A Model for Researching about Spirituality in Organizations

Abstract

Abstract Theory development and research in the field of in has to date been fragmented, and subsequently so far has been unable to build on itself. Researchers and theorists use different definitions, constructs, levels, and aspects of and of organizations. This article enhances theory development by introducing a model that can organize future research in the field so that researchers can increasingly build on each others' research. Theory development in the field of in to date has been hampered by the fact that the research hasn't been able to build on itself, making emergent theory from the research difficult to develop and theory difficult to test. Until now the research in this field can be characterized as fragmented. Though a handful of measures have found some success in generating empirical research...most of the instruments were developed from different theoretical influences and for varying research purposes. (MacDonald, 2000, p. 155) The methods used to study this field vary widely and some researchers are calling for new methods to be developed (Benefiel, 2003; Lund Dean, Fomaciari & McGee, 2003; McGee, 2001). The very definition of differs from study to study: ...there is an amorphous nature of the concept of spirituality... (MacDonald, 2000, p. 156). Giacalone & Jurkiewicz (2003, p. 7-8) list a number of definitions and dimensions of found in the literature. Freshman (2000) studied the various meanings researchers have for spirituality in organizations and found that they varied. Combined, these factors lead to studies that aim at different aspects of spirituality, are often themselves poorly identified or defined, and are unable to build one on the other. This leads to an inability of the field to develop effective theory. In addition, some researchers focus on in the individual within an organization (Cavanagh, 2000; Delbecq, 2000), others on a segment (work group, department) of the organization (Duchon & Ashmos Plowman, 2005), and others try to measure throughout a whole organization (as a feature of the organization itself; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003). Still others focus on how can affect how a business relates to its larger society. For example, ...spirituality is leading people to redefine the corporation's reason for being and its methods of operation, laying down new measures of success. We saw it in environmentalism, in minority and women's rights, and in product safety. These are not isolated cases or issues. ...They are responses to higher, universal values. (Pascarella, 1996, p. 57) Buchholz a Rosenthal (2003, p. 162) add that, Production and consumption are not ends in themselves, but must be made to serve a larger moral purpose. At the same time some researchers focus on individuals' or an organization's intentions or attitudes (Parboteeah & Cullen, 2003), others on their behaviors or processes (Vilnai-Yavetz, & Rafaeli, 2003), others on the behavioral or business results of (Giacalone 6t Jurkiewicz, 2003), and still others on the effects on society of that are more or less spiritual (Pascarella, 1996). When we perused several spirituality-related instruments we found that some questions aim at what is going on inside the person answering the question, while others focus on behaviors of the person or on other exterior qualities or phenomena. Still others can be answered either way. (See Wilber, 2001, for an explanation of this difference.) In addition, some authors note that the in literature is and probably will remain an interdisciplinary field of study (Fornaciari and Lund Dean, 2004). Given the above, the studies seem unable to build on each other. The results of one study are usually incommensurable with the results of another. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 32 citations exist upstream.