See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226225288

A Values Framework for Measuring the Impact of Workplace Spirituality on

Organizational Performance

Article  in  Journal of Business Ethics · January 2004

DOI: 10.1023/B:BUSI.0000015843.22195.b9

CITATIONS READS

331 8,253

2 authors, including:

Robert A. Giacalone
John Carroll University
126 PUBLICATIONS   4,863 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Impact of Ethical Leadership on Employee Well-Being View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert A. Giacalone on 15 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A Values Framework for
Measuring the Impact of
Workplace Spirituality on
Organizational Performance
ABSTRACT. Growing interest in workplace spiri-
tuality has led to the development of a new paradigm
in organizational science. Theoretical assumptions
abound as to how workplace spirituality might
enhance organizational performance, most postulating
a significant positive impact. Here, that body of
research has been reviewed and analyzed, and a resul-
tant values framework for workplace spirituality is
introduced, providing the groundwork for empirical
testing. A discussion of the factors and assumptions
involved for future research are outlined.
Workplace spirituality has been defined as “a
framework of organizational values evidenced in
the culture that promote employees’ experience
of transcendence through the work process, facil-
itating their sense of being connected to others
in a way that provides feelings of completeness
and joy” (Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, 2003). This
experience of transcendence experienced by
employees as a personal connection to the
content and process of work, and to the stake-
holders impacted by it, in a manner which
extends beyond the limitations of self-interest.
Interest in workplace spirituality has increased
steadily over the last decade of the twentieth
century and into the new millennium (Giacalone
and Jurkiewicz, 2003), and has triggered much
speculation (Gunther, 2001; Broadway, 2001;
Sass, 2000; Cavanaugh, 1999). Some hypothesize
this interest is simply a reflection of value changes
globally (e.g., Neal, 1998; Inglehart, 1997;
Jurkiewicz and Massey, 1997; Abramson and
Inglehart, 1995). A second perspective suggests
it is an outcropping of growing interest in Eastern
philosophies that promote integration between
Journal of Business Ethics 49: 129–142, 2004.
© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Carole L. Jurkiewicz
Robert A. Giacalone
self and the environment (e.g., Eck, 2001; Surak,
2001; Fox-Genovese, 1999; Koehn, 1999). The
predominant view is that it is a reactive response
to the social and business upheaval that has
resulted in alienated employees (e.g., Mitroff and
Denton, 2000; Cash et al., 2000; Burack, 1999;
Izzo and Klein, 1997), and a desire to recapture
the connection between employer/employee.
Although employees are generally insecure and
frightened at work (Anderson, 2000; Friedman
et al., 1998; Brandt, 1996; Whyte, 1994), they
nonetheless depend upon their workplaces for
primary links to other people ( Jurkiewicz et al.,
1998) as well as for their social identity
(Cartwright and Cooper, 1997). Traditional
support systems like places of worship, neigh-
borhoods, and extended families are declining in
importance to the individual (Conger, 1994), and
time previously spent there is being supplanted
by time spent at work (Conlin, 1999); work is
thus becoming increasingly central to employees’
personal growth (Dehler and Welsh, 2003; Jaffe,
1995). Consequently, individuals are seeking to
merge their personal and professional values,
desiring to achieve personal fulfillment through
their labor (Block, 1993). Increasingly, the
desired work experience has shifted from a career
to earn a living to a vocation through which
employees can express themselves and make a
positive difference in the world (Neal, 2000).
Despite warnings that employees need to find
alternative sources of self-esteem, recognition,
and respect (Schwartz, 2000; Kruger, 1999), this
personal dependence on the social aspects of
work continues to grow, and organizations have
been called upon to do their part in meeting
130 Carole L. Jurkiewicz and Robert A. Giacalone
the spiritual needs of their employees (Mirvis,
1997).
According to McDonald (1999), workplace
spirituality is the last corporate taboo. Despite
best-selling books advocating a corporate soul
(Palmer, 1998; Whyte, 1994; DePree, 1992),
spiritual leadership (Fairholm, 1998), servant
leadership (Spears, 1998; Greenleaf, 1978, 1977),
stewardship (Block, 1993), spiritual followership
(Kelley, 1998), spiritual laws of success (Chopra,
1994), and values-based leadership (Bolman and
Deal, 2001; Vaill, 1998; Williams and Houck,
1992), organizations have not been seeking to
integrate spirituality into their workplaces to any
discernible degree. The reluctance is under-
standable in that the word itself is an awkward
one to couple with workplace, frequently
invoking curiosity, fear, and ridicule, usually
simultaneously ( Jurkiewicz, 2002a). The lack of
a clear definition has contributed to this reticence
and led some to assume workplace spirituality
was either a disguise for ingratiating religion into
the workplace, a new age mantra, or a mean-
ingless quest for yet another dead-end employee
motivational tool (Giacalone and Jurkiewicz,
2003). These assumptions led many to conclude
that workplace spirituality had no discernible
“payoff ” for the organization. With tight
budgets, media oversight, and the need to
maintain fluidity in the marketplace, issues that
do not have a demonstrable impact on the
bottom line – for public, private, or nonprofit
organizations – are understandably not given
priority. While approbations abound, conclusive
evidence connecting workplace spirituality with
bottom line performance is lacking. One foun-
dational thread that has heretofore been over-
looked is the cultural connection.
Culture and performance
The measurable impact of organizational culture
on performance has been well-documented.
Culture is a causal variable in the growth and
development of an organization and, more specif-
ically, is a determinant of labor productivity
essential to the predictive power of economic
theory in competitive markets (Altman, 2001). It
is viewed as an additional variable in the pro-
duction function on par with capital stock, tech-
nological change, and human capital (Altman,
2001), an extension of Weber’s (1958) notions
as articulated in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit
of Capitalism. Becker (1998) introduced the
notion of culture as an explicit component of
social capital that affects utility, building upon
Buchanan’s (1994) work that establishes culture
as a facilitator or impediment to the quantity
and quality of the work effort. Pfeffer (2003)
further emphasizes the statistical and substantive
impact of culture on quality, productivity, and
profitability.
The data suggests that organizational cultures
emobdying transcendent goals, are the most pro-
ductive, and that by maximizing productivity
they confer organizational dominance in the
marketplace (Reder, 1982). Cultural factors
related to workplace spirituality have been shown
to override the economic-political environment
as an influence on worker productivity, ethics,
values, exercise of authority, innovation, etc.
(Altman, 2001; Becker, 1998). Individual effort
is discretionary and is positively correlated with
policies that entail consequences, support the
individual, challenge them to grow, reward
progress and innovation, and restrain inefficien-
cies – largely policies embodied in a spirituality-
based workplace (Buchanan, 1994). Altman
(2001, p. 267) makes perhaps the strongest
argument tying culture to economic perfor-
mance: “Culture can affect the level of per capita
real output produced in an economy and there-
fore the level of per capita material wealth, as
well as differences in per capita wealth, advanced
by different economies at any given time.”
