SPIRITUALITY IN BUSINESS: AN EXPLORATION INTO THREE EXEMPLAR

FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, USING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE MEASURES

by

Allister Scott McCulloch

A dissertation submitted

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

in Transpersonal Psychology

Institute of Transpersonal Psychology

Palo Alto, California

May 5, 2006

I certify that I have read and approved the content and presentation of this dissertation:

________________________________________________ ____________ [Jenny Wade, Ph.D.], Committee Chairperson Date ________________________________________________ ____________ [William Braud, Ph.D.], Committee Member Date

________________________________________________ ____________ [Peter Raynolds, Ph.D.], Committee Member Date

ii

Copyright

©

Allister Scott McCulloch

2006

All Rights Reserved

iii

Abstract

Spirituality in Business: An Exploration Into Three Exemplar For-Profit

Organizations, Using Qualitative and Quantitative Measures

by

Allister Scott McCulloch

This study explored the incorporation of spirituality in 3 for-profit businesses, each with

its own unique approach. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from all levels

of the organizations, including a Projective Differential (PD) assessment, a Semantic

Differential (SemDf), the Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised (ESI-R), in-depth

interviews with senior executives, and a questionnaire completed by employees.

Management teams differed in both kind and degree of explicitly measured spiritual

expression, with their approaches to incorporating spirituality more directly influenced by

kind than by degree. The PD data uncovered participants’ implicit, nonverbal perceptions

of the spirituality of their organizations, themselves, and their opposite cohorts,

highlighting degrees of alignment between management and employees at a latent level

of awareness. INcongruence data indicated disparities between nonverbal and verbal

perceptions, showing that management and employee cohorts experienced different levels

of pressure to perceive their organizations, and their opposite cohorts as spiritual. All

organizations exhibited misalignment between their management teams’ and employees’

perceptions, and differences in the amount of pressure each experienced. Although both

management and employees of the most explicitly spiritual organization exhibited

generally more positive perceptions of the spirituality of their organization, and mostly

lower levels of INcongruence, they did not exhibit overall higher levels of alignment than

iv

the other organizations. Differences among the 3 cultures and approaches to spirituality

were discussed in terms of some previously published frameworks, and addressed: levels

of management-employee trust required; management control desired; behavior-values

congruence exhibited; and alignment of management and employee perceptions. This

study demonstrates the value of including data from an implicit, nonverbal level of

perception along with more explicit, verbal levels of information to derive quantitative

measures of congruence and management-employee alignment, producing a deeper view

into 3 very different organizations’ unique approaches to incorporating spirituality and

the implications of each.

v

Dedication

To Baba, my maternal grandfather.

vi

Acknowledgements

I consider myself so very fortunate to have such a loving and supportive family.

Thank you Mom and Dad, without you this would not have been possible. Your love,

your belief in me, and your genuine interest in what I’ve been doing has carried me

through the ups and downs of the dissertation process, and the process of living.

Although I may not always have appeared to appreciate some of the pep talks, and your

attempts to get me moving when I got distracted and work slowed, please know that I

certainly do appreciate everything you’ve done to support me in the journey all along the

way. Thank you Neil and Andrea—although we do not see each other as often as I might

like, I have always felt your love, your belief in me, and support of the path I’ve chosen.

Thank you Kris—your love, support, and patience (with the occasional kick in the

seat) were definitely needed, and I am grateful you came into my life when you did.

To everyone in the organizations that participated in this study, thank you for

inviting me in to learn about your cultures so that I might share that with others. I

appreciate that trying to run a business can be difficult enough without someone coming

in and taking up space and disturbing your routines for a week. I believe in what we’re all

trying to achieve, and I commend you for actively trying to implement a “better way” to

run a business.

