a best-practice model, grounded in their research. In my view, they have done a good job with the broad sketch and the management side. I think their work would be complemented by more work on the details and the spiritual side, developing more fully their understanding of spirituality and drawing on spiritual literature to esh out their points. Perhaps stories from everyday life getting at the texture of lived spirituality in organizations would be helpful. In addition, in order to put their best practice model into practice, I think an organization needs a critical mass of spiritual grounding. Exploring how to nurture this spiritual depth in organizations would help answer Mitroff and Dentons question of how lasting change comes to organizations. The deep how and why trail What is the destination of the deep how and why trail? This trail uses qualitative research methods rst, to discover how spirituality gets manifested throughout an organization, and second, to discover the impact a spiritual organization has both on individuals and on organizational performance. How much progress have the pioneers blazing this trail made toward their destination? Milliman et al. (1999) have discovered how spirituality gets manifested throughout one organization, Southwest Airlines. Second, theyve outlined three propositions hypothesizing the impact a spiritual organization has on organizational performance (using the inductive approach based on SWA and generating theory). Craigie (1999) has also discovered how spirituality gets manifested throughout an organization by analyzing

Spirituality in organizations research 369

JOCM 16,4

370

conversations with leaders in health care, business, and government, and offering a three-part model to guide those who are asking the how question. These pioneers have done important foundational work on the deep how and why questions. At the same time, they acknowledge that their models and hypotheses need extensive further testing to discover how they apply to other organizations. The deep how and why trail is important because it complements the broad how and why trail by teasing out some of what lies beneath the general principles of, for example, Mitroff and Dentons (1999) best practice model. This approach gives more of a feel of how to actually operationalize spirituality in the workplace, and what the people who are doing it need to be like. Whereas Mitroff and Denton (1999) seek to provide a template that gives an overview of how to bring spirituality into any organization Milliman et al. (1999) and Craigie (1999) focus on the details. Mitroff and Dentons (1999) approach might be likened to the work of a landscape architect, providing the big picture, while Milliman et al. (1999) and Craigie (1999) are more like the gardeners. They demonstrate how to plant the seeds and tend the shoots. The radical how and why trail What is the destination of the radical how and why trail? First, to get beneath the explanatory theories of how organizational transformation occurs. Second, to deepen the why of why spirituality should be integrated into organizational life. How much progress have these pioneers made toward their destination? For the rst aspect, Lichtenstein (1997) notes that, while three organizational theorists he interviewed gave logical, step-by-step accounts of organizational change, in their practice they spoke of magic, grace, and miracle when describing the moment of transformation, conveying a sense of awe and surprise that change was occurring. Neal (1999) demonstrates something similar for individual transformation, both formulating theory based on her research and at the same time building into the theory a recognition that transformation usually does not follow a linear path, but includes disruption, dark night, and unpredictability. For the second aspect, Neal et al. (1999) provide a larger context for organizational transformation than the mere survival of the organization itself. They argue that organizational transformation is but one aspect of the larger societal transformation that is needed if the planet is to survive. By shifting the focus of both the how and why questions, these pioneers have pointed out the deeper levels of organizational change and the deeper motivations for organizational change. They help people understand that messiness and unpredictability are integral parts of the process, and they help them accept the inevitable birth pangs along the way. Furthermore, they begin to show that there are other reasons besides protability to bring spirituality