Configuring workplace spirituality as a mea-
surable aspect of an organization’s culture,
working in unison to provide a sense of conti-
nuity with the world through one’s work
processes, allows for further development of the
paradigm. Organizations can then be assessed on
each of these values, culled from the theoretical
work on workplace spirituality, along a con-
tinuum (See Table I). It is postulated that those
organizations that evidence the values toward the
left side of the continuum are believed to exhibit
more workplace spirituality than those whose
 A Values Framework for Measuring the Impact of Workplace Spirituality 131

TABLE I
The values framework of workplace spirituality
(+) (–)
Kindness toward others and an orientation to Benevolence Employee feelings have
promote the happiness and prosperity of no relevance in the
employees and other stakeholders within work environment, their
the work context happiness and prosperity
are their own concern
Long-term focus, showing a concern for the Generativity Concerned with immediate
consequences of one’s actions into the future; reward without regard for
respectful of future generations long-term consequences
Practices and policies that assert the essential Humanism Lacking mercy or kindness;
dignity and worth of each employee; provides cruel; impersonal, cold;
an opportunity for personal growth in unconcerned with the
conjunction with organizational goals needs of employees as
human beings; lacking
warmth or geniality
Uncompromising adherence to a code of Integrity Organizational members
conduct; sincerity, honesty, candor; can act deceptive,
exercising unforced power expedient, artificial, shallow,
politically manipulative, and
are inconsistent in following
a code of conduct
Even-handed treatment and judgment of Justice Dishonest, faithless;
employees; impartial, fair, honest; unbiased wrongful or biased in
assignment of rewards and punishments judgments
All employees are interconnected and Mutuality Employees are separate and
mutually dependent, each contributes distinct free agents
to the final output by working in responsible for their own
conjunction with others output irrespective of
others’ efforts, time spent
interacting with others is
dictated by necessity
Open-minded, flexible thinking, orientation Receptivity Enforces one right way to do
toward calculated risk-taking, rewards creativity things, discourages questioning
and innovation; punishes
behavior outside the norm.
Regard and treat employees with esteem and Respect Demonstrates disesteem
value; showing consideration and concern and contempt for
for others employees; uncivil,
discourteous to others
Independently follows through on goal Responsibility Shirks work and follows
attainment irrespective of difficulty or through only insofar as forced
obstacles; concerned with doing what’s to do so; does not exert effort
right rather than the right thing independent of external controls
Being able to confidently depend on the character Trust Character, truth, maintenance
and truth of the organization and its representatives of obligations and promises
is at the discretion of
individual organizational
members as predicated by
their personal gain
132 Carole L. Jurkiewicz and Robert A. Giacalone
culture can be defined by the values on the right
side of the continuum. The degree of workplace
spirituality evident in a culture is thus indicated
by the positive expression of these values.
The values framework of workplace
spirituality
Although the values framework of workplace
spirituality appears intuitively appealing (i.e., who
would argue against integrity in the workplace?),
organizations must of necessity be concerned
with their own perpetuation ( Jurkiewicz and
Brown, 2000). To the extent adopting a culture
reflective of these values can be said to enhance
organizational performance, the more relevant
they become as elements of organizational
strategy (Ashmos and Duchon, 2000; Mitroff and
Denton, 1999). While the paradigm of workplace
spirituality has thus far been characterized as pri-
marily theoretical, evidence exists for developing
hypotheses on which to base empirical study
using the values posited in Table I and articulated
below.
Benevolence
Organizations are emotional arenas that must be
understood as such if we are to understand orga-
nizational phenomena (Fineman, 1993; Dehler
and Welsh, 1994; Schwartz, 2000). Benevolent
activities that engender positive emotions result
in improved employee attitudes about work
(Milliman et al., 2001), which in turn translate
into enhanced performance. Research has shown
that employees who are shown organizational
kindness are more motivated toward task accom-
plishment (Schulman, 1999; Salzmann, 1997),
and are 86% more productive than when in orga-
nizations where such kindness is not shown
(Lloyd, 1990). When organizations promote
hope and happiness, employees are better able
to deal with stressors in the work environment
(Edwards and Cooper, 1988; Simmons and
Nelson, 2001), further contributing to organi-
zational performance. Simply put, employees are
more productive when shown affection by the
organization than when they are not (Adams et
al., 2003).
Generativity
Although we know that employees who are
happy at work usually carry that happiness and
regard into their lives outside work, and vice
versa (Diener and Larson, 1984), individuals
who are high in generativity are interested in
leaving something behind for those who follow.
Behaviors that mirror generative concerns such
as mentoring show that it is positively correlated
with career outcomes, role clarity, and job
satisfaction (Scandura, 1992). There is growing
evidence that another potential proxy for gener-
ativity, concern for the environment in the form
of proactive environmental management strate-
gies, helps to make firms more efficient and com-
petitive by generating employee commitment,
performance, and loyalty (Altman, 2001).
Humanism
Humanism refers to a worldview that affirms
the ability and responsibility of each individual
to live in a manner which seeks to bring about
the greater good of humanity The positive
effect of humanism in organizational life can be
attested to by a number of factors: increased
self-esteem (Hewitt, 1998; Barnum et al., 1998),
hopefulness (Curry et al., 1997; Snyder et al.,
1999), and work satisfaction (Schwartz, 2000).
Additionally, benefits to the organization derive
from employees who, as a result of organizational
humanism, bring their entire self (physical,
mental, emotional, spiritual) to the organization
(Dehler and Welsh, 1994). There is evidence
that workplace spirituality may help to explain
both overt (resources) and subjective (increased
ethicality) economic gains (Zinnbauer et al.,
1999) in that employees who view their
work as a means to advance spiritually are
likely to exert greater effort than those who see
it merely as a means to a paycheck. Humanistic
values in the organization result in employees’
personal growth, which in turn makes them
 A Values Framework for Measuring the Impact of Workplace Spirituality
more productive than those in organizations that
don’t sustain such values (Lawler, 1986). When
this individual growth is consistent with the
attainment of organizational goals, employee
identification with the organization is enhanced
(Pratt, 1998). This connection between personal
goals and work life enables employees to tran-
scend physical and cognitive demands and
imbue tasks with spiritual significance (Richards,
1995).
Integrity
Ethical multiplicity, internally consistent yet
juxtapositive frameworks tied to environmental
cues, often precipitates a clash between
employees’ personal and organizational lives,
leading to disconnect, disparity, and alienation
from their work environments ( Jurkiewicz,
2002b; Jurkiewicz and Nichols, 2002).