I would also like to thank Ryan for spending the time to brainstorm over coffee, for

asking probing questions that helped me to clarify my thoughts, and for always being

encouraging and reminding me that despite how much more work there always seemed to

be, I was on track.

vii

Of course, to my committee—Jenny, William, and Pete—thank you all so much for

your guidance, expertise, patience and time. Thank you especially for your dedication to

helping me squeeze in just in time to meet the deadline for this year. A special thank you

to Jenny for your very fast turnaround and detailed feedback as I prepared the draft

chapters, and for your support, encouragement and friendship along the way. A special

thank you to William for guiding me into the realm of statistics (an area into which I had

not planned to journey so deeply, but ended up enjoying nonetheless), and for your

attention to detail and your always very thoughtful feedback. A special thank you to Pete,

for teaching me about the Projective Differential and for being so receptive to my endless

questioning, and sharing your excitement and curiosity. I am truly grateful to have had

such a wonderful committee accompanying me on this journey.

viii

Table of Contents

Abstract ......................................................................................................................... iii

Dedication .......................................................................................................................v

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................vi

List of Tables.................................................................................................................xii

Chapter 1: Introduction....................................................................................................1

Chapter 2: Literature Review...........................................................................................6

Why Now?...........................................................................................................8

What Is It? .........................................................................................................11

Frameworks .......................................................................................................18

Empirical Research ............................................................................................37

Summary ...........................................................................................................49

Chapter 3: Research Methods ........................................................................................52

General Design ..................................................................................................52

Issues of Validity ...............................................................................................52

Internal Validity .....................................................................................52

External Validity ....................................................................................53

Participants ........................................................................................................54

Data Collection ..................................................................................................55

Semistructured Interviews ......................................................................55

Customized Employee Survey ................................................................56

Expressions of Spirituality Inventory......................................................56

The Projective Differential and Semantic Differential.............................59

ix

Procedure...........................................................................................................63

Treatment of Data ..............................................................................................64

Management Team Interviews................................................................64

Customized Employee Survey ................................................................65

Projective Differential and Semantic Differential....................................65

Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised ........................................70

Delimitations .....................................................................................................71

Departures From Plan ........................................................................................72

Chapter 4: Findings .......................................................................................................75

Wisdom Works ..................................................................................................81

Initial Impressions ..................................................................................81

Management Team Interviews, Company Materials, Personal

Observations...........................................................................................82

Employee Surveys..................................................................................95

Quantitative Data....................................................................................96

Co-Op Credit ...................................................................................................110

Initial Impressions ................................................................................111

Management Team Interviews, Company Materials, Personal

Observations.........................................................................................112

Employee Surveys................................................................................128

Quantitative Data..................................................................................129

Ergo Spaces .....................................................................................................144

Initial Impressions ................................................................................144

x

Management Team Interviews, Company Materials, Personal

Observations.........................................................................................145

Employee Surveys................................................................................158

Quantitative Data..................................................................................160

Between Organization Comparisons.................................................................176

EXEC Cohorts......................................................................................176

EMPL Cohorts .....................................................................................183

Organizations as a Whole .....................................................................191

Chapter 5: Discussion ..................................................................................................195

Organization Summaries and Interpretations ....................................................195

Wisdom Works.....................................................................................195

Co-Op Credit........................................................................................199

Ergo Spaces..........................................................................................202

Among Cohort Comparisons............................................................................208

Management Teams..............................................................................208

Employees............................................................................................214

Theoretical Frameworks...................................................................................215

New Paradigm Rationales.....................................................................215

Enabling—Partnering—Directing.........................................................217

Summary Discussion........................................................................................220

Limitations and Implications for Future Research ............................................224

Conclusion.......................................................................................................229

References...................................................................................................................233

xi

Appendixes..................................................................................................................243

Appendix A: Information Provided at Time of Initial Contact with Potential

Participants ......................................................................................................243

Appendix B: Considerations Regarding Organization Viability........................245

Appendix C: Semistructured Interview Questions ............................................248

Appendix D: Employee Surveys.......................................................................250

Appendix E: Projective Differential Images and Topics ...................................253

Appendix F: Semantic Differential...................................................................254

Appendix G: Informed Consent Forms.............................................................255

Appendix H: Financial Information for Wisdom Works ...................................260

Appendix I: Additional Materials from Wisdom Works ...................................262