into organizations. They have started a conversation which desperately needed to be started, and have delineated important discussion threads. At the same time, as they acknowledge, their theories need further testing in other settings, and they need to nd ways to communicate their vision to mainstream management scholars. The radical how and why trail is important because rst, it provides understanding, support and encouragement for individuals and organizations experiencing the inevitable ups and downs along the path toward transformation. Second, it is important because it shifts the focus to what is most important. These pioneers are doing what many spirituality in organizations scholars long to do showing that spiritual transformation is important in and of itself. They invite their readers to catch this vision, and to do it because it is the right thing to do, and then let the prots take care of themselves. The challenge in this approach is to nd a way to communicate this vision to the bulk of organizations where they are today. The language and concepts that will build bridges over the chasm between this trail and the trail that most organizations are on still need to be discovered, so that this vision can be heard and not just be written off. These four research trails all represent important work in the new eld of spirituality in organizations. In these formative years of the eld, it is important that many research methods be explored. Each of these pioneers is contributing something valuable, and their collective work represents a good beginning for spirituality in organizations research. At the same time, a number of questions remain. Lurking questions While the driving question behind most of the foregoing studies has been, How does spirituality affect organizational performance? a different set of questions lurks in the background (some of which are implicit in the radical how and why trail): If spirituality is ultimately about nonmaterialistic concerns, is it appropriate to focus on the material gains to be reaped by integrating spirituality into organizational life? How can organizational researchers do responsible empirical research and at the same time not trivialize deep spiritual traditions? What happens when an organization that chooses to follow a spiritual path hits the inevitable bumps on the spiritual journey? Will it abandon the spiritual path because it has only a supercial understanding of what spirituality is all about? Will it become cynical about spirituality? Is more harm than good done by introducing spirituality to organizations through tying spirituality to material gain? Can spirituality be measured in units recognizable by quantitative or qualitative discourse (Beneel, 2003)? Behind this set of questions stands an apparently irreconcilable dilemma: Management scholars seeking to study critically spirituality in organizations

Spirituality in organizations research 371

JOCM 16,4

372

have turned to the quantitative and qualitative research methods with which their training has equipped them. They bring the discourse and method of organizational science to bear on their questions about spirituality in organizations. However, such an approach leaves many important questions unaddressed because the discourse of spirituality differs fundamentally from the discourse of organizational science. Practitioners of spirituality think that the quantitative and qualitative approaches miss large chunks of what they are seeking to bring into the workplace, and at their worst, trivialize spirituality. Management scholars tend to think that whatever cant be dened and measured in the terms of organizational science is irrelevant to the efcient and effective functioning of organizations, and need not be part of discussion about business and organizations (Beneel, 2003). This dilemma points to the new frontier in spirituality in organizations research. While the aforementioned pioneers continue to blaze their trails, it is also important to name the new frontier that is as yet unexplored. It will be important, for the development of the eld, for other pioneers to venture into this new terrain. The new frontier What is this new frontier for spirituality in organizations research? The new frontier consists of two unexplored territories: (1) Philosophical work that heals the rift between the discourse of spirituality and the discourse of organizational science. (2) New research methods built on that philosophical scaffolding, methods which will take seriously the signicance and validity of spirituality in and of itself. Philosophical work The roots of the aforementioned dilemma lie in what the academy has become. They lie in the Enlightenment and in one particular manifestation of the Enlightenment in late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Germany. In particular, as Schwehn (1993) points out in Exiles from Eden, they lie in Max Webers concept of the academic vocation. Schwehn (1993) traces the history of nineteenth-century German academic life, demonstrating how Webers concept of the academic vocation as the production of objective knowledge gained ascendancy over the manadarin school (represented by such thinkers as Karl Jaspers), which emphasized Bildung, or character formation, the education of the whole person, as the vocation of academics. Subsequently, Webers approach also came to dominate higher education in the USA. Weber argued that the academic could in principle master all things by calculation (Schwehn, 1993, p. 9). Such mastery required an impersonal and objective stance toward ones subject. Any personal involvement or judgment of value about what one studied would taint ones scholarship.

Although Webers inuence has been strong, the Weberian academy is merely the tip of the academic iceberg, merely a century old in the 2,500-year history of the academy. As Schwehn (1993, p. 46) points out, the current beginnings of questioning Webers approach may be Western cultures way of awakening from a comparatively brief slumber. Meanwhile, in most academic institutions, the awakening is occurring in ts and starts at best, and spirituality in organizations scholars nd themselves up against the objectivist stance of the academy. They believe that their subject warrants serious study and acceptance within the academy, yet they chafe against the constructs of the Weberian academy within which they nd themselves. The eld of spirituality in organizations needs a way of talking about spirituality in organizations that is critical, analytical, and not reductionistic. In Irreconcilable foes? The discourse of spirituality and the discourse of organizational science (Beneel, 2003), I suggested three thinkers whose work has potential for moving the eld of spirituality in organizations beyond this dilemma: (1) Sara Ruddick, a feminist philosopher whose work seeks to make peace between warring academic disciplines; (2) Ken Wilber, a philosopher whose integral science and integral spirituality hold promise for building an integral organizational science; and (3) Bernard Lonergan, a philosopher who explodes the popular myth of spirituality as inherently subjective and science as inherently objective, thus providing a new foundation for the integration of spirituality and organizational science. Part of the exploration of the new frontier will involve delving more deeply into the work of these and other philosophers who can help provide a sturdier philosophical scaffolding for spirituality in organizations research. New research methods As some spirituality in organizations scholars erect the philosophical scaffolding, others might simultaneouly explore new research methods which can build on that scaffolding. Two elds which have potential for pointing spirituality in organizations researchers toward new research methods which take seriously the signicance and validity of spirituality are, I think, noetic sciences and the academic study of spirituality. Noetic sciences. Noetic sciences, an umbrella term for research which takes seriously multiple ways of knowing, includes research into the relationship between science and spirituality. Such research, I think, holds promise for the eld of spirituality in organizations. What would spirituality in organizations noetic research look like? First, its research questions would be shaped by a worldview different from the