Conversely, it has been shown that both organi-
zations and individuals do well when their values
are integral and aligned (Dorsey, 1998), and that
employee commitment (Kouzes and Posner,
1995) and productivity (Dorsey, 1998) both
increase as a result. Himmelfarb (1994) suggests
that leaders who view their work as a means to
advance spiritually, at the individual or group
level, instill a sense of integrity and lead the orga-
nization to higher levels of performance.
Justice
Employees who have expectations of being
treated fairly are measurably more productive and
happier, and consequently their organizations are
more productive as well (Lazarus, 1999, 2000).
Moorman (1992), for example, found that
employees’ job satisfaction was related positively
to the perceived justice of employers’ decision-
making and decision-implementation procedures.
Brockner et al. (1994) and Bies et al. (1993)
found that perceived fairness in the process of
layoffs influenced employees’ reactions to the
downsizing – greater fairness was associated with
a less negative reaction. This effect on attitudes
translates into bolstered productivity levels and
133
degrees of organizational commitment (Lazarus,
2000).
Mutuality
Interconnection and interdependence of
employees as experienced through feelings of
community and meaningful work lead to
increased organizational commitment, job satis-
faction, and self-esteem (Milliman et al., 2001).
Balancing the needs and contributions of
employees and stakeholders (Beer et al., 1990;
Kotter and Heskett, 1993), who share goals and
work for the common good (Adams et al., 2003),
leads in turn to organizational success. Being in
cohesive work groups with shared tasks/goals
leads to an increased sense of social support and
career optimism (Friedman et al., 1998). Groups
given some control over their work in conjunc-
tion with others are also less likely to experi-
ence hopelessness, burnout, and are less likely to
seek work elsewhere (Golembieswski et al.,
1986).
Receptivity
Research has shown that threatening environ-
ments produce rigid and simplistic decision-
making, while supportive and open relationships
with coworkers fosters productivity and creativity
(Dorsey, 1998; Karasek and Theorell, 1990).
The presence of receptivity further facilitates
managers’ ability to effectively address risk and
change in the work environment (Wagner,
1996). Creative organizations, a key element in
receptivity, are more fiscally healthy (Maccoby,
1988) and therefore better able to grow and
adapt to changing conditions. Neck and
Milliman (1994) have demonstrated a causal
connection between spirituality and increased
innovation.
Respect
Organizations that demonstrate valuation, mutual
respect, and show consideration and concern for
134 Carole L. Jurkiewicz and Robert A. Giacalone
others report decreases in stress, burnout, and
turnover, and concomitant increases in produc-
tivity (Adams et al., 2003; Snyder, 1994; Karasek
and Theorell, 1990; Brockner, 1985; Sigall and
Gould, 1977). Research shows that respect for
employees increases their job satisfaction and
performance, resulting in less absenteeism, weak-
ening the desire to unionize, and increasing
the length of tenure with the organization
(Feldman and Arnold, 1983; Tharenou, 1979).
Additional research has suggested a link between
organizational concerns with spirituality (mani-
fested in issues such as an orientation toward
giving, and acceptance of diversity) with an
increase in employee enthusiasm, effort, collab-
oration, creativity, and performance (McKnight,
1984; Bracey et al., 1990). Conversely, disrespect
and personal alienation lead to decreased job
satisfaction and commitment (Efraty et al.,
1991).
Responsibility
When employees are allowed to follow through
independently on goal attainment, there is
demonstrated improvement in worker and orga-
nizational productivity (Pfeffer and Vega, 1999).
Such goal-directed employees, when encouraged
by the organizational culture, are more consci-
entious, help each other, experience less
unhealthy conflict, and overcome obstacles more
efficiently than other cultures (Adams et al.,
2003). Empowered employees are more produc-
tive (Reich, 1981), with the greatest productivity
gains seen at the level of unskilled labor
(Freeman, 1994).
Trust
Research has shown that trust between
employees is essential to productive work rela-
tionships (Lloyd, 1990), and that those organi-
zations that create trust are more productive than
those that don’t (Adams et al., 2003; Williams
and Jurkiewicz, 1993). Employees who are able
to confidently depend on the organization have
a greater sense of professional and personal
security (Pfeffer and Vega, 1999), which in turn
enhances performance and loyalty. Organizations
with high levels of trust also exhibit reduced
political behaviors, more cooperative and sup-
portive peer interactions, and greater employee
commitment (Anderson, 2000).
These ten values are consistent with what
Pfeffer (2003, p. 32) asserts are the “four funda-
mental dimensions of what people seek in the
workplace: (1) interesting work that permits
them to learn, develop, and have a sense of com-
petence and mastery; (2) meaningful work that
provides some feeling of purpose; (3) a sense of
connection and positive social relations with their
coworkers; and (4) the ability to live an inte-
grated life, so that one’s work role and other roles
are not inherently in conflict and so that a
person’s work role does not conflict with his or
her essential nature and who the person is
as a human being.” Organizations exhibiting
spirituality as defined by the presence of these
values create an environment where integration
of the personal and professional selves are
possible, engaging the whole person in the work
process.
Although spirituality-related work practices
such as gainsharing, job security in encouraging
calculated risks, narrower wage and status differ-
entials, processes for effective worker input into
the organization’s decision-making processes, and
guarantees on individual workers’ rights have
been widely correlated with higher rates of
growth in labor productivity (e.g., Ichniowski
et al., 1996; Gordon, 1996; Buchele and
Christiansen, 1995, 1999; Reich, 1981), it is the
organizational environment that determines the
extent to which these and other similar practices
are likely to be adopted (Levine, 1995). Most
organizational environments resist such changes
even when confronted by empirical data
supporting their efficacy (Altman, 2001). There
are considerable short-run costs in adopting a
new set of long-term policies and procedures
when managers are measured on the basis of
short-term results (Kochan et al., 1986; Gordon,
1996). However, a large and growing body of
data suggests that costs associated with shifting to
 A Values Framework for Measuring the Impact of Workplace Spirituality
a spirituality-based work culture are more than
offset by measurable productivity gains (e.g.,
Marshall, 1994; Campbell and Sengenberger,
1994; Feis, 1994; Wilkinson, 1994; OECD,
1996; Gordon, 1996). And, further, that the
spillover effect from workplace spirituality into
employees’ home life enhances satisfaction with
family, marriage, leisure activities, social interac-
tions, and financial health (Efraty et al., 1997;
Bromet et al., 1990; George and Brief, 1990;
Steiner and Tuxrillo, 1989; Crohan et al., 1989;
Emmons, 1999), which in turn positively affect
their work performance.
