The spiritual organization: critical reflections on the instrumentality of workplace spirituality

This article was downloaded by: [Case, Peter] On: 22 November 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 929942522] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792992301 The spiritual organization: critical reflections on the instrumentality of workplace spirituality Peter Casea; Jonathan Goslingb Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK b Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK a Online publication date: 20 November 2010 To cite this Article Case, Peter and Gosling, Jonathan(2010) 'The spiritual organization: critical reflections on the instrumentality of workplace spirituality', Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 7: 4, 257 — 282 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/14766086.2010.524727 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2010.524727 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion Vol. 7, No. 4, December 2010, 257–282 The spiritual organization: critical reflections on the instrumentality of workplace spirituality Peter Case*a and Jonathan Goslingb a Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK; bCentre for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 Journal 10.1080/14766086.2010.524727 1476-6086 Original Taylor 7402010 RMSR_A_524727.sgm Professor peter.case@uwe.ac.uk 000002010 & and Of Article Francis PeterCase Management, (print)/1942-258X Francis Spirituality (online)and Religion This article offers a theoretical contribution to the current debate on workplace spirituality by: (a) providing a selective critical review of scholarship, research and corporate practices which treat workplace spirituality in performative terms, that is, as a resource or means to be manipulated instrumentally and appropriated for economic ends; (b) extending Etzioni’s analysis of complex organizations and proposing a new category, the “spiritual organization”, and; (c) positing three alternative positions with respect to workplace spirituality that follow from the preceding critique. The spiritual organization can be taken to represent the development of a trajectory of social technologies that have sought, incrementally, to control the bodies, minds, emotions and souls of employees. Alternatively, it might be employed to conceptualize the way in which employees use the workplace as a site for pursuing their own spiritualities (a reverse instrumentalism). Finally, we consider the possible incommensurability of “work organization” and “spirituality” discourses. Keywords: workplace spirituality; peformativity; anti-positivism; Etzioni; spiritual organization Introduction: interest in workplace spirituality To suggest that there has been a growing interest in workplace spirituality in recent years would be to court understatement. In his bibliometric analysis of texts over two decades, for example, Oswick (2009) points to the relative proliferation in recent years of spirituality discourse within management studies and the social sciences more generally. The relatively early stirrings of attention given to the subject in the 1990s (for instance, Senge 1990; Management Education and Development 1992) has given way to a veritable flood of analysis, diagnosis and prescription on the part of organizational scholars, practitioners and popular management writers. 1 Several academic journals, such as Journal of Adult Development (2001, 2002), Journal of Management Inquiry (2005), Journal of Organizational Change Management (1999, 2003) and The Leadership Quarterly (2005), have dedicated special issues to the theme of spirituality. The launch of The Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion in 2004, *Corresponding author. Email: peter.case@uwe.ac.uk ISSN 1476-6086 print/ISSN 1942-258X online © 2010 Association of Management, Spirituality & Religion DOI: 10.1080/14766086.2010.524727 http://www.informaworld.com Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 258 P. Case and J. Gosling specifically tailored to publishing scholarly work in what is rapidly emerging as a specialist subfield of organization and management studies, is also indicative of the growth in interest in workplace spirituality. Similarly, the number of conferences and websites dedicated to workplace spirituality is proliferating. 1999 saw the creation of an Academy of Management special interest group entitled, “Management, Spirituality and Religion” which has grown considerably and now enjoys a membership in excess of 600. 2 “Spirituality” has even entered the heretofore relatively atheistic (or at least agnostic) confines of the Europeanbased Critical Management Studies (CMS) community in the guise of streams within the biannual international conference. Moreover, Lips-Wiersma et al. (2009, p. 289) are able to identify a distinct subtheme of “critical workplace spirituality” emerging in the academic literature. Academic interest in the subject is following the corporate trend for workshops, seminars, culture change and corporate transformation programmes that, in many instances, are increasingly aimed at harnessing not only the mind and body of employees but also their spiritual essence or soul. Major companies, such as Apple, Ford, GlaxoSmithKline, McDonalds, Nike, Shell Oil and the World Bank, are embracing this recent drive to secure competitive advantage through what might be understood from a critical standpoint as the appropriation of employee spirituality for primarily economic ends (see Mitroff and Denton 1999a, 1999b; Casey 2002; Lips-Wiersma et al., 2009). What are scholars and practitioners who are skeptical about the potential commodification of human spirituality – its being used for profit-making ends as opposed to its being valued for its own sake within the workplace – to make of the current state of affairs? Moreover, what might we infer from these developments for the future of workplace relations and practices? As two scholars with a personal and professional interest in “spirituality” (acknowledging, from the outset, the semantic ambiguities of this term), we seek in this article to outline some critical thoughts on the commodificaton and appropriation of matters spiritual within predominantly capitalist forms of organization. This is not to say that we are in any way disparaging of expressions of workplace spirituality or scholarly interest in the phenomenon. Our critique is specifically aimed at academic research and corporate practices that seek to extract economic ends from spiritual means since such instrumentality is, to our sensibilities, demeaning of the human spirit. We contest strongly any social technologies that treat the human as mere resource (bodily, emotional, mental or spiritual) to be deployed within a nexus of economic profit-making activity. Despite what might be inferred from the burgeoning writing on spirituality, explorations of the relationship between the organization of work, religion and spiritual life is hardly new to social science. Indeed, analysis of this relationship is foundational to the social theorizing of Weber, Marx, Durkheim and Freud in considering the emergence of Methodist, Calvinist and Quaker corporations during the Industrial Revolution. It is also present, either explicitly or implicitly, in theories of post-modern social organization, such as propounded by Bauman, Beck, Foucault and Giddens. However, much of what passes as original Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 259 contributions to the debate on spirituality – with some notable exceptions – appears to be written in blind ignorance of this legacy, preferring, instead, to treat spirituality in ahistorical and apolitical terms as yet another neutral resource to be harnessed and husbanded by the erstwhile custodians of organizational performance. In short, much of the contemporary literature on spirituality is narrowly utilitarian and instrumental in its intent, often concerned directly to commodify spirituality. Bell and Taylor (2003), Casey (2002), Carrette and King (2005) and Roberts (2001) have all raised concerns about this tendency and attempted to account for the instrumental rediscovery of organizational spirituality through the invocation of relevant social theory. We shall draw selectively on insights offered by these scholars in our critique of claims made within certain strands of workplace spirituality literature. To this end, we present a brief review of the workplace spirituality literature, paying particular attention to theoretical and empirical contributions that adopt an instrumental and utilitarian attitude toward the subject. We raise concerns about the predication, definition and representation of “spirituality” in such projects, drawing on extracts from contributions to support and illustrate our critique. Certain manifestations of workplace spirituality and spiritual leadership theory (SLT) can be understood as continuing a well-established trajectory within utilitarian approaches to organizational behaviour. It represents the latest turn of a wheel that positions organizational subjects within discourses of power and governmentality (Burchell et al. 1991; Foucault 1991 [1978]), promoting a rhetoric which connects a highly attenuated version of “spirituality” with organizational performativity (Lyotard 1984). Our intention in generating this critique is not wholesale to discredit interest in workplace spirituality and leadership, but to suggest that much more nuanced theorisation of the field is needed along with interpretative approaches that reflect the subtlety of the terrain. To repeat an apocryphal methodological cliché: if one is armed only with a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail. This is the current state of affairs found in certain sections of the field, we suggest, and there is a desperate need for critical reflexivity if a great deal of ethical damage in the name of workplace spirituality is to be avoided. Workplace spirituality research: a new paradigm? It is not our purpose here to provide an exhaustive review of the literature on workplace spirituality, even were this possible. Several authors (Benefiel 2003, 2005a, 2005b; Lund Dean et al. 2003; Giacalone and Jukiewicz 2004a; Reave 2005) have undertaken the challenging task of trying to map the domain and we refer readers to these sources for comprehensive reference lists. Literature on workplace spirituality might be placed along a spectrum running from prescriptive texts that promote the transformative power of spirituality for a practitioner readership (for example, Barrett 1998; Jones 1996; Klein and Izzo 1999; Lodahl and Powell 1999; Owen 2000; Wood 2006) through more academically robust books (Conger 1994; Fairholm 1997; Mitroff and Denton 1999a, 1999b; Howard and Welbourn 2004) Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 260 P. Case and J. Gosling and scholarly study of the subject in peer-reviewed journals (see, inter alia, contributions