Appendix J: Image Names ~ Wisdom Works ...................................................264

Appendix K: Additional Data Tables ~ Wisdom Works ...................................270

Appendix L: Financial Information for Co-Op Credit.......................................277

Appendix M: Additional Materials from Co-Op Credit ....................................278

Appendix N: Image Names ~ Co-Op Credit .....................................................285

Appendix O: Additional Data Tables ~ Co-Op Credit.......................................293

Appendix P: Financial Information for Ergo Spaces.........................................300

Appendix Q: Additional Materials from Ergo Spaces .......................................301

Appendix R: Image Names ~ Ergo Spaces .......................................................302

Appendix S: Additional Data Tables ~ Ergo Spaces .........................................306

Appendix T: Additional Data Tables ~ Between Organizations ........................313

xii

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 1: Epitomizing Images ~ Wisdom Works Cohorts................................................97

Table 2: Topic Consensus Levels ~ Wisdom Works Cohorts .........................................98

Table 3: Projective Differential Same Choice Scores (PD-SCS) ~

Wisdom Works Cohorts.......................................................................................100

Table 4: Between Cohort Differences in PD-SCSs ~ Wisdom Works Cohorts .............102

Table 5: INcongruence ~ Wisdom Works Cohorts .......................................................103

Table 6: Between Cohort Differences in INcongruence ~ Wisdom Works Cohorts ......107

Table 7: ESI-R ~ Differences in Means Between Wisdom Works (WW) & Norms

and WW & ITP....................................................................................................110

Table 8: Epitomizing Images ~ Co-Op Credit Cohorts .................................................130

Table 9: Topic Consensus Levels ~ Co-Op Credit Cohorts ..........................................132

Table 10: Projective Differential Same Choice Scores (PD-SCS) ~

Co-Op Credit Cohorts ..........................................................................................133

Table 11: Between Cohort Differences in PD-SCSs ~ Co-Op Credit Cohorts...............136

Table 12: INcongruence ~ Co-Op Credit Cohorts ........................................................137

Table 13: Between Cohort Differences in INcongruence ~ Co-Op Credit Cohorts .......139

Table 14: Between Cohort Differences ESI-R Subscale Means ~

Co-Op Credit Cohorts ..........................................................................................142

Table 15: ESI-R ~ Differences in Means Between Co-Op Credit (CC) & Norms

and CC & ITP......................................................................................................143

Table 16: Epitomizing Images ~ Ergo Spaces Cohorts .................................................160

xiii

Table 17: Topic Consensus Levels ~ Ergo Spaces Cohorts...........................................162

Table 18: Projective Differential Same Choice Scores (PD-SCS) ~

Ergo Spaces Cohorts ............................................................................................163

Table 19: Between Cohort Differences in PD-SCSs ~ Ergo Spaces Cohorts.................166

Table 20: INcongruence ~ Ergo Spaces Cohorts ..........................................................168

Table 21: Between Cohort Differences in INcongruence ~ Ergo Spaces Cohorts .........171

Table 22: Between Cohort Differences ESI-R Subscale Means ~

Ergo Spaces Cohorts ............................................................................................174

Table 23: ESI-R ~ Differences in Means Between Ergo Spaces (ES) & Norms

and ES & ITP.......................................................................................................175

Table 24: PD-SCS ~ Differences Between EXEC Cohorts from Each Organization.....176

Table 25: INcongruence ~ Differences Between EXEC Cohorts

from Each Organization .......................................................................................179

Table 26: ESI-R ~ Differences Between EXEC Cohorts from Each Organization ........181

Table 27: PD-SCS ~ Kruskal-Wallis Among EMPL Cohorts.......................................184

Table 28: PD-SCS ~ Differences Between EMPL Cohorts from Each Organization ....184

Table 29: INcongruence ~ Differences Between EMPL Cohorts

from Each Organization .......................................................................................186

Table 30: ESI-R ~ Kruskal-Wallis Among EMPL Cohorts ..........................................189

Table 31: ESI-R ~ Differences Between EMPL Cohorts From Each Organization .......189