For the individual, organizational life is
defined by attempts to mediate ethical multi-
plicity ( Jurkiewicz, 2002b; Jurkiewicz and
Nichols, 2002), and integrate workplace values
with personal values. Formal codes of ethics
embrace phrases and standards seldom borne out
in everyday practice. Trustworthiness, depend-
ability, stability, honesty, rationality, justice,
prudence, morality, virtue, fairness, consistency,
and accessibility all sound good (Riggs, 1998;
Kooiman, 1993), but are rarely evidenced in a
changing landscape that mandates competition
and winning at all costs. Understandably, the dis-
parity between what is said and what is condoned
leads to uncertainty over what constitutes right
and wrong behavior ( Jurkiewicz, 2002b), and it
is this heightened ambiguity that creates an envi-
ronment where unwritten rules of behavior can
carry more weight than written ones ( Jurkiewicz
and Thompson, 1999; Barnard, 1968). As an
organization’s structure shifts and becomes less
familiar, stability is sought in principles of
sameness and consistency, and such consistency
is usually found in the Phantom Code of Ethics
( Jurkiewicz, 2002b), the set of ethical norms that
actually guide behavior in the workplace. This
circumstance provides those concerned about
organizational ethics with both opportunities and
threats. Integrating the values framework of
workplace spirituality as organizational policy and
practice can enhance employees’ sense of
personal security (Anderson, 2000), and reduces
the likelihood that espoused values will be aban-
doned during times of environmental turbulence
(Kolodinsky et al., 2003).
135
The effect of workplace spirituality on
performance
Lloyd (1990) maintains that organizations high in
workplace spirituality outperform those without
it by 86%. Further, such organizations reportedly
grow faster, increase efficiencies, and produce
higher returns on investments. On a personal
level, generalized benefits of a spiritual culture
include increased physical and mental health of
employees (Mackenzie et al., 2000; Quick et al.,
1997; Matthews et al., 1994), advanced personal
growth by contributing to something larger than
oneself (Hawley, 1993), and an enhanced sense
of self worth (DiPadova, 1998). The literature
correlating workplace spirituality-related factors
with performance can be shown to triangulate
three areas: Motivation, Commitment, and
Adaptability.
Motivation
Organizational cultures that evidence high
levels of workplace spirituality are believed to
have a positive effect on employee motivation.
Under conditions of high workplace spirituality,
employees believe that their efforts make a dif-
ference to organizational outcomes, and increase
those efforts as needed to meet goals (Friedman
et al., 1998). These employees also exhibit
greater persistence in overcoming obstacles in
reaching goals (Schulman, 1999), and are more
creative in designing solutions to solve problems
contributing to goal interference (Salzmann,
1997; Karasek and Theorell, 1990). The personal
growth resultant of employees’ attaining organi-
zational goals, creates intrinsic motivation to
excel (Lawler, 1986). This motivation to succeed
is evidenced not only at the individual level, but
at the group level as well where workplace spir-
ituality is said to measurably enhance team output
in both quantity and quality of work (Lovallo,
1997).
136 Carole L. Jurkiewicz and Robert A. Giacalone
Commitment
A symbiotic person-job fit characterized by value
alignment between the organization and the
employee, results in increased productivity,
reduced turnover, enhanced recruiting success,
and higher rates of retention (Izzo and Klein,
1998; Dorsey, 1998; Braus, 1992). Kouzes and
Posner (1995) also noted increased employee
commitment as a consequence of spiritual values
in the workplace. Increased job satisfaction resul-
tant of workplace spirituality is further said to
reduce job turnover and absenteeism (Feldman
and Arnold, 1983). Attitudes of employees in
organizations with high levels of spirituality are
positive, supportive of the organization, and
demonstrate commitment to a much greater
degree than in organizations without such values
(Milliman et al., 2001; Pfeffer and Vega, 1999).
Adaptability
Employees in organizations with higher levels of
spirituality exhibit increased flexibility toward
organizational change (Salzmann, 1997). They
are better able to manage the change process, are
less resistant to new ideas (Wagner, 1996), and
experience less stress as a result (Adams et al.,
2003). As environmental factors shift, organiza-
tions with spiritual values are better able to
sustain high performance and profitability levels
(Collins and Porras, 1994), and are more suc-
cessful at engaging the hearts and minds of their
employees (Pfeffer, 2003; O’Reilly and Pfeffer,
2000). These employees are also more respon-
sive to organizational calls to action, feeling they
are serving a purpose rather than simply doing a
job (Mohrman et al., 1998). Finally, such cultures
foster employee creativity and individuation
which translates into increased ability to change
work processes and procedures (Maccoby, 1988).
To evaluate not only the effects of its presence
but also that of its absence, the lack of workplace
spirituality is believed to result in negative
consequences for the organization and the indi-
vidual. The first articulation of this difference can
be seen as an element in McGregor’s (1960)
Theory X/Theory Y models of leadership,
spurred by Argyris’ (1958) claim that traditional,
paternalistic organizations lead to employee
apathy, detachment, and disconnect from their
employers. Maslow (1954) contributed to the dis-
tinction between working to fulfill lower level
needs as compared to higher level pursuits, and
the positive outcomes that result for both the
individual and the organization. In more recent
times Karasek and Theorell (1990) have con-
firmed that rigid, threatening organizational
environments reduce productivity, while others
(Snyder, 1994; Golembieswski et al., 1986)
have demonstrated that such cultures result in
employee burnout and feelings of hopelessness.
Such low-spirituality environments also are cor-
related with increased alcohol abuse and health-
care costs (Tse and Jackson, 1990), workplace
injuries (Cooper and Davis, 1997), anxiety,
depression, prejudice, and right-wing authori-
tarianism (Pargament, 1997). Finally, cultures that
are best described by the defining characteristics
found on the right side of the Table I, labeled
“low-spiritual cultures,” reduce employee self-
esteem that in turn decreases performance effort
(Brockner, 1985; Sigall and Gould, 1977), con-
tributes to lower job satisfaction, and increases
job turnover and absenteeism (Feldman and
Arnold, 1983).
Research using the workplace spirituality
framework
Overall, the evidence suggests that the workplace
spirituality values framework is definable, that
these values have a positive impact on employee
and organizational performance, and that orga-
nizations can exhibit varying degrees of these
values through the work processes, policies, and
practices that constitute their culture. The work
of advancing a science of workplace spirituality
must now address the conceptual foundation. In
this regard, the development of workplace spir-
ituality as an area of scientific inquiry will require
empirical work to test the theoretical formula-
tions introduced here. Three key areas for future
research are: measurement, performance vari-
ables, and moderator variables.
 A Values Framework for Measuring the Impact of Workplace Spirituality
Measurement
The frontispiece in advancing workplace
spirituality research is the development of an
assessment instrument. Although a number of
measures assess spirituality at the individual level
(Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, 2003), an instrument
that measures workplace spirituality is needed.
Such an instrument will go far in superseding the
limitations of the current literature (Sass, 2000)
by providing a means to achieve two outcomes.
First, an assessment instrument can provide a
means to determine whether the values frame-
work culled from the literature and introduced
here as a coherent set is conceptually distinct in
defining aspects of workplace spirituality. Second,
an assessment instrument can be used to deter-
mine the degree of spirituality in an organization
in much the same way that ethical climate
measures assess the moral climate of an organi-
zation (Victor and Cullen, 1988).