to the special issues of Journal of Organizational Change Management, 1999, 2003; Journal of Management Inquiry, 2005; The Leadership Quarterly, 2005). Of particular interest for the purpose of this article are contributions – hailing predominately from US academics – that seek to theorize and explore workplace spirituality empirically from a hypothetico-deductive standpoint. Generic examples of the empirical study of workplace spirituality would include, inter alia, Ashmos and Duchon (2000), Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2004a), Giacalone et al. (2005), Milliman et al. (2003). Within the subgenre of spirituality and leadership, empirical studies would include: Duchon and Plowman (2005), Fairholm (1997, 1998, 2001), Fry (2003, 2005), Fry et al. (2005). Proponents of this approach (see, for example, Fry 2003; Fry et al. 2005; Giacalone and Jurkiewicz 2004b) understand their work to be contributing to an objectivist “organization science” that holds out the possibility, in principle, of “complete explanation” through the incremental accumulation of well-theorized empirical knowledge. Invoking licence from writers such as Kuhn (1970) and Burrell and Morgan (1979), advocates of this approach see themselves as pioneers of a new functionalist paradigm, which, although embryonic in form, promises to become a fully fledged “normal science” in due course. As we shall see shortly, this new paradigm3 also entails seeking ways of measuring spirituality in the workplace (or, at least, discovering proxies for such measurement) and incorporating it as an independent variable within hypothetico-deductive models of management, organization and leadership. Several studies, furthermore, seek to explore the relationship between corporate spirituality and organizational performance (Krahnke et al. 2003; Giacalone and Jurkiewicz 2004a) or spiritual leadership and organizational performance (Duchon and Plowman 2005; Fry et al. 2005). With respect to the espoused new paradigm and its “science of workplace spirituality” (Giacalone and Jurkievicz 2004b), there is a general lack of acknowledgement of the continuing epistemological dispute in organization and management studies concerning paradigm incommensurability. This is not the place to rehearse these arguments fully, but it is important to be aware of the historical legacy and context in which current contributions are being made. In brief, what has been described as a “paradigm war” 4 has been waged within management and organization studies since the initial publication of Burrell and Morgan’s typology (Burrell and Morgan 1979). It should also be pointed out that this debate, far from abating, lingers on and has yet to reach a conclusion which satisfies all parties (Westwood and Clegg 2003). The debate between McKinley (2003) and Case (2003), for instance, is perhaps typical of the lines of division drawn between versions of positivist organization research and interpretative approaches which are founded on a fundamentally different set of epistemological assumptions. In short, to assume – as do the new spirituality paradigm researchers mentioned above – that there is, or could be, a consensus view about how to proceed with organization and management research is at the very least partial, if not downright naïve. Consider in this regard, for example, the high profile debate between Pfeffer (1993, 1995) and Van Maanen (1995a, 1995b) which, Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 261 whatever one’s intellectual allegiances, clearly leaves this epistemological question open. Benefiel (2005a) attempts some epistemological rapprochement with respect to alternative versions of workplace spirituality research that characterize the field, arguing that it is possible to create a centre ground in which both positivist and interpretative research traditions can cohabit in peace. This, however, is to gloss over fundamental ontological, epistemological and ethical differences within a plurality of different approaches that populate the two broad camps. Leaving aside ontological and epistemological concerns momentarily, we suggest – contrary to Benefiel – that the ethical implications of adopting a positivist stance toward the study of organization, in general, and workplace spirituality, in particular, make it inappropriate to propose a neutral centre ground. Academics working in this field need to be aware of the pros and cons of alternative research attitudes and we feel obliged to raise some concerns about the positivism of the new workplace spirituality paradigm. Attempts to measure employees’ spirituality, or corporate spirituality, involves the positioning and subjectification of persons within reductive, instrumental matrices. Individual and collective responses – indeed, individual and collective “spirit” – are rendered as statistics suitable for techno-calculative manipulation. Such representations, moreover, serve to reinforce and perpetuate an unquestioned discourse of capitalist power and control. While the science of workplace spirituality may be couched within a rhetoric of value neutrality and apolitical “contribution to knowledge”, it serves, rather, as an instantiation of bio-political invasion and inscription (Foucault 1990 [1976]). Moreover, when linked to the enhancement of corporate productivity and performance, the new paradigm research functions to reinforce and satisfy the appetites of extant capitalist discourse. Researchers in this paradigm need to appease their sponsors and the business community they serve. Even when pursuing the noble purpose of supplanting narrow materialist and selfish values with “postmaterialist” (Giacalone and Jukiewicz 2004b, pp. 15–16) or “transpersonal” (Giacalone 2004) ones, the discourse hails from a predominantly “businesscentred” worldview (Giacalone and Thompson 2006). Attempts to establish a more human-centred worldview are thus compromised to the extent that their protagonists find themselves – in the context of the USA academy, at least – having, by necessity, to speak the language of business if they hope to have any influence in the status quo. If some degree of compromise is a feature of more enlightened advocates of the new paradigm literature, more blatantly performative research that links spirituality with the bottom line makes no attempt to disguise its motives. Such work is overtly ideological since it appropriates and emulsifies what might be understood as the genuine grassroots spiritual aspirations of new counter-cultural social movements (Casey 2002). In other words, we could theorize the openly performative elements of the new paradigm as representing yet another accommodation, typical of capitalism’s historical development, which preserves and furthers hegemony (Gramsci 1971). As such, the new paradigm research in question, we contend, is far from ethically neutral or harmless to the interests of employees who are either directly or indirectly 262 P. Case and J. Gosling Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 (through the consumption and adoption of its research outcomes) implicated in its discourse and practices. Problems of definition The field of workplace spirituality, perhaps unsurprisingly given the inherent ambiguity of the term “spirituality”, 5 is plagued by problems of definition (Benefiel 2003; Dent et al. 2005; Reave 2005; Tourish and Tourish 2010). What phenomenon is being referred to by this concept? Our intention here is not to try to resolve this problem for, we would argue, the power of what Burke (1970) refers to as “God terms” within conceptual schema is precisely their lack of bounded-ness and the scope they offer for a plurality of meanings and interpretations. In pursuit of our argument, however, it will be necessary at least to indicate the range of meanings that have been identified in the workplace spirituality literature and to pay particular attention to definitions deployed within the “new paradigm”, this being the focus of our critique. In their review of the literature, Dent et al. (2005) identify a range of contemporary meanings relating to individual spirituality such as self-actualization, purpose and meaning in life, health and wellness, workplace spirituality and leadership spirituality. This diversity, by and large, is echoed in the workplace spirituality literature. In addition, there is also present an overarching idea of spirituality as connoting some sense of transcendence or inter-connectedness. Hence according to Kriger and Seng (2005), “‘spirituality’ … refer[s] to the quest for self-transcendence and the attendant feeling of interconnectedness with all things in the universe” (p. 722) and, similarly, for Conger (1994), it is, “to see our deeper connections to one another and to the world beyond ourselves” (p. 15). Clearly, many of these broad meanings intersect or converge with those found in the five main world religions – Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism – although there are important and quite fundamental distinctions to be drawn between the meaning of “spirituality” within each of these religious contexts. Adding to the complexity of definition is the rise of what Wexler (1996) refers to as “unchurched spiritualities”, by which he means the plethora of practices and beliefs associated with the so-called “New Age”. These include: unorthodox forms of Eastern and Western mysticism, paganism, magic, astrology, divination, together with complementary medical practices, such as, homeopathy, acupuncture, reflexology and other mind/body therapies. In short, at the limit, there may be as many conceptions of “spirituality” as there are individuals that consider themselves, to a greater of lesser extent, to have a “spiritual” dimension to their lives (Heelas and Woodhead 2005; Heelas 2008). Such plurality offers a significant problem to those students of workplace spirituality who are determined to specify, codify and measure its presence and influence within organizations (Hicks 2003). To perform such an operation and render it as a potentially manageable variable would require at least some consensus over not only the definition of “spirituality” but also agreement about appropriate measures of the phenomenon. Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 263 Proponents of the new paradigm find themselves having to attenuate the variety of spiritual discourse considerably in order to make it amenable to measurement and control within the methodological frameworks that they employ. Hence, Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2004b) define workplace spirituality as “a framework of organizational values evidenced in the culture that promotes employees’ experience of transcendence through the work process, facilitating their sense of being connected in a way that provides feelings of compassion and joy” (p. 13, original emphases). In this definition, “values” become detached from individuals and, instead, manifest in reified form as part of the organizational “culture”. Moreover, care is taken in this generic formulation to elide the possible relationship between religious affiliation, or belief and spirituality so as not to exclude any particular individual. But can a “framework of organizational values” ever satisfy or represent the inevitable heterogeneity of spiritual commitment or expression found within a complex collective? We suspect not. Similarly, for Ashmos and Duchon (2000), spirituality at work consists in: “the recognition that employees have an inner life that nourishes and is nourished by meaningful work that takes place in the context of community” (p. 137, original emphases). Questions arise concerning “who” or “what” is doing the “recognition” that would satisfy this definition and make it empirically meaningful. Do Ashmos and Duchon have in mind anarcho-syndicalist groupings or communes which aspire to abandon formal hierarchical and power relations and thus permit a genuinely mutual recognition of “inner life”? Probably not, for this definition has to be workable within a mainstream capitalist business context in order to serve its authors’ purposes. What is meant by “inner life” and how might it be “nourished” in symbiotic relation to “work”? Any one of the concepts employed in this and the previous definition of workplace spirituality is open to multiple readings and interpretations, which, on epistemological grounds, make their mobilization as would-be definitive and “operationalizable” statements on the subject a fantastical endeavour. Our point is that workplace spirituality is, by nature, going to be an ephemeral phenomenon approachable from multiple perspectives and hence resistant to neat containment and normalization of the sort sought by many proponents of the new paradigm. Added to the inherent difficulty of defining workplace spirituality, there is a widespread normative assumption, reflected in the definitional aspirations and present in the broader project of the new paradigm, concerning the mutual desirability of accommodating or meeting employees’ “spiritual needs” while at work. Hence, Duchon and Plowman (2005) assert that, “[A]n important dimension of spirituality at work is the notion that employees have spiritual needs (i.e., an inner life), just as they have physical, emotional, and cognitive needs, and these needs don’t get left at home when they come to work” (p. 811) and, for Mirvis (1997), “Work itself is being re-discovered as a source of spiritual growth and connection to others” (p. 193). There are doubtless a series of socio-political and economic conditions – some of which we consider below – that one could introduce to theorise why spirituality is asserting itself as a concern for work organization both in terms of employees seeking spiritual expression and managers feeling the need Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 264 P. Case and J. Gosling to accommodate or harness these energies. The workplace spirituality new paradigm is notably lacking in its ability or willingness to locate its contributions in relation to broader social theory, tending to limit analysis to a concern for the pressures of global competition (Duchon and Plowman 2005; Fry et al. 2005) and the emergence of post-materialist values (Giacalone and Jurkiewicz 2004b). Both the problems facing corporations with respect to workplace spirituality and solutions to them are circumscribed by extant thinking in relation to organization science. What remains unquestioned, therefore, is the assumption that it is right and proper for organizations to seek to harness employee spirituality. This marks, we contend, a serious lack of reflexivity in the literature. At the very least, one might expect academic debate about the erosion of boundaries between the two domains – personal spirituality, on the one hand, and work commitment or contract, on the other – which have typically been segregated in modern organizations (Tourish and Tourish 2010). Such boundary erosion brings us, conveniently, to a consideration of the new paradigm’s interest in the relationship between spiritual life and performance in work organizations. Workplace spirituality, performativity and measurement Improved performance and productivity Much of the new paradigm literature assumes it appropriate to examine and, by implication, exploit a potential positive correlation between spirituality and workplace performance. The case is made starkly by Krahnke et al. (2003) when they assert that: To have confidence that our suppositions are more than personal assumptions requires the dispassionate objectivism afforded by the scientific method … [O]rganizations need conclusive evidence connecting workplace spirituality with bottom line performance; anything less would bring into question their fiduciary responsibility to stockholders and their moral responsibility to stakeholders. For workplace spirituality to be a viable construct in improving organizations and the people in them, it requires a degree of confidence we can only attain through scientific measurement. (pp. 397–398, our emphases) Here we see not only claims regarding the “scientific” imperative to generate “viable” knowledge of workplace spirituality through accurate “measurement” of the phenomenon, but also a moral imperative to link that knowledge to corporate financial performance. This proposition is also interesting insofar as it seeks explicitly to erode the traditional fact–value distinction that has typified positivist social scientific research throughout its post-Enlightenment development (MacIntyre 1985). To that extent it accords closely to the post-modern model of knowledge, characterized by the emergence of “performativity”, identified by Lyotard (1984). According to Lyotard, the episteme of modern science which found legitimacy in grand narratives of progress and emancipation – totalizing stories that gave meaning to local narratives and practices – is being systematically eroded within post-industrial societies by the advancement of information-driven technologies. Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 265 These technologies, which, paradoxically, are a necessary product of the modern scientific need to “observe” beyond the limitations of bare human sensibility, introduce knowledge criteria that undermine the denotative true/false criteria of scientific inquiry. The search for Truth is replaced by a search for the Efficient under what Lyotard (1984, p. 111) terms the “principle of optimal performance”. An economic episteme based on the utilitarian language game of more output for less input displaces the scientific episteme. Lyotard theorizes this new basis of knowledge – the optimization of input to output – as performativity (1984, p. 112). One consequence of post-industrial technology’s privileging of the ends of action over its means is that knowledge ceases to be a valid end in itself. Knowledge is assessed economically not by its truth-value, but by its exchange-value. Knowledge is produced to be sold. It becomes subsumed within a flow of capital exchange as part of the consolidation of consumerism within post-industrial societies. Certain manifestations of new paradigm research into workplace spirituality are explicitly performative in their intent and remit. This agenda also extends beyond generic studies of spirituality in organizations to more specific concerns with the theorisation and study of leadership. Fry (2003, 2005, 2008) and Fry et al. (2005), for example, have developed a theory of spiritual leadership which seeks to model causally a set of individual and organizational variables which, when in proper relationship, are argued to lead to a number of positive individual and organizational outcomes. Spiritual leadership taps into “the fundamental needs for the SWB [spiritual well-being] of both leader and follower, through calling and membership, to create vision and value congruence across the individual, empowered team, and organization levels, and, ultimately, to foster higher levels of organizational commitment and productivity” (Fry 2008, p. 108, our emphases). By creating an overall corporate vision, spiritual leaders provide themselves and followers a context within which employees can find a meaningful vocation or “calling” and feel that they are making a genuine difference through their work. This, in turn, enables the fostering of social and organizational cultures, “based on the values of altruistic love” (p. 109) in which leaders and followers derive an authentic sense of membership, feel understood and can thus express, “care, concern, and appreciation for both self and others” (p. 109). Fry and colleagues, moreover, claim to have established empirically that practitioners of spiritual leadership will experience greater psychological and physical well-being (Fry 2003). Spiritual leadership theory (SLT) also advocates embracing new business models which give emphasis to leadership ethics, sustainability and social responsibility, “without sacrificing profitability, revenue growth, and other indicators of financial performance” (Fry 2008, p. 110). In other words, SLT is intended to assist managers in maximizing the triple bottom line of “People, Planet, Profit” (see also Elkington 1998). In his revised version of SLT, Fry (2008) offers a modified causal model in which, “inner life, or spiritual practice” (p. 111) is seen to positively influence, “(1) hope/faith in a transcendent vision of service to key stakeholders and (2) the values of altruistic love” (p. 112). Fry summarizes the interaction between the variables as follows: 266 P. Case and J. Gosling Leaders who practice spiritual leadership by drawing on inner life practice and communicate and model hope/faith, a transcendent vision, and organizational values based in altruistic love will encourage the manifestation of positive performance outcomes for both the individual and the organization. (2008, p. 120) The relationship between spiritual leadership and improved productivity is also evident in Fry’s earlier work. For example, Fry (2003) observes: Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 A major change is taking place in the personal and professional lives of leaders as many of them more deeply integrate their spirituality and their work. Most would agree that this integration is leading to very positive changes in their relationships and their effectiveness. There is also evidence that workplace spirituality programs not only lead to beneficial personal outcomes such as increased joy, peace, serenity, job satisfaction and commitment but that they also deliver improved productivity and reduce absenteeism and turnover. (p. 703, our emphases) Furthermore: The purpose of spiritual leadership is to create vision and value congruence across the strategic, empowered team, and individual levels and, ultimately, to foster higher levels of organizational commitment and productivity. (Fry 2003, p. 693, our emphases)6 This performative interest in harnessing workplace