Spirituality in organizations research 373

JOCM 16,4

374

dominant Western worldview. For example, Harman (1998, pp. 144-7) claims that the new business of business is to serve the worlds evolution to a higher state of consciousness. Thus rather than asking Does spirituality improve organizational performance?, noetic research might ask How is this company helping to move its internal culture and the society around it to a higher state of consciousness?. Second, its research methods would take seriously the spiritual realm. Fornaciari and Lund Dean (2001, p. 335), for example, challenge the current dominance of the quantitative, positivist research methods paradigm in spirituality in organizations research, pointing out the absurdity of trying to factor analyze God. Drawing lessons from the natural sciences, they challenge spirituality in organizations researchers to consider evidence about the phenomenon of spirituality at work based on non-positivist ways of knowing. They suggest ethnomethodological techniques, qualitative techniques, and tradition-based stories, as more appropriate research methods than positivist methods. Third, it might model itself after groundbreaking noetic research in other elds. For example, Murphy and Donovan (1997) and Dossey (1993, 1996) examine the effect of prayer and meditation on physical healing. Spirituality in organizations researchers could, in like manner, examine the effect of prayer and meditation on organizational health. The academic study of spirituality. Scholars in the academic eld of spirituality have long done research which considers spirituality on its own terms. Several examples follow. Ken Wilbers work addresses not only the philosophical issues (see above), it also points the way toward new research methods. A broad-based student of spirituality, Wilber studies spirituality wherever it occurs, sometimes connected with religious traditions, sometimes not. In Transformations of Consciousness, for example, he and his colleagues report on research they have done on transformations of consciousness in individuals, examining the effect of meditation on states of consciousness (Wilber et al., 1986). The approach of their team departs sharply from the approach of traditional scientic studies of meditation. While traditional studies adopt a reductionistic approach (assuming that because brain-wave analysis of meditators indicates relaxation, meditators must be just relaxing), Wilber et al. adopt a both/and approach. They accept both the validity of the brain-wave analysis and the validity of the meditators spiritual reality. Their work might provide a model for spirituality in organizations researchers to examine transformations of consciousness both of individuals in organizations and of organizations as a whole. Rufng (1995) has done qualitative research on the spiritual development of women, charting patterns of growth and dening a level of spiritual maturity which she terms kataphatic mysticism. Her research method might be extended by spirituality in organizations researchers to do a new kind of