Performance variables
Empirical assessments demonstrating how spiri-
tual values are related to individual and organi-
zational performance indicators are essential if
researchers are to develop causal models. The
degree to which the presence or absence of each
of the values (or various combinations thereof )
evokes particular effects on organizational per-
formance is a key area for study. Understanding
the direction of these effects, be they positive or
negative, will require considerable integrative
research. A critical issue will be to define how
the values impact various components (e.g.,
financial, interpersonal) as well as various levels
(individual, group, organizational, societal) of
performance.
Moderating variables
The numerous variables impacting performance
make it unlikely that a simplistic positive rela-
tionship between spiritual values and perfor-
mance exists. Thus, it is important to determine
what variables moderate the relationship between
137
workplace spirituality and performance. While
it may intuitively appear that spiritual environ-
ments should be beneficial to all, there may be
both internal and external factors moderating the
relationship. For example, at the individual level,
issues of person-job fit (Kristof, 1996; Kristof-
Brown, 2000) wherein individuals hold disparate
spiritual values to those of the organization,
may affect performance. Externally, changes in
economic conditions (such as unemployment and
inflation) have been shown to impact values asso-
ciated with spirituality (Inglehart, 1990) and may
moderate the impact that workplace spirituality
has on performance.
Additionally, while research appears to support
the ameliorative impact of workplace spirituality,
we must caution that little is known about the
interactive effects of personal and workplace spir-
ituality. For example, might a very non-spiritual
person have decreased personal performance in
a spiritual environment because of the inconsis-
tency between it and her own worldview?
Similarly, might a highly spiritual individual in a
moderately spiritual environment experience
decreases in personal performance because the
culture “is not spiritual enough.” The likelihood
of interactive effects is intriguing and will require
a great deal of research to understand.
Certainly the research panorama of workplace
spirituality extends well beyond these three areas,
but they represent a fundamental start. Other
avenues of investigation include an examination
of individual differences (such as personal ethics),
the impact of national culture, industry type,
sector, social forces, and expectations external to
the organization (such as those identified by Ray
(1996) in relation to integral culture). As with
the development of all paradigms it involves
an extensive process of conceptual assimilation
and, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, more
than one theoretical construction can always be
imposed upon a given collection of data (Kuhn,
1970). The proliferation of ideas with no dis-
cernible set of rules constitutes a normative
research tradition, though on that poses frustra-
tion for objectivists. Yet, as Kuhn maintains, such
frustration is an essential impetus in moving
beyond the boundaries of current research and
toward the understanding of something new.
138 Carole L. Jurkiewicz and Robert A. Giacalone
References
Abramson, P. R. and R. Inglehart: 1995, Value Change
in Global Perspective (University of Michigan Press,
Ann Arbor).
Adams, V. H., C. R. Snyder, K. L. Rand, E. A. Kings,
D. R. Sigmon and K. M. Pulvers: 2003, ‘Hope in
the Workplace’, in R. A. Giacalone and C. L.
Jurkiewicz (eds.), The Handbook of Workplace
Spirituality and Organizational Performance (M.E.
Sharpe, Armonk, NY).
Altman, M.: 2001, Worker Satisfaction and Economic
Performance (M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY).
Anderson, P.: 2000, ‘This Place Hurts My Spirit!’,
The Journal for Quality & Participation (Fall), 16–17.
Argyris, C.: 1958, ‘The Organization: What Makes It
Healthy?’, Harvard Business Review 36(6), 107–116.
Ashmos, D. P. and D. Duchon: 2000, ‘Spirituality at
Work: A Conceptualization and Measure’, Journal
of Management Inquiry 9, 134–145.
Barnard, C. I.: 1968, The Functions of the Executive
(Harvard University Press, Boston).
Barnum, D. D., C. R. Snyder, M. A. Rapoff,
M. M. Mani and R. Thompson: 1998, ‘Hope and
Social Support in the Psychological Adjustment of
Pediatric Burn Survivors and Matched Controls’,
Children’s Health Care 27, 15–30.
Becker, G. S.: 1998, Accounting for Tastes (Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA).
Beer, M., R. A. Eisenstat and B. Spector: 1990, The
Critical Path for Corporate Renewal (Harvard Business
School Press, Cambridge, MA).
Bies, R. J., C. L. Martin and J. Brockner: 1993, ‘Just
Laid Off, But Still a “Good Citizen? Only If the
Process is Fair’, Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal 6, 227–238.
Block, P.: 1993, Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self-
interest (Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco).
Bolman, L. G. and T. E. Deal: 1995, Leading with
Soul: An Uncommon Journey of Spirit ( Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco).
Bracey, H., J. Rosenblum, A. Sanford and R.
Trueblood: 1990, Managing from the Heart (Dell
Publishers, New York).
Brandt, E.: 1996, ‘Corporate Pioneers Explore
Spirituality’, HRMagazine (April), 82–87.
Broadway, B.: 2001, ‘Good for the Soul – and for
the Bottom Line’, Washington Post (Aug. 19), A1,
A15.
Brockner, J.: 1985, ‘The Relation of Self-esteem and
Positive Inequity to Productivity’, Journal of
Personality 53, 517–529.
Brockner, J., M. Konovsky, R. Cooper-Schneider, R.
Folger, C. L. Martin and R. J. Bies: 1994, ‘The
Interactive Effects of Procedural Justice and
Outcome Negativity on the Victims and Survivors
of Job Loss’, Academy of Management Journal 37,
397–409.
Bromet, E. J., A. Dew and D. K. Parkinson: 1990,
‘Spillover between Work and Family: A Study of
Blue-collar Working Wives’, in J. Eckenrode and
S. Gore (eds.), Stress Between Work and Family
(Plenum, New York/London), pp. 133–151.
Buchanan, J. M.: 1994, Ethics and Economic Progress
(University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK and
London, U.K.).
Buchele, R. and J. Christiansen: 1995, ‘Worker
Rights Promote Productivity Growth’, Challenge:
The Magazine of Economic Affairs 38, 32–37.
Buchele, R. and J. Christiansen: 1999, ‘Labor
Relations and Productivity Growth in Advanced
Capitalist Economies’, Review of Radical Political
Economies 31, 87–110.
Burack, E. H.: 1999, ‘Spirituality in the Workplace’,
Journal of Organizational Change Management 12,
280–291.
Campbell, D. and W. Sengenberger: 1994, ‘Labour
Standards, Economic Efficiency and Development:
Lessons from Experience with Industrial
Restructuring’, in W. Sengenberger and D.
Campbell (eds.), International Labour Standards and
Economic Interdependence (International Labour
Organization, Geneva), pp. 421–439.
Cartwright, S. and C. L. Cooper: 1997, Managing
Workplace Stress (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).