Table 32: ESI-R ~ Kruskal-Wallis Among Organizations ............................................192

Table 33: ESI-R ~ Differences Between Organization Pairs.........................................193

Table H1: Financial Data - Wisdom Works .................................................................260

xiv

Table K1: Between-Topic Differences in PD-SCSs ~ WW EXEC Cohort....................270

Table K2: Between-Topic Differences in PD-SCSs ~ WW EMPL Cohort ...................271

Table K3: Between-Topic Differences in INcongruence ~ WW EXEC Cohort ............272

Table K4: Between-Topic Differences in INcongruence ~ WW EMPL Cohort ............273

Table K5: ESI-R Descriptive Statistics ~ WW EXEC Cohort ......................................274

Table K6: ESI-R Descriptive Statistics ~ WW EMPL Cohort ......................................274

Table K7: Between-Cohort Differences ESI-R Subscale Means ~

Wisdom Works Cohorts.......................................................................................275

Table K8: ESI-R Differences Between Subscale Means ~ WW EXEC Cohort.............275

Table K9: ESI-R Differences Between Subscale Means ~ WW EMPL Cohort.............276

Table K10: ESI-R Descriptive Statistics ~ Wisdom Works ..........................................276

Table L1: Financial Data - Co-Op Credit .....................................................................277

Table O1: Between-Topic Differences in PD-SCSs ~ CC-EXEC Cohort .....................293

Table O2: Between-Topic Differences in PD-SCSs ~ CC-EMPL Cohort .....................294

Table O3: Between-Topic Differences in INcongruence ~ CC EXEC Cohort ..............295

Table O4: Between-Topic Differences in INcongruence ~ CC-EMPL Cohort..............296

Table O5: ESI-R Descriptive Statistics ~ CC EXEC Cohort.........................................297

Table O6: ESI-R Descriptive Statistics ~ CC-EMPL Cohort ........................................297

Table O7: ESI-R Differences Between Subscale Means ~ CC-EXEC Cohort...............298

Table O8: ESI-R Differences Between Subscale Means ~ CC-EMPL Cohort ..............299

Table O9: ESI-R Descriptive Statistics ~ Co-Op Credit ...............................................299

Table P1: Financial Data - Ergo Spaces .......................................................................300

Table S1: Between-Topic Differences of PD-SCSs ~ ES EXEC Cohort.......................306

xv

Table S2: Between-Topic Differences of PD-SCSs ~ ES EMPL Cohort ......................307

Table S3: Between-Topic Differences in INcongruence ~ ES EXEC Cohort................308

Table S4: Between-Topic Differences in INcongruence ~ ES EMPL Cohort ...............309

Table S5: ESI-R Descriptive Statistics ~ ES EXEC Cohort..........................................310

Table S6: ESI-R Descriptive Statistics ~ ES EMPL Cohort..........................................310

Table S7: ESI-R Differences Between Subscale Means ~ ES EXEC Cohort ................311

Table S8: ESI-R Differences Between Subscale Means ~ ES EMPL Cohort ................312

Table S9: ESI-R Descriptive Statistics ~ Ergo Spaces..................................................312

Table T1: PD-SCS ~ Kruskal-Wallis Among EXEC Cohorts.......................................313

Table T2: INcongruence ~ Kruskal-Wallis Among EXEC Cohorts ..............................313

Table T3: ESI-R ~ Kruskal-Wallis Among EXEC Cohorts ..........................................314

Table T4: INcongruence ~ Kruskal-Wallis Among EMPL Cohorts..............................314

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

To some, the idea of spirituality in business may seem like an oxymoron. To others

it is a crucial concept in these early years of the 21st Century. I am one of the latter.

During my 5 years in management with a large Canadian bank, and then as an M.B.A.

student, I found little room for my desire for deeper meaning, for allowing all of myself

to be present, to fumble and grow along lines other than just skill accumulation, and to

find connection with something deeper than what I was doing. As a result, my spiritual

search was completely divorced from my work and then my school life. For me, the

reason was simple; my perception was that the majority of those around me were just not

open to discussing spirituality. With the few I did find, we only discussed it outside of the

work context. It did not take long before I was confronted with the inherent

dissatisfaction of the situation. It is this feeling and the desire to find another way, a way

to do business that honors and respects the whole person, including the spiritual

dimension, that have prompted me to investigate how one might incorporate a spiritual

approach into how one does business.