spirituality and leadership is echoed by Duchon and Plowman (2005) who, … view workplace spirituality as a particular kind of psychological climate in which people view themselves as having an inner life that is nourished by meaningful work and takes place in the context of a community. Work units that can be characterized by a high degree of workplace spirituality are ones where workers are aligned with the climate. When this happens we contend the work unit will experience greater performance outcomes. (p. 816, original emphases) In their study of a healthcare network of organizations in the Southern US, Duchon and Plowman attempt to introduce a utilitarian model of spiritual leadership, populated by a series of “variables”, which enables a statistical relationship to be established between “work unit performance” and “spirituality”. They conclude that, “Ultimately, the model suggests that these variables lead to enhanced work unit performance ... Our interest is in proposing an essential spirituality–performance link without which further model development would be irrelevant” (Duchon and Plowman 2005, p. 825). Measurement MacDonald et al. (1999) provide a detailed review of instruments designed to measure spirituality and associated constructs. These include, for example, the so called “Expressions of Spirituality Inventory” (which purports to measure, inter alia, cognitive, phenomenological, existential, paranormal and religious dimensions of spirituality) and “Psychomatrix Spirituality Inventory” (aimed at Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 267 capturing, inter alia, respondents’ awareness of a higher power, their religious histories and current spiritual/religious practices). The kind of theoretical modelling pursued by proponents of the new workplace spirituality paradigm relies on methodologically similar measurement technologies. Fry et al. (2005), for instance, employ an SLT questionnaire that includes a 1–5 (from strongly disagree to strongly agree) Likert response set to measure such constructs as, “Vision”, “Altruistic Love”, “Meaning/Calling”, “Organizational Commitment” and “Productivity”. Their empirical study sought to, “utilize a newly formed Longbow helicopter attack squadron at Ft. Hood, Texas to test and validate the hypothesized causal model hypothesizing positive relationships between the qualities of spiritual leadership, organizational productivity, and organizational commitment” (p. 836). Similarly, Ashmos and Duchon (2000) developed a 34question instrument with a 7-point Likert-type scale based on psychometric data from 689 respondents. This “Meaning and Purpose at Work” questionnaire was designed to capture respondents’ “perceptions of their own inner life”, the “meaningfulness of their work”, and their personal sense of “community at work”. The instrument also attempted to address respondents’ transpersonal sense of spiritual collectiveness at a “work unit-level” by generating data on “Work Unit Community” and “Work Unit Meaning”. The Meaning and Purpose at Work questionnaire was also deployed in a subsequent study of healthcare organizations by Duchon and Plowman (2005), mentioned in the previous subsection on “performance”. More recently, Martin and Hafer (2009) sought to test empirically the relationship between emotional intelligence, spiritual intelligence, and performance using a modified version of the Ashmos and Duchon instrument and other measures. Our concern is that a performative attitude toward the social scientific investigation of workplace spirituality necessitates through measurement a highly attenuated and narrow conception of “spirituality”; one that potentially denigrates and impoverishes the meaning that it has for organizational members. What is needed, we contend, is greater transparency and reflexivity with respect to the unconscious assumptions that are imported when a workplace “science” approach to spirituality is adopted (see, for example, McKee et al. 2008). Such an approach would eschew the performative in favour of a more open-ended enquiry into the complex set of socio-political and economic conditions that surround and inform the plurality of spiritual expression within organizations. The spiritual organization: exploiting or valuing the employee’s soul? From the stirrings of the Industrial Revolution onward there has been a steady stream of theoretical and prescriptive practitioner literature on how to exact the most from employees by promoting identification with the corporation and thereby harnessing and directing their “inner lives”. In the middle of the last century this was perhaps best epitomized in the work of the Human Relations and Quality of Working Life movements. More or less from the outset, corporatist attempts to tie work to spirit and soul have been subject to criticism. In his Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 268 P. Case and J. Gosling seminal critique of organizational commitment, for example, Whyte (1965 [1956]) voiced concern over the corporatist trajectory of employment relations in US organizations, pointing to the way in which the nature of the employment contract was shifting. Conventional wage labour was, for the “organization man”, to be supplanted by a work ethic that demanded a commitment of heart and soul. As Whyte put it, “No one wants to see the old authoritarian return, but at least it could be said of him that what he wanted primarily of you was your sweat. The new man wants your soul” (Whyte 1965, p. 365, our emphases). Similarly, the rise of motivation theory, from Maslow (1970 [1954]) through to McClelland (1971) and Alderfer (1972), stressed the importance to corporations of harnessing employee needs for “belonging”. In the case of Maslow, of course, popular management interpretations of his work also highlight the potential “spiritual” dimension of life that an employee might pursue through “selfactualization”. There is, then, nothing new in the managerialist attempt to idealize and manufacture employees (Kunda 1992; Townley 1994; Jacques 1995) in such a way that they become pliable and amenable to totalizing organizational control (Goffman 1968). In that sense, the work of certain proponents of the positivist workplace spirituality movement (as evidenced in the preceding section) represents the latest in a very long line of ideologically infused fantasies about how more productivity can be exacted from employees by aligning their motivations, beliefs and values with those of the corporation. It may be that, in certain instances, advocates of the “science” of workplace spirituality are pursuing lines of scholarship and research in the name of humanizing the workplace. In these cases (e.g. Giacalone 2004; Giacalone and Jurkiewicz 2004b; Fry 2005; Giacalone and Thompson 2006) the argument runs that the promotion of workplace spirituality will lead to “good” or is of humanitarian value in its own right. The fact that it may lead to greater productivity and improvements to the bottom line are, viewed from a capitalist perspective, an incidental benefit. In other words, these authors might argue that their research and scholarship is not predicated on an interest directly in how workplace spirituality can improve financial performance. The relationship is indirect, and so references to the performative effects of spirituality are made for rhetorical purposes. Talk about performance and profit gives permission to talk also about spirituality; it affords a permissive space in which to suggest an association between spiritual and material profit. Arguably, this is necessary where performance and profit have become the only criteria of legitimacy, and perhaps even in the academy, without these two “p-words” there would be no interest in discussing spirituality in the workplace, nor for studying it in organizational and managerial milieu. However worthy the intentions and sentiments of these authors, such arguments are, nonetheless, premised on the possibility of some form of enhancement of “spirituality” – individual or collective – within the context of neo-liberal corporate life. As such, they are bounded by the power relations that obtain within capitalist socio-economic relations. It is managers or leaders who are still pulling the strings, seeking to mobilize consent and compliance from employees Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 269 or followers so as to satisfy the interest of investors. If “spirituality” is explicitly on the business agenda, it is difficult to imagine how it can resist being subsumed within or subordinated to dynamics that, for structural reasons, strive for the alignment of personal beliefs and values with those of business corporations. Nonetheless, we take seriously the suggestion that the emergence of organizational control characterised as “spiritual” is something that might become visible if we approach organizations as instruments of human spirituality, and develop this further below, after an important caveat. There are clear unitarist echoes in certain strands of the workplace spirituality literature of the Cultural Excellence, Total Quality Management and Business Process Re-engineering programmes of the 1980s and 1990s which, at their worst, carry sinister Orwellian overtones of seeking to manipulate and control the hearts and minds of employees through ideological means (Willmott 1993). In other words, as Lips-Wiersma et al. (2010) have pointed out, there is a darker side to the workplace spirituality movement that, far from liberating the spirit at work, entails acts of “seduction”, “evangelization”, “manipulation”, and “subjugation” in pursuit of totalizing control. Tourish and Pinnington (2002) highlight a similar set of issues for Transformational Leadership (TL) theories and practices which, they claim, promote a fanatical attitude toward change that seeks to stifle and ultimately prohibit any expression of dissent or resistance. They suggest that patterns of leadership and power fostered by TL bear disturbing comparison to those found in religious cults, prompting Tourish and Pinnington to introduce the notion of “corporate cultism” to complement that of “corporate culturism” (Willmott 1993). Dystopian analyses of corporate change initiatives also extend to the new agendas of workplace spirituality. For example, Case (2005) offers a quasi-science fiction parable against the potential excesses and dangers inherent in the commodification of workplace spiritual education and practice (see also Forray and Stork 2002). In this cautionary tale, New Age spirituality becomes part of the business education mainstream in a hi-tech mediated corporatist world of employee subjugation and ideological control. Acknowledging the historical legacy of social technologies directed toward employee commitment and control, we would like to introduce a theoretical framework that we find helpful in understanding recent – and possibly future? – organizational developments. Our suggestion is that we might think