Cash, K. C., G. R. Gray and S. A. Rood: 2000, ‘A
Framework for Accommodating Religion and
Spirituality in the Workplace’, The Academy of
Management Executive 14, 124–134.
Cavanagh, G. F.: 1999, ‘Spirituality for Managers:
Context and Critique’, Journal of Organizational
Change Management 12, 186–199.
Chopra, D.: 1994, The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success
(Amber-Allen, San Rafael, CA).
Collins, J. C. and J. I. Porras: 1997, Built to Last:
Successful Habits of Visionary Companies (Harper,
New York).
Conger, J. (ed.): 1994, Spirit at Work: Discovering
the Spirituality in Leadership ( Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco).
Conlin, M.: 1999, ‘Religion in the Workplace’,
Business Week (Nov. 1), 150–158.
Cooper, Jack and G. Davis: 1997, ‘Improving
Management-labor Relations and Employee and
Patient Well Being through Quality-of-work-life
Programs’, in H. Lee Meadow (ed.), Developments
 A Values Framework for Measuring the Impact of Workplace Spirituality
in Quality-of-Life Studies (International Society for
Quality-of-Life Studies), p. 15.
Crohan, S. E., T. C. Antonucci, P. K. Adelmann and
L. M. Coleman: 1989, ‘Job Characteristics and
Well Being at Midlife: Ethnic and Gender
Comparisons’, Psychology of Women Quarterly 13,
223–235.
Curry, L. A., C. R. Snyder, D. L. Cook, B. C. Ruby
and M. Rehm: 1997, ‘The Role of Hope
in Student-athelete Academic and Sport
Achievement’, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 73, 1257–1267.
DePree, M.: 1989, Leadership is an Art (Doubleday,
New York).
Dehler, G. E. and M. A. Welsh: 1994, ‘Spirituality
and Organizational Transformation: Implications
for the New Management Paradigm’, Journal of
Managerial Psychology 9, 17–26.
Diener, E. and R. J. Larsen: 1984, ‘Temporal Stability
and Cross-situational Consistency of Affective,
Behavioral, and Cognitive Processes’, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 47, 580–592.
DiPadova, L. N.: 1998, ‘The Paradox of Spiritual
Management: Cultivating Individual and
Community Leadership in the Dilbert Age’, Journal
of Management Systems 10, 31–46.
Dorsey: 1998, ‘The New Spirit of Work’, Fast
Company 16 (August), 125–134.
Eck, D. L.: 2001, America: How a “Christian Country”
has Become the World’s most Religiously Diverse Nation
(Harper, San Francisco).
Edwards, J. R. and C. L. Cooper: 1988, ‘Research
in Stress, Coping, and Health: Theoretical and
Methodological Issues’, Psychological Medicine 18,
15–20.
Efraty, D., M. J. Sirgy and P. H. Siegel: 1997, ‘The
Job Satisfaction/Life Satisfaction Relationship for
Professional Accountants: The Moderating Effect
of Organizational Commitment’, in H. Lee
Meadow (ed.), Developments in Quality-of-Life
Studies, Vol. 1 (International Society for Quality-
of-Life Studies, Blacksburg, Virginia), p. 25.
Emmons, R. A.: 2000, ‘Is Spirituality an Intelligence?
Motivation, Vognition, and the Psychology of
Ultimate Voncern’, The International Journal for the
Psychology of Religion 10, 3–26.
Fairholm, G.: 2000, Perspectives on Leadership: From the
Science of Management to its Spiritual Heart (Praeger,
Westport, CN).
Feis, H.: 1994, ‘International Labour Legislation
in the Light of Economic Theory’ in W.
Sengenberger and D. Campbell (eds.), International
Labour Standards and Economic Interdependence
139
(International Labour Organization, Geneva), pp
29–55.
Feldman, D. C. and H. J. Arnold: 1983, Managing
Individual and Group Behavior in Organizations
(McGraw Hill, New York).
Fineman, S. (ed.): 1993, Emotion in Organizations
(Sage, Newbury Park, CA).
Fox-Genovese, E.: 1999, ‘Multiculturalism in History:
Ideologies and Realities’, ORBIS 43(4), 531–543.
Freeman, R. E.: 1994, ‘The Politics of Stakeholder
Theory: Some Future Directions’, Business Ethics
Quarterly 4, 414–427.
Friedman, R., M. Kane and D. B. Cornfield: 1998,
‘Social Support and Career Optimism: Examining
the Effectiveness of Network Groups among Black
Managers’, Human Relations 51, 1155–1177.
George, J. M. and A. P. Brief: 1990, ‘The Economic
Instrumentality of Work: An Examination of the
Moderating Effects of Financial Requirements and
Sex on the Pay-Life Satisfaction Relationship’,
Journal of Vocational Behavior 37, 357–368.
Giacalone, R. A. and C. L. Jurkiewicz: 2003, ‘Toward
a Science of Workplace Spirituality’, in R. A.
Giacalone and C. L. Jurkiewicz (eds.), The
Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational
Performance (M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY).
Golembiewski, R. T., R. F. Munzenrider and J. G.
Stevenson: 1986, Stress in Organizations: Toward a
Phase Model of Burnout. (Praeger, New York).
Gordon, D. M.: 1996, Fat and Mean: The Corporate
Squeeze of Working Americans and the Myth of
Managerial Downsizing (Free Press, New York, NY).
Greenleaf, R. K.: 1978, Servant, Leader & Follower
(Paulist Press, New York).
Greenleaf, R. K.: 1977, Servant Leadership: A Journey
in the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness
(Paulist Press, NY).
Gunther, M.: 9 July 2001, ‘God and Business’, Fortune
144(1), 58–61, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72–73, 76, 78, 80.
Hawley, J.: 1993, Reawakening the Spirit at Work: The
Power of Dharmic Management (Berrett-Koehler, San
Francisco).
Hewitt, J. P.: 1998, The Myth of Self-esteem: Finding
Happiness and Solving Problems in America (St.
Martins Press, New York).
Himmelfarb, G.: 1994, On Looking in the Abyss:
Untimely Thoughts on Culture and Society (Alfred A.
Knopf, NY).
Ichniowski, C., D. L. Kochan, C. Olson and G.
Strauss: 1996, ‘What Works at Work: Overview
and Assessment’, Industrial Relations 35, 299–333.
Inglehart, R.: 1990, Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial
Society (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).
140 Carole L. Jurkiewicz and Robert A. Giacalone
Inglehart, R.: 1997, Modernization and
Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political
Change in 43 Societies (Princeton University Press,
Princeton).
Izzo, J. and E. Klein: May/June 1997, ‘The Changing
Values of Workers: Organizations must Respond
with Soul’, Healthcare Forum Journal, 62–65.