qualitative research in organizations, qualitative research which considers spirituality on its own terms. Such research might measure the spiritual development of individuals and the impact individuals development has on the spiritual development of the organization, and vice versa. This research might also examine gender differences in spiritual development and the impact of gender difference on spiritual growth patterns in organizations. Scholars in the cross-cultural study of mysticism (e.g. James, 1929; Huxley, 1945; Katz, 1978; McGinn, 1998; Rufng, 2001) have done research on mystics of different spiritual traditions and cultural backgrounds, seeking to establish what these mystics have in common and where their differences lie. Such studies might point spirituality in organizations scholars toward research methods which take into account spiritual diversity in the workplace. Research questions like How can the spiritual growth of individuals representing diverse spiritual traditions best be cultivated in a single workplace? or What do different spiritual traditions represented in a single workplace have in common (if anything)? or How can a spiritually diverse organization grow spiritually as a whole organization? might be addressed by this approach. Finally, scholars of Christian spirituality over the past decade have engaged in a lively discussion about method in the study of spirituality. Part of this discussion has focused on research methods and the place of social scientic research in the study of spirituality (Schneiders, 1998; Frohlich, 2001). These discussions represent a gure/ground shift from the way most spirituality in organizations researchers have approached their subject thus far. In Frohlichs (2001) approach, for example, social scientic research methods serve the discipline of spirituality, rather than spirituality being one variable measured in the service of a social scientic inquiry. By modeling new research after this approach, spirituality in organizations scholars might open new vistas onto how we perceive spirituality in organizations and how we motivate organizations to integrate spirituality into their daily operations. Conclusion This is an exciting time for the new eld of spirituality in organizations as it denes its territory and charts its course. Pioneering researchers play an important role in blazing the trails that will lead theorists and practitioners into the spirituality in organizations terrain. These pioneers are dening important trails and making progress toward these trails destinations. At the same time, the questions lurking behind current research efforts point spirituality in organizations scholars toward the new frontier of deeper philosophical work and new research methods. If the new eld of spirituality in organizations is to mature, it needs pioneers continuing along the trails already being blazed, pioneers to do the deep philosophical work, pioneers who will explore new research methods, and the bridge-builders who can help them all talk to one another.

Spirituality in organizations research 375

JOCM 16,4

References Ashmos, D. and Duchon, D. (2000), Spirituality at work: a conceptualization and measure, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 134-45. Beazley, H. (1997), Meaning and measurement of spirituality in organizational settings: development of a spirituality assessment Scale, PhD dissertation, George Washington University, Washington, DC. Beneel, M. (2003), Irreconcilable foes? The discourse of spirituality and the discourse of organizational science, Organization: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Organization, Theory and Society, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 385-93. Craigie, F. (1999), The spirit and work: observations about spirituality and organizational life, Journal of Psychology and Christianity, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 43-53. Dossey, L. (1993), Healing Words: The Power of Prayer and the Practice of Medicine, HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco, CA. Dossey, L. (1996), Prayer is Good Medicine, HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco, CA. Fornaciari, C. and Lund Dean, K. (2001), Making the quantum leap: lessons from physics on studying spirituality and religion in organizations, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 335-51. Frohlich, M. (2001), Discipline of spirituality, spiritual discipline: revisiting questions of denition and method, Spiritus, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 65-78. Harman, W. (1998), Global Mind Change: The Promise of the 21st Century, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA. Huxley, A. (1945), The Perennial Philosophy, Harper and Brothers, New York, NY. James, W. (1929), The Varieties of Religious Experience, Modern Library, New York, NY. Katz, S. (1978), Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Lichtenstein, B. (1997), Grace, magic, and miracles: a chaotic logic of organizational transformation, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 393-411. McGinn, B. (1998), Quo vadis? Reections on the current study of mysticism, Christian Spirituality Bulletin, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 13-21. Milliman, J., Ferguson, J., Trickett, D. and Condemi, B. (1999), Spirit and community at southwest airlines: an investigation of a spiritual values-based model, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 221-33. Mitroff, I. and Denton, E. (1999), A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America: A Hard Look at Spirituality, Religion, and Values in the Workplace, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Murphy, M. and Donovan, S. (1997), The Physical and Psychological Effects of Meditation, Institute of Noetic Sciences, Sausalito, CA. Neal, J. (1999), Spiritual evolution, paper electronically published on Spirit at Work Web site, available at: www.spiritatwork.com Neal, J., Lichtenstein, B. and Banner, D. (1999), Spiritual perspectives on individual, organizational, and societal transformation, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 175-85. Rufng, J. (1995), The world transgured: kataphatic experience explored through qualitative research methodology, Studies in Spirituality, Vol. 5, pp. 232-59. Rufng, J. (2001), Introduction, in Rufng, J. (Ed.), Mysticism and Social Transformation, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY, pp. 1-25.

376

Schneiders, S. (1998), The study of Christian spirituality: contours and dynamics of a discipline, Christian Spirituality Bulletin, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 3-12. Schwehn, M.R. (1993), Exiles from Eden: Religion and the Academic Vocation in America, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Trott, D. (1996), Spiritual well-being of workers: an exploratory study of spirituality in the workplace, PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. Wilber, K., Engler, J. and Brown, D. (1986), Transformations of Consciousness: Conventional and Contemplative Perspectives on Development, Shambala, Boston, MA.

Spirituality in organizations research 377