in terms of a broad trajectory running from organizational technologies that seek primarily to control the body of the workforce, through those that try to elicit moral and ideological commitment and on to those that would have work organizations appropriate the spirits and souls of employees. One way of theorizing this trajectory would be to extend Etzioni’s categorization of complex organizations (Etzioni 1971 [1961]). Etzioni suggests that complex organizations can be classified according to the “forms of relationship”, “member involvement” and “types of power” that predominate in them. Thus, coercive organizations with a predominately “alienated” membership ensure compliance through the use of actual or threatened violence. Such organizations would include, for example, concentration camps, most prisons and custodial mental hospitals (Etzioni 1971 Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 270 P. Case and J. Gosling [1961], p. 66). Utilitarian organizations elicit “calculative” member involvement and use resource sanctions to encourage compliance (effectively purchasing employee commitment). At the time of writing, Etzioni included most blue-collar and white-collar industries in this category, along with trades unions and peacetime military organizations (Etzioni 1971 [1961], p. 66). Finally, normative organizations are characterized by the “moral” commitment of their members and seek to influence them through the manipulation of values, attitudes and beliefs. Religious organizations, political organizations, healthcare organizations, educational institutions and many professional organizations fall into this category (Etzioni 1971 [1961], pp. 66–67). While we grant that Etzioni’s conceptualization of power appears somewhat dated in the light of subsequent theorization (see, inter alia, Lukes 1974; Foucault 1980), his basic typology of organization remains remarkably innovative and thought-provoking. The analysis also contains a level of subtlety that is difficult to convey in the cursory summary of the typology offered here. For instance, Etzioni fully recognizes that his categories – coercive, utilitarian, normative – can co-exist in any single complex organization and he writes extensively on the nature of “dual-structure” examples. Our purpose in introducing the basic scheme is to suggest two ways in which it might be augmented. In the first place, it would seem that the archetypal modern organization typified by Etzioni as “utilitarian” is increasingly having to respond to social forces that entail the encroachment of the “normative” into its domain. As we have already pointed out, this process was certainly underway in the 1950s, but gained considerable momentum with the appearance of corporate culturist innovations in the 1980s and 1990s (the Cultural Excellence movement, TQM, BPR, and so forth). Etzioni’s framework would thus benefit from a retrospective evaluation of the effects of changes over the past four-and-a-half decades on the classification boundaries. Second, there may be a case for either extending the “normative” category or introducing a new category to accommodate workplace spirituality programmes that seek explicitly to manage employees’ souls. Whereas Whyte (1965) and Kunda (1992) speak of the corporate aspiration of capturing the “souls” of the workforce, their meaning seems more metaphorical than literal. What they refer to is the manner in which certain organizations strive for enhanced control of the cognitive and emotional commitment of workforces. The literal reference to the management of spirituality in contemporary positivist literature casts such metaphorical usage in a different light. Might we be justified, therefore, in suggesting that the explicit and organized management of employees’ souls extends beyond the domain of “normative” control, which seeks to shape the morality and aesthetic preferences of employees? The “new paradigm” studies imply a more ambitious intention to lay claim to the employee’s subjectivity; to position employee identity as the most salient selfhood. The workplace would no longer be merely the site for the discovery and expression of socially sanctioned values and norms; rather, it becomes both the material and metaphysical conditions for selfhood, the over-soul or collective soul of which individual souls are holographic offprints. In this new organizational cosmology, Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 271 employees are destined to find their home and fulfilment through willing conformity to the whole. This, we contend anticipates the emergence of a new postEtzionian category: the spiritual organization, whose member involvement would entail hope for revelation or enlightenment, and where power is exercised pastorally through conscience, willing obedience, self-surveillance of innermost thoughts and disciplining of the spirit (Foucault 1982; Bell and Taylor 2003; Mitchell 2009). Clearly, there are extant organizations, such as monasteries, cults and other spiritual communities, which would fall into this fourth general category. However, to substantiate a claim that these “spiritual organizations” and their moral communities are more than an intensification of normative control requires a significant re-faming of organizational and individual agency. Etzioni argues that workers must be persuaded into their relationship with organizations by force, utilitarian exchange or a belief in the moral rectitude of the work (or any combination of these). While the worker who is coerced into employment may retain a personal antipathy to the organization and its aims, the morally committed organizational member does not afford such independence. The normative organization –whether or not it overlaps with the coercive or utilitarian – has successfully bought the conscience of its members, becoming central in their account of who they are. The positivist literature that we have reviewed thus far might be dismissed as aiding and abetting such normative control. However, before we dismiss these discourses of workplace spirituality as mere accoutrements to the intensification of labour, we should allow the possibility that scholars are attempting to address substantial and vital aspects of organizational life (member spirituality), but are simply handicapped by the inadequacies of positivist social science methods. In the following section we attempt an alternative approach, hypothetically differentiating the spiritual from normative organization in a tentative modification of Etzioni’s model (Table 1). At issue is whether we can anticipate a pattern of expectations associated with what we are designating the “spiritual organization” beginning to permeate Table 1. Extending Etzioni’s typology of complex organizations. Form of relationship Member involvement COERCIVE ALIENATIVE UTILITARIAN CALCULATIVE NORMATIVE MORAL SPIRITUAL REVELATORY Type of power Use of actual or threatened violence or discipline to ensure compliance Use of resource sanctions to encourage compliance – the “purchase” of commitment Influence through the manipulation of values, attitudes and beliefs – the management of meaning, desire and identity Willing obedience to rules and practices. Collaborative management of resources and opportunities in order to enhance spiritual insight Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 272 P. Case and J. Gosling erstwhile secular organizations and institutions in the same fashion that the “normative” has been encroaching inexorably upon the “utilitarian”, in Etzioni’s terms. As with Etzioni’s original consideration of dual structures, we would also have to acknowledge that under certain circumstances, and in differing contexts, workers could potentially be respected as spirit-enlivened beings within utilitarian and normative modes of organizing. The potential obtains in most complex organizations for their systems and structures to be relatively liberating and lifeaffirming or, by contrast, oppressive and stultifying to the human spirit. In effect, this fourth category implies the instrumental use of organizational norms (and rhetoric) in the service of personal or collective spiritualities – a possibility we return to in the concluding section of this article. Our critique thus far of the would-be instrumental exploitation of workplace spirituality and our conjecture concerning the spiritual organization as a new ideal type raise a number of crucial social theoretical questions that deserve attention. It is to these questions that we now turn. Enchantment meets disenchantment in workplace spirituality Not summer’s bloom lies ahead of us, but rather a polar night of icy darkness and hardness, no matter which group may triumph externally now …. (Weber 1970 [1948], p. 158) In an attempt to resolve the ambivalent relationship between self and organization in the West, it appears managers are turning to the instrumental use of technologies that appropriate spirituality in order to establish what they are encouraged to perceive as total obedience among a workforce. (Bell and Taylor 2003, p. 342) Several contributors to the debate have raised concerns about the attempted parcelling out of the human soul that seems to characterize the positivist workplace spirituality project. To begin with, as Fornaciari and Lund Dean (2001, p. 335) observe, it seems rather ambitious if not absurd to try to “factor analyze God”. The endeavour to reduce spirituality to a set of hypotheses, measures and statistical relationships risks trivializing the subject and, indeed, offending the sensibilities of those whose beliefs and values are being scrutinized. Several critics have also pointed to the apparent incongruity of directly associating a materialist concern for improving corporate productivity and profitability with personal or collective spirituality (Casey 2002; Bell and Taylor 2003; Lund Dean et al. 2003; Benefiel 2005a). That certain academics and practitioners have manifestly been eager to link spirituality with productive output within a performative matrix is of intrinsic social scientific interest and warrants closer inspection. There seems to be a fundamental paradox at the heart of positivist attempts to contain and manage spirituality in the interests of improved performance; one that has distinct ideological overtones. Viewed from a Weberian standpoint we are witnessing in the new paradigm research documented above what is, in effect, a collision of opposing social forces. The performative interest in harnessing spirituality through instrumental Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 273 technologies necessitates the thrusting together of a series of incommensurate poles: disenchantment and enchantment, demystification and mystification, technical and substantive rationality. Weber (1970 [1948]) characterizes rationalization as a process that has as its ultimate end the disenchantment of the world (a concept he borrowed from Schiller), that is, the complete elimination of all