Jaffe, D. T.: 1995, ‘The Healthy Company: Research
Paradigms for Organizational and Personal Health’,
in S. L. Sauter and L. R. Murphy (eds.),
Organizational Risk Factors for Job Stress (American
Psychological Association, Washington DC), pp.
13–39.
Jurkiewicz, C. L.: 2002a, ‘Spirituality by any Other
Name . . . would Probably Sound Sweeter’, Ethics
Today 4, 1–2.
Jurkiewicz, C. L.: 2002b, ‘The Phantom Code of
Ethics and Public Sector Reform’, Journal of Public
Affairs and Information 6, 1–19.
Jurkiewicz, C. L. and T. K. Massey, Jr.: 1997, ‘What
Motivates Municipal Employees: A Comparison
Study of Supervisory vs. Non-supervisory
Personnel’, Public Personnel Management 26,
367–377.
Jurkiewicz, C. L. and K. L. Nichols: 2002, ‘Ethics
Education in the MPA Curriculum: What
Difference Does it Make?’, Journal of Public Affairs
Education 8, 103–114.
Jurkiewicz, C. L. and C. R. Thompson: 1999, ‘An
Empirical Inquiry into the Ethical Standards of
Health Care Administrators’, Public Integrity 1(1),
41–53.
Jurkiewicz, C. L., T. K. Massey and R. G. Brown:
1998, ‘Motivation in Public and Private
Organizations: A Comparative Study’, Public
Productivity and Management Review 21(3), 230–250.
Karasek, R. and T. Theorell: 1990, Healthy Work:
Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of Working
Life (Basic Books, New York).
Kelley: 1998, ‘Followership in a Leadership World’,
in L. C. Spears (ed.), Insights on Leadership: Service,
Stewardship, Spirit, and Servant-leadership (Wiley,
New York).
Kochan, T. A., H. C. Katz and R. B. McKersie: 1986,
The Transformation of American Industrial Relations.
(Basic Books, NY).
Koehn, D.: 1999, ‘What Can Eastern Philosophy
Teach Us About Business Ethics?’, Journal of
Business Ethics 19(1), 71–80.
Kolodinsky, R. W., M. G. Bowen and G. R. Ferris:
2003, ‘Embracing Workplace Spirituality and
Managing Organizational Politics: Servant
Leadership and Political Skill for Volatile Times’,
in R. A. Giacalone and C. L. Jurkiewicz (eds.), The
Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational
Performance (M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY).
Kooiman, J.: 1993, Modern Governance (Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, CA).
Kotter, J. and T. Heskett: 1993, Corporate Culture and
Performance (Free Press, New York).
Kouzes, J. M. and B. Z. Posner: 1995, The Leadership
Challenge ( Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).
Kristof-Brown, A.: 2000, ‘Perceived Applicant Fit:
Distinguishing between Recruiters’ Perceptions of
Person-job and Person-organization Fit’, Personnel
Psychology 53, 643–671.
Kristof, A. L.: 1996, ‘Person-organization Fit: An
Integrative Review of its Conceptualizations,
Measurement, and Implications’, Personnel
Psychology 49, 1–49.
Kruger, P.: 1999, ‘Betrayed by Work’, Fast Company
29 (November), 182–196.
Kuhn, T. S.: 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
(University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL).
Laabs, J.: March 1996, ‘Downshifters’, Personnel
Journal, 62–76.
Lawler, E. E., III: 1986, High-involvement Management
( Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).
Lazarus, R. S.: 1999, ‘Hope: An Emotion and a Vital
Coping Resource against Despair’, Social Research
66, 665–669.
Lazarus, R. S.: 2000, ‘Toward Better Research on
Stress and Coping’, American Psychologist 55,
653–678.
Lloyd, T.: 1990, The Nice Company (Bloomsbury,
London).
Lovallo, D. P.: 1997, ‘Essays on the Psychology of
Competition’, Dissertation Abstracts International:
Section A 58(8-A), 3565.
Maccoby, M.: 1988, Why Work? Leading the New
Generation (Simon & Schuster, New York).
Mackenzie, E. R., D. E. Rajagopal, M. Meibohm and
R. Lavizzo-Mourey: 2000, ‘Spiritual Support
and Psychological Well Being: Older Adults’
Perceptions of the Religion and Health
Connection’, Alternative Therapies 6, 37–45.
Marshall, R.: 1994, ‘The Importance of International
Labour Standards in a more Competitive Global
Economy’, in W. Sengenberger and D. Campbell
(eds.), International Labour Standards and Economic
Interdependence (International Labour Organization,
Geneva), pp. 65–78.
Maslow, A.: 1954, Motivation and Personality
(HarperCollins, New York).
Matthews, D. A., D. B. Larson and C. P. Barry: 1994,
The Faith Factor: An Annotated Bibliography of
 A Values Framework for Measuring the Impact of Workplace Spirituality
Clinical Research on Spiritual Subjects ( John
Tempelton Foundational, National Institute for
Healthcare Research, Rockville, MD).
McGregor, D.: 1960, The Human Side of Enterprise
(McGraw-Hill, New York).
McKnight, R.: 1984, ‘Spirituality in the Workplace’,
in J. D. Adams (ed.), Transforming Work: A Collection
of Organizational Transformation Readings (Miles
River Press, Alexandria, VA), pp. 138–153.
Milliman, J. F., A. J. Czaplewski and J. M. Ferguson:
2001, An Exploratory Empirical Assessment of the
Relationship between Spirituality and Employee Work
Attitudes (Academy of Management Proceedings,
Washington DC).
Mirvis, P.: 1997, ‘Soul Work in Organizations’,
Organization Science 8, 193–206.
Mitroff, I. I. and E. A. Denton: 1999, A Spiritual
Audit of Corporate America: A Hard Look at
Spirituality, Religion, and Values in the Workplace
( Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).
Mohrman, S. A., J. R. Galbraith, E. E. Lawler &
Assoc.: 1998, Tomorrow’s Organization ( Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco).
Moorman, R. H.: 1992, ‘Relationship between
Organizational Justice and Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors: Do Fairness Perceptions
Influence Employee Citizenship?’, Journal of Applied
Psychology 76, 845–855.
Neal, J.: 2000, ‘Work as Service to the Divine’,
American Behavioral Scientist 43, 1316–1334.
Neal, C.: 1998, ‘The Conscious Business Culture’,
Creative Nursing 4, 5–7.
Neck, C. P. and J. F Milliman: 1994, ‘Thought
Self-leadership: Finding Spiritual Fulfillment in
Organizational Life’, Journal of Managerial Psychology
9, 9–16.
O’Reilly, C. A. and J. Pfeffer: 2000, Hidden Value:
How Great Companies Achieve Extraordinary Results
with Ordinary People (Harvard Business School
Press, Boston).
OECD: 1996, Trade, Employment and Labour Standards:
A Study of Core Worker’ Rights and International
Trade (OECD, Paris, France).