wonder and mystery and its replacement by instrumental knowledge. Disenchantment is the outcome of rationalisation and “intellectualisation which we have been undergoing for thousands of years …” (Weber 1970 [1948], p. 138). In pursuit of instrumental knowledge, moreover, modern organizations court the perfection of “technical correctness”, or Zweckrationalität (formal rationality), in Weber’s terms, at the expense of thoughtful and normative reflection on subjective means and intentions (what Weber referred to as Wertrationalität, that is, substantive rationality). The manner in which ends replace means under modern conditions, of course, is what led Weber to speculate on the inherently irrational foundation and trajectory of formal rationality and the self-defeating dilemmas produced by bureaucratic technologies of social control. While positivist studies of workplace spirituality embody, par excellence, the drive toward disenchantment, the irony is that their object of enquiry is, arguably, a striving toward a re-enchantment and revitalized sense of meaning on the part of employees who have become disaffected by the soulless rationalities and materialism of the modern world (Casey 2002). The resulting paradox is characterized admirably by Bell and Taylor (2003) in their critical analysis of workplace spirituality discourse: This positivistic logic reflects dominant methodologies within management research that attempt to constitute workplace spirituality as an object of study. Ironically, however, interest in workplace spirituality is driven by the limitations of positivistic thought and by the need to develop alternative visions that challenge the “dehumanized representations”… Paradoxically, the subsequent representation of workplace spirituality as something to be managed, measured and modelled contributes towards the subsequent demystification of spirituality and the self. (p. 336) Whereas conventional religious sensibilities were occluded from industrial organizations in which the instrumental rationality of production was privileged, disaffection with the excesses of that prevailing order has given rise to a proliferation of attempts to re-enchant workplace practices. As Casey (2002) observes of contemporary Western organizations, “a monological instrumental rationality and economic ideology of one-sided modernity now meets a counter-force it unintendedly [sic] helped generate. Informational capitalism, simultaneity of exchange and boundary collapse expose organizational rationalities — which were always fragile — to forces and demands in the wider cultural sphere” (p. 165). In other words, organizations (and, no less, students of organization) in the post-industrial world are necessarily having to accommodate or respond to social forces, including a revitalization and reinvention of plural spiritualities, that are beyond their immediate control. Hence we witness the willingness of major corporations to take seriously the spiritual aspirations of employees – whether of 274 P. Case and J. Gosling Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 a traditional religious or “unchurched” New Age complexion – and reconfigure work practices to address and even promote these interests in the name of improved performance and control. Conclusion: is there a place for spirituality in work organizations? While being critical of the current fashion for the instrumental appropriation of spiritual energy within organizations, we nonetheless desire to address the question of what place a considered and nuanced understanding of spirituality might have within contemporary organizations. In other words, can such notions as spiritual practice, spiritual discipline and wisdom – intrinsic features of our “spiritual organization” ideal type – be meaningfully integrated within predominantly secular work regimes (Case and Gosling 2007)? Is there an “art of living” available to the contemporary employee (Nehamas 1998)? Is there a philosophical way of life to be led (Hadot 1995)? To commence, we note the instrumentality inherent in our own effort to research, write and present this article. We have delineated and appropriated both a body of literature and personal thoughts and experiences, manipulating them to our purposes – and these purposes themselves are conditioned by the ideological and normalizing forces (discursive and disciplinary) of contemporary academic life. On the whole, we consider ourselves to be free agents in undertaking and executing this work, while adopting a functional instrumentalism in pursuit of the performative values of our employers (universities). Curiously, however, we find ourselves alert to the Weberian paradox noted above: our attempt to mount a rational critique of positivist studies of workplace spirituality is motivated in part by a frustration with the rationalizing and normalizing forces of the academic discipline we deploy. While in pursuit of the emancipation of workers from the normalising rationality of the corporation, no less than that of the positivist scientist, we are ourselves bound by this rationality. So it appears that while we set out to write an article on “the theorization of spirituality in organisation studies”, we have been exploring forms of instrumentality. Furthermore, we have positioned this as anything but “neutral”; rather, we have mounted a critique of the ways in which organizations might manipulate the spiritual feelings of their employees, and a parallel critique of scientific collusion in this process. However, ours is not, we argue, the same degree of performative instrumentalism as implied in the positivist studies cited above. In those studies the “spirituality” of employees has been constructed as a thing liable to be measured and manipulated as a factor in the productive process. As readers of those studies we have not been impelled by them to think as we have, or to work on this material at all. Rather, we have been afforded the opportunity to work with the material (Gibson 1966, 1977, 1979; Greeno 1994; Thanem 2008). We conclude by elaborating three possible ways of re-conceptualizing the relationship between spirituality and the workplace that follow from our critique and theoretical reasoning. 1. The “spirituality” of employees is subject to the organized manipulation of beliefs and disciplinary practices, such that behaviours systematically enhance Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 275 corporate goal-seeking and attainment. Some adherents to spiritual or religious beliefs may find a happy coherence in, for example, their dedication to “service” and the “customer service” aims of the organization, or the reliance of the state on voluntary labour to provide welfare for the mass unemployed. Religious belief may well be, as Marx and Engels (1967 [1844]) so eloquently put it, “the opiate of the people” both for its analgesic qualities as well as the ideological alignment provided by its doctrines and practices. This is a position we share with the positivist authors we criticize: an assumption that spirituality is some form of constructed consciousness; all that separates us is that we are skeptical of their manipulations. However, this is to ignore some other possibilities: that, to pursue the metaphor of the opium-eater, psychedelic experiences may be wonderful. A characteristic of post-modern societies is that the totalizing ideological effects of capitalist production are contested from many directions. No longer is contestation exclusively the province of direct assault by the proletariat. Instead, parallel discourses (de)construct capitalism in a multitude of ways. Which consideration requires that we acknowledge another direction of instrumentality. 2. People – employees – use work, organizational life, and employment itself as instruments in their spiritual lives. In other words, there is an argument that the material world, with all its tribulations as well as its wonders, serves a purpose in the spiritual life of the soul (or however one may approach the matter of one’s own identity). This is not to say that all doctrines, and all spiritualities, are alike in this regard. Some forms of established religion would consider harmonious and prosperous citizenship as a sign or a fruit of their spiritual righteousness (Weber 1992 [1958]), while others find expressions of their spirituality in a determined, even violent resistance to consumerism and corporate hegemony (McIntosh 2001). Our point here is not an endorsement of a transcendent ontology; rather, we wish to point out that various academic discourses – ours as well as those we criticize – have eschewed the fundamental distinguishing feature of spiritual perspectives on work and leadership; that their reality and authority derive from transcendental sources. To put this more prosaically, the instrumentalism that we criticize in this article treats spirituality as a cipher in the material relations of production. It therefore fails to take its own avowed subject-matter seriously, to speak of spirituality from the ground of the spirit, as it were. If they were to do so, in familiar instrumentalist and positivist terms, they might consider the extent to which work organizations help or hinder the progress of spirituality. 3. Finally, it may be more appropriate to consider “work organizations” and “spirituality” as entirely different in type, with incommensurate ends, neither bearing any essential relation to the other. This is a stance taken by Tourish and Tourish (2010) in their strident post-structural critique of the spirituality at work literature. In their view, “the workplace is not a useful medium for people to find the deepest meaning in their lives”, and, furthermore, “[l]eaders of business organizations are not spiritual engineers or secular priests, charged with responsibility for the human soul, and business organizations are not a suitable forum for exploring such issues” (p. 219). From our viewpoint, there may be incidental Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 276 P. Case and J. Gosling connections between spirituality and the workplace: spirituality might be strengthened by association and friendship, and perhaps the disciplines of spiritual exercises are functional in improving performance at work; but the discipline of these exercises, and of philosophy itself, might be considered to be good in themselves (Hadot 1995). This would constitute a somewhat more radical critique of instrumentalism in this context rendering it, to all intents and purposes, irrelevant. We have sought in this article to make a theoretical contribution to the current debate on workplace spirituality by: (a) taking issue with scholarship and corporate practices which treat workplace spirituality in purely performative terms, that is, as a resource or means to be manipulated instrumentally for organizational ends; (b) tentatively suggesting that Etzioni’s analysis of complex organizations might be developed to include a new category which