Palmer, P. J.: 1994, ‘Leading from Within: Out of
the Shadow, into the Light’, in J. A. Conger
& Associates (eds.), Spirit at Work: Discovering
the Spirituality in Leadership ( Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco), pp. 19–40.
Pargament, K. I.: 1999, ‘The Psychology of Religion
and Spirituality? Yes and No’, The International
Journal for the Psychology of Religion 9, 3–16.
Pfeffer, J.: 2003, ‘Business and Spirit: Management
Practices that Sustain Values’, in R. A. Giacalone
141
and C. L. Jurkiewicz (eds.), The Handbook of
Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance
(M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY).
Pfeffer, J. and J. F. Vega: 1999, ‘Putting People
First for Organizational Success’, The Academy of
Management Executive 13(2), 37–45.
Pratt, M. G.: 1998, ‘To Be or Not to Be? Central
Questions in Organizational Identification’, in
D. A. Whetten and P. C. Godfrey (eds.), Identity
in Organizations: Building Theory through Conversa-
tions (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), pp. 171–207.
Quick, J. C., J. D. Quick, D. L. Nelson and J. J.
Hurrell, Jr.: 1997, Preventive Stress Management in
Organizations (American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC).
Ray, P. H.: 1996, The Integral Culture Survey: A Study
of Transformational Values in America (Institute of
Noetic Sciences, Sausalito, CA).
Reder, M. W.: 1982, ‘Chicago Economics:
Permanence and Change’, Journal of Economic
Literature 20, 1–38.
Reich, M.: 1981, Racial Inequality: A Political-economic
Analysis (Princeton University Press, Princeton,
NJ).
Richards, D.: 1995, Artful Work: Awakening Joy,
Meaning, and Commitment in the Workplace (Barrett-
Koehler, San Francisco).
Riggs, F. W.: 1998, ‘Public Administration in
America: Why Our Uniqueness is Exceptional and
Important’, Public Administration Review 58, 22–31.
Salzmann, J. C.: 1997, ‘Thriving during
Organizational Change: The Role of Metaphors
for Change, Optimism and Pessimism, and
Attributional Style’, Dissertation Abstracts
International: Section B 58(5-B), 2734.
Sass, J. S.: 2000, ‘Characterizing Organizational
Spirituality: An Organizational Communication
Culture Approach’, Communication Studies 51,
195–207.
Scandura, T. A.: 1992, ‘Mentorship and Career
Mobility: An Empirical Investigation’, Journal of
Organizational Behavior 13, 169–174.
Schulman, P.: 1999, ‘Applying Learned Optimism to
Increase Sales Productivity’, Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management 19, 31–37.
Schwartz, T.: 2000, ‘The Greatest Sources of
Satisfaction in the Workplace are Internal and
Emotional’, Fast Company 40 (November),
398–402.
Sigall, H. and R. Gould: 1977, ‘The Effects of Self-
esteem and Evaluator Demandingness on Effort
Expenditure’, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 35, 12–20.
142 Carole L. Jurkiewicz and Robert A. Giacalone
Simmons, B. L. and D. L. Nelson: 2001, ‘Eustress at
Work: The Relationship between Hope and
Health in Hospital Nurses’, Health Care Mange Rev
26(4), 7–18.
Snyder, C. R.: 1994, The Psychology of Hope: You Can
Get There From Here (Free Press, New York).
Snyder, C. R., J. Cheavens and S. T. Michael: 1999,
‘Hoping’, in C. R. Snyder (ed.), Coping: The
Psychology of What Works (Oxford University Press,
New York), pp. 205–231.
Spears, L. C. (ed.): 1998, Insights on Leadership: Service,
Stewardship, Spirit, and Servant Leadership ( John
Wiley & Sons, New York).
Steiner, D. D. and D. M. Truxillo: 1989, ‘An
Improved Test of the Disaggregation Hypothesis of
Job and Life Satisfaction’, Journal of Occupational
Psychology 62, 33–39.
Surak, J. G.: 2001, ‘Eastern Influence’, Food Technology
55, 19.
Tharenou, P.: 1979, ‘Employee Self-esteem: A
Review of the Literature’, Journal of Vocational
Behavior 15, 316–346.
Tse, Eliza Ching-Yick and Giles A. Jackson: 1990,
‘Alcohol Abuse in the Workplace: Challenges and
Strategic Implications for the Hospitality Industry’,
in H. Lee Meadow and M. Joseph Sirgy (eds.),
Quality-of-Life Studies in Marketing and Management
(Virginia Tech, Center for Strategy and Marketing
Studies, Blacksburg,VA), pp. 215–226.
Vaill, P. B.: 1998, ‘Executive Development as Spiritual
Development’, in S. Srivastva, D. L. Cooperrider
and Associates, Appreciative Management and
Lleadership: The Power of Positive Thought and Action
in Organizations ( Jossey-Bass, San Francisco), pp.
323–352.
Victor, B. and J. B. Cullen: 1988, ‘The Organizational
Bases of Ethical Work Climates’, Administrative
Science Quarterly 33, 101–125.
Wagner, P. R.: 1996, ‘Management During
Organizational Change: Optimism versus
Disillusionment’, Dissertation Abstracts International:
Section A 56(9-A), 3654.
Weber, M.: 1958, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism: The Relationship between Religion and the
Economic and Social Life of Modern Culture (Charles
Scribner’s Sons, NY).
Whyte, D.: 1994, The Heart Aroused: Poetry and the
Preservation of the Soul in Corporate America
(Currency-Doubleday, New York).
Wilkinson, F.: 1994, ‘Equality, Efficiency and
Economic Progress: The Case for Universally
Applied Equitable Standards for Wages and
Conditions of Work’, in W. Sengenberger and D.
Campbell (eds.), International Labour Standards and
Economic Interdependence. (International Labour
Organization, Geneva), pp. 61–86.
Williams, O. F. and J.W. Houck: 1992, A Virtuous Life
in Business (Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham,
Maryland).
Williams, A. R. and C. L. Jurkiewicz: 1993, ‘In God
We Trust. . . . All Others Pay Cash: Trust,
Vulnerability, and Deceit in Professional
Organizations’, Business & Professional Ethics Journal
12, 67–96.
Zinnbauer B. J., K. I. Pargament and A. B. Scott:
1999, ‘The Emerging Meanings of Religiousness
and Spirituality: Problems and Prospects’, Journal
of Personality 67, 889–919.
Zukav, Gary: 1989, The Seat of the Soul (Simon &
Schuster, NY).
Carole L. Jurkiewicz
Louisiana State University,
E. J. Ourso College of Business Administration,
Public Administration Institute,
3200C CEBA,
Baton Rouge,
LA 70803,
U.S.A.
E-mail: cljrkwcz@lsu.edu
Robert A. Giacalone
Surtman Distinguished Professor of Business Ethics,
University of North Carolina at Charlotte,
U.S.A.
View publication stats