we have designated the spiritual organization; (c) positing three alternative positions with respect to workplace spirituality that follow from our critique and theoretical reflections. The spiritual organization, as ideal type, is ultimately an ambiguous category. From one perspective it can be interpreted as representing a sinister attempt on the part of capitalist organizations to harness, manipulate and control the soul of employees. As such, the spiritual organization forms part of an historical trajectory of social technologies which has incrementally sought to colonize and control, firstly, the bodies, secondly, the minds and emotions (through ideological manipulation) and, lastly, the spirits or souls of employees (position 1 of our conclusion). From another perspective, the spiritual organization can be taken as a potentially liberating notion which acknowledges the resurgence and plurality of grassroots spiritualities that currently find expression in the workplace (position 2). Taken in this sense, it celebrates and values spiritual capacities and would seek to assist employees in finding meaning in their lives through work. In effect this amounts to a reversal of the organizational instrumentalism of position 1 in preference of an instrumentalism on the part of the employee. However, we also want to hold out a third possibility, namely, the incommensurability of work and spirituality. Here we see value in spirituality and related disciplines for their own sake and not as means to be utilized, either by academics using the discourse strategically for what they see to be a “greater good”, corporations or individuals within a work organization context. From this third position, whatever interaction there might be between the subjectivities of individual or collective spiritual pursuits and the workplace would be incidental. The workplace has no special relevance to spirituality; it is simply another site, amongst the multitude of transient phenomena within which subjective spiritual journeys may or may not be pursued. We suspect that position 3 will not be a popular conclusion for most readers of this journal for it would, of course, imply the end of workplace spirituality as a discrete subject of study. Acknowledgements An earlier version of this article was presented at the Standing Conference on Organizational Symbolism XXV, “Signs of the Future”, Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, 1–4 July 2007; Ljubljana, Slovenia. While taking sole responsibility for the Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 277 finished article, the authors would like to thank Fred Bird (University of Waterloo, CA), Gerardo A. Okhuysen (University of Utah, USA), and Scott Taylor (University of Exeter, UK) for their helpful comments on a draft version of the manuscript. We would also like to thank the co-editor in chief of JMSR, Bob Giacalone, who, in association with two other editors, Jody Fry and Marjolein Lips-Weirsma, offered help and support in developing this article for publication. Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 Notes 1. By way of illustration, popular publications include: Barrett (1998) Liberating the Corporate Soul, Conger (1994) The Spirit at Work, Howard and Welbourn (2004) The Spirit at Work Phenomenon, Jones (1996) Jesus CEO, Klein and Izzo (1999) Awakening Corporate Soul, Lodahl and Powell (1999) Embodied Holiness: A Corporate Theology of Spiritual Growth, Mitroff and Denton (1999a) A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America, Owen (2000) The Power of the Spirit: How Organisations Transform, and Wood (2006) Business the Bible Way. There are also sites dedicated to selling spiritual tools of personal and corporate success. For example, Vincent Roazzi’s website offers a book and series of CD audio products entitled, “Spirituality of Success: How to Get Rich with Integrity”, available from http://www.spirituality ofsuccess.com/Home.aspx?tabId=50 (accessed 14 June 2007). 2. The actual membership of this interest group at the time of writing is 640; a statistic which compares favourably, for example, with the 774 members of the “Critical Management Studies” AOM interest group and is more than one-tenth the size of the long-established generic “Organizational Behaviour” grouping of 5816 members. Data obtained from http://www.aomonline.org/aom.asp?id=18# (accessed 27 January 2010). 3. We shall treat this scholarly community’s claims to be contributing to a “new paradigm” on face value purely on the grounds that it has emic anthropological meaning. In other words, insofar as proponents of this discourse are engaged in a set of practices that they themselves understand to be paradigmatic, then it is appropriate for interested observers, such as ourselves, to accept that nomenclature (regardless of social scientific objections that might be raised regarding this claim). 4. See Case (2004) for further details of (and references to) “paradigm wars” with organization studies. 5. “Spirituality” according to the Oxford English Dictionary first appears in the English language around the middle of the fifteenth century and refers originally to, “The body of spiritual or ecclesiastical persons” (OED online). Among the meanings that it accrued during the intervening centuries is, “[A]ttachment to or regard for things of the spirit as opposed to material or worldly interests” (OED online). The word “spiritual” has a slightly older legacy, dating from the fourteenth century and, in addition to reflecting a structural differentiation between the numinous and material, means “Of or pertaining to … the spirit or higher moral qualities, esp. as regarded in a religious aspect” (OED online). Early meanings of the term also related to “breathing” and “respiration”, semantic associations which resonate with the concept of “inspiration” in Medieval Scholasticism. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, “spirituality” became associated with more worldly qualities, such as, refinement of the senses and intellect (source: http://dictionary.oed.com/entrance.dtl, accessed 27 January 2010). 6. In the interests of balance, we should note that elsewhere Fry (2005) advances a normative argument which privileges the pursuit of “well-being” over principles of acquisition and consumerism that, he contends, results from a perversion of the Protestant work ethic in the USA. Nonetheless, it seems that the move from selfish individualism to collective well-being is to be achieved within reformed and more 278 P. Case and J. Gosling socially responsible forms of capitalist corporation. Spiritual leadership still plays a central role in harnessing collective corporate energies for the purposes of enhancing overall well-being and, indirectly, improving productivity. Notes on contributors Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 Peter Case is Professor of Organization Studies, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England and Director of the Bristol Centre for Leadership and Organizational Ethics. He is general co-editor of Culture & Organization and a member of the editorial boards of Leadership, Leadership & Organizational Development Journal and the Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion. His research interests encompass the ethics of leadership, organisation theory and studies of technologically mediated organization. Jonathan Gosling is Professor of Leadership at the University of Exeter Business School, where he directs the Centre for Leadership Studies and is founder of the One Planet MBA. Recent research focuses on leadership development in financial services and in “the arts”, emerging concepts of authority and power amongst academics, and psychoanalytically informed studies of role transitions. He is active in executive education and consults to top management teams around the world. His work is published in journals such as Harvard Business Review, Leadership, Higher Education Quarterly, Social Epistemology, Philosophy of Management. References Alderfer, C.P., 1972. Existence, relatedness, and growth. New York, NY: Free Press. Ashmos, D. and Duchon, D., 2000. Spirituality at work: a conceptualization and measure. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9 (2), 134–145. Barrett, R., 1998. Liberating the corporate soul: building a visionary organization. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Bell, E. and Taylor, S., 2003. The elevation of work: pastoral power and the New Age work ethic. Organization, 10 (2), 329–349. Benefiel, M., 2003. Mapping the terrain of spirituality in organization research. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16 (4), 367–377. Benefiel, M., 2005a. The second half of the journey: spiritual leadership for organizational transformation. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 723–747. Benefiel, M., 2005b. Soul at work. Dublin: Veritas Publications. Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds), 1991. The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality. Brighton: Harvester. Burke, K., 1970. The rhetoric of religion: studies in logology. London: University of California Press. Burrell, G. and Morgan, G., 1979. Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London: Heinemann. Carrette, J. and King, R., 2005. Selling spirituality: the silent takeover of religion. London: Routledge. Case, P., 2003. Methodology: from objectivity to subjectivity – pursuing subjective authenticity in organizational research. In: R. Westwood and S. Clegg, eds. Debating organization: point-counterpoint in organisation studies. Oxford: Blackwell, 156–179. Case, P., 2004. The blind people and the elephant. In: Y. Gabriel, ed. Myths, stories, and organizations: premodern narratives for our times. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 49–65. Case, P., 2005. Xen. In: C. Jones and D. O’Doherty, eds. Manifestos for the business school of tomorrow. Stockholm: Dvalin Press. Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 279 Case, P. and Gosling, J., 2007. Wisdom of the moment: premodern perspectives on organizational action. Social Epistemology, 21 (2–3), 87–111. Casey, C., 2002. Critical analysis of organizations: theory, practice and revitalization. London: Sage. Conger, J.A., 1994. The spirit at work: discovering the spirituality in leadership. San Franciso, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dent, E.B., Higgins, M.E. and Wharff, D.M., 2005. Spirituality and leadership: an empirical review of definitions, distinctions, and embedded assumptions. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 625–653. Duchon, D. and Plowman, D.A., 2005. Nurturing the spirit at work: impact on work unit performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 807–833. Elkington, J., 1998. Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Stony Creek CT: New Society Publishers. Etzioni, A., 1971 [1961]. Comparative analysis of complex organizations. London: Collier-Macmillan. Fairholm, G.W., 1997. Capturing the heart of leadership: spirituality and community in the new American workplace. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Fairholm, G.W., 1998. Perspectives on leadership: from the science of management to its spiritual heart. Westport, CT: Praeger. Fairholm, G.W., 2001. Mastering inner leadership. Westport, CT: Quorum. 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, 14 (4), 335–351. Forray, J.M. and Stork, D., 2002. All for one: a parable of spirituality and organization. Organization, 9 (3), 497–509. Foucault, M., 1977. Discipline and punish. London: Allen Lane. Foucault, M., 1991 [1978]. Governmentality. In: G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller, eds. The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality. Brighton: Harvester. Foucault, M., 1980. Power/knowledge, trans. C. Gordon Brighton: Harvester. Foucault, M., 1990 [1976]. History of sexuality, Vol. 1, The will to knowledge, trans. R. Hurley. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Fry, L.W., 2003. Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693–727. Fry, L.W., 2005. Toward a theory of ethical and spiritual well-being, and corporate social responsibility through spiritual leadership. In: R.A. Giacalone, C.L. Jurkeiwicz and C. Dunn, eds. Positive psychology in business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Fry, L.W., 2008. Spiritual leadership: state-of-the-art and future directions for theory, research, and practice. In: J. Biberman and L. Tishman, eds. Spirituality in business: theory, practice, and future directions. New York, NY: Palgrave, 106–124. Fry, L.W., Vitucci, S. and Cedillo, M., 2005. Spiritual leadership and army transformation: theory, measurement, and establishing a baseline. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 835–862. Giacolone, R.A., 2004. A transcendent business education for the 21st century. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3 (4), 415–420. Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L., 2004a. Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L., 2004b. Toward a science of workplace spirituality. In: R.A. Giacalone and C.L. Jurkiewicz, eds. Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Giacalone, R.A., Jurkiewicz, C.L. and Fry, L.W., 2005. From advocacy to science: the next steps in workplace spirituality research. In: R. Paloutzian, ed. Handbook of psychology and religion. London: Sage. Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 280 P. Case and J. Gosling Giacalone, R.A. and Thompson, K.R., 2006. Business ethics and social responsibility education: shifting the worldview. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5 (3), 266–277. Gibson, J.J., 1966. The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Gibson, J.J., 1977. The theory of affordances. In: R.E. Shaw and J. Bransford, eds. Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 67–82. Gibson, J.J., 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Goffman, E., 1968. Asylums. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Greeno, J.G., 1994. Gibson’s affordances. Psychological Review, 101 (2), 336–342. Gramsci, A., 1971. Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, trans. Q. Hoare and G.N. Smith, eds. London: Lawrence & Wishart. Hadot, P., 1995. Philosophy as a way of life. Oxford: Blackwell. Heelas, P., 2008. Spiritualities of life: new age romanticism and consumptive capitalism. Oxford: Blackwell. Heelas, P. and Woodhead, L. with Seel, B., Szerszynski, B. and Tusting K., 2005. The spiritual revolution: why religion is giving way to spirituality. Oxford: Blackwell. Hicks, D., 2003. Religion and the workplace: pluralism, spirituality, leadership. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Howard, S. and Welbourn, D., 2004. The spirit at work phenomenon. Gainsville, VA: Azure. Jacques, R., 1995. Manufacturing the empoyee: management knowledge from the 19th to the 21st centuries. London: Sage. Jones, L.B., 1996. Jesus CEO: using ancient wisdom for visionary leadership. New York, NY: Hyperion. Journal of Adult Development, 2001. Special issue on spirituality and adult development, part I, 8 (4). Journal of Adult Development, 2002. Special issue on spirituality and adult development, parts II–III, 9 (1–2). Journal of Management Inquiry, 2005. Special issue on spirituality and management, 14 (3). Journal of Organizational Change Management, 1999. Spirituality in organizations, parts I and II, 12 (3–4). Journal of Organizational Change Management, 2003. The leading edge in research on spirituality in organizations, 16 (4). Klein, E. and Izzo, J.B., 1999. Awakening corporate soul. Beverly, MA: Fairwinds Press. Krahnke, K., Giacalone, R. and Jurkiewicz, C., 2003. Point–counterpoint: measuring workplace spirituality. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16 (4), 396–405. Kriger, M. and Seng, Y., 2005. Leadership with inner meaning: a contingency theory of leadership based on the worldviews of five religions. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 771–806. Kuhn, T., 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Kunda, G., 1992. Engineering culture. Temple, PA: Temple University Press. Lips-Wiersma, M., Lund Dean, K. and Fornaciari, C.J., 2009. Theorizing the dark side of the workplace spirituality movement. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18 (4), 288–300. Lodahl, M. and Powell, S., eds, 1999. Embodied holiness: a corporate theology of spiritual growth. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press. Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 281 Lukes, S., 1974. Power: a radical view. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Lund Dean, K., Fornaciari, C.J. and McGee, J., 2003. Research in spirituality, religion, and work: walking the line between relevance and legitimacy. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16 (4), 378–395. Lyotard, J.-F., 1984. The postmodern condition. Manchester: University of Manchester Press. MacDonald, D.A., Kuentzel, J.G. and Friedman, H.L., 1999. A survey of measures of spiritual and transpersonal constructs: part two — additional instruments. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 31 (2), 55–177. MacIntyre, A., 1985. After virtue. London: Duckworth. McClelland, D.C., 1971. Motivational trends in society. New York, NY: General Learning Press. McIntosh, A., 2001. Soil and soul: people versus corporate power. London: Aurum Press. McKee, M., Helms Mills, J. and Driscoll, C., 2008. Making sense of workplace spirituality: towards a new methodology. Journal of Management, Spirituality, and Religion, 5 (2), 190–210. McKinley, W., 2003. Methodology: from subjectivity to objectivity – a constructivist account of objectivity in organization theory. In: R. Westwood and S. Clegg, eds. Debating Organization: Point-Counterpoint in Organisation Studies. Oxford: Blackwell, 142–156. Management Education and Development, 1992. Developing spirituality in organisations, 22(3). Martin, T. and Hafer, J., 2009. Models of emotional intelligence, spiritual intelligence, and performance: a test of Tischler, Biberman, and McKeage. Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, 6 (3), 247–257. Marx, K. and Engels, F., 1967 [1844]. The Communist manifesto. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Maslow, A., 1970 [1954]. Motivation and personality, 2nd ed. London: Harper & Row. Milliman, J., Czaplewski, A. and Ferguson, J., 2003. Workplace spirituality and employee work attitudes: an exploratory empirical assessment. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16 (4), 426–447. Mirvis, P.H., 1997. “Soul work” in organizations. Organization Science, 8(2), 193–206. Mitchell, L., 2009. Cyrus the Great and the obedience of the willing. University of Exeter Extended Essay no. 3, Exeter. Mitroff, I. and Denton, E.A., 1999a. A spiritual audit of corporate America: a hard look at spirituality, religion, and values in the workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mitroff, I. and Denton, E.A., 1999b. A study of spirituality in the workplace. Sloan Management Review,Summer, 83–92. Nehamas, A., 1998. The art of living: Socratic Reflections from Plato to Foucault. London: University of California Press. Oswick, C., 2009. Burgeoning workplace spirituality? A textual analysis of momentum and directions. Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, 6 (1), 15–25. Owen, H., 2000. The power of spirit: how organisations transform. London: McGrawHill. Pfeffer, J., 1993. Barriers to the advance of organizational science: paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18 (4), 599–620. Pfeffer, J., 1995. Morality, reproducibility, and the persistence of styles of theory. Organization Science, 6 (6), 681–686. Reave, L., 2005. Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 655–687. Roberts, R.H., 2001. Religion, theology and the human sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Downloaded By: [Case, Peter] At: 08:46 22 November 2010 282 P. Case and J. Gosling Senge, P., 1990. Personal mastery. In: The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning company. London: Random House, 139–173. The Leadership Quarterly, 2005. Toward a paradigm of spiritual leadership, 16 (5). Thanem, T., 2008. Affordances. In: R. Thorpe and R. Holt, eds. The Sage dictionary of qualitative management research. London: Sage. Tourish, D. and Pinnington, A., 2002. Transformational leadership, corporate cultism and the spirituality paradigm: an unholy trinity in the workplace? Human Relations, 55 (2), 147–172. Tourish, D. and Tourish, N., 2010. Spirituality at work, and its implications for leadership and followership: a post-structuralist perspective. Leadership, 6 (2), 207–224. Townley, B., 1994. Reframing human resource management. London: Sage. Van Maanen, J., 1995a. Style as theory. Organization Science, 6 (1), 132–143. Van Maanen, J., 1995b. Fear and loathing in organization studies. Organization Science, 6 (6), 687–692. Weber, M., 1970 [1948]. From Max Weber: essays in sociology, trans. Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Weber, M., 1992 [1958]. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. London: Routledge. Westwood, R. and Clegg, S., eds, 2003. Debating organization: point–counterpoint in organisation studies. Oxford: Blackwell. Wexler, P., 1996. Holy sparks: social theory, education and religion. New York, NY: St Martin’s Press. Willmott, H., 1993. Strength is ignorance; slavery is freedom: managing culture in modern organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 30 (4), 515–552. Wheatley, M.J., 1992. Leadership and the new science: discovering order in a chaotic world. San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Kohler. Whyte, W.H., 1965 [1956]. The organization man. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Wood, B.M., 2006. Business the Bible way: Christlike communication within corporate culture. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press.