What do we really know about incorporating a spiritual approach into business

practices? Many questions need to be asked. What is meant by “spirituality” (especially

in the context of the workplace)? How do we know if someone, or some institution, is

spiritual? What are the signs, attitudes and behaviors? How can we even bring it into the

open when it raises social taboos (perhaps arising at least in part from the U.S.

requirement for separation of church and state), and confusion between spirituality and

religion? Assuming an acceptable conceptualization of spirituality, what means will best

assist in getting the business community to adopt spiritually congruent attitudes and

2

behaviors? Once the process has begun, how do we measure the effectiveness of those

means? What are the implications for the current underlying assumptions and guiding

principles of most businesses (e.g., the profit motive)? Given that most spiritual

traditions, and some theories of psychological development speak of the pitfalls and pain

associated with the growth to wholeness, what about the dark side of such development

as it applies to businesses? The field of “Spirituality in Business” or “Spirituality in the

Workplace” is young. As such, investigator focus has been primarily on the issues of

definition, conceptualization, theory-building, and the development of assessment tools.

Relatively little empirical research has yet been done exploring these and other relevant

questions, and most of what empirical research has been published relies almost

exclusively on self-report data. Although the studies that use in-depth interviews with

executives, managers, or consultants, give good indication that at least these samples are

interested in spirituality and believe that that interest benefits them in their work, they do

not offer a complete picture; by relying on self-report data, the connection to actual

business practices and the effect on the broader organizational culture is not convincingly

made. In addition, data relying solely on what people are consciously aware of and

willing to report may miss important information that remains unspoken, or may even be

below the surface of awareness.

This lack of empirical research is not an indication that the topic of spirituality in

business is unimportant or without interest. One need look no farther than the best seller

lists of the last 15 years to see a growing interest in spirituality and related issues in North

America. This is just as true in the business literature as it is in the general literature.

Numerous books have been published that deal with issues such as the new paradigm in

3

business (e.g., Adams, 1984; Harman, 1998; Ray & Rinzler, 1993; Renesch & DeFoore,

1998); soul, heart or spirit at work (e.g., Briskin, 1998; Canfield & Miller, 1996; Conger,

1994; Garfield, 1997); new leadership ideas (e.g., Covey, 1990; De Pree, 1989, 1992;

Heider, 1985; Jaworski, 1996; Wheatley, 1992); building community in business (e.g.,

Gozdz, 1995), and even the use of psycho-spiritual typing tools such as the Enneagram in

business (e.g., Palmer & Brown, 1997). A cover story in Business Week (Conlin, 1999)

discussed religion in the workplace. Conlin tells of CEOs, upper-level managers, lawyers,

engineers, and others who are attending prayer meetings, embarking on vision quests, and

experimenting with shamanic journeying. According to a Gallup poll quoted in the

article, 95% of Americans believe in God or a universal spirit, and 48% indicated that

they had discussed spirituality within the past 24 hours (p. 153). More recently, TIME

(Miranda, 2006) magazine included a story about a business school professor teaching a

personal-development class to M.B.A. students, which includes exploring where they

find meaning in their lives.

Since I began this research, we have experienced a terrorist attack on American soil,

no doubt leading people to reflect on what is important to them, and what gives them

meaning. The scandals surrounding Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom have all served to shake

whatever trust people had for “big business.” Given the fact that most people spend

significant amounts of time in work related activities, and the near impossibility of

avoiding contact with the ubiquitous social presence of business in some form, it is not

surprising that thoughts of spirituality are also showing up in that environment. However,

there remains significant resistance to embracing this movement fully. Perhaps it is

because it is “too soft,” or because of the fear of opening the door to possible religious

4

persecution in the workplace, or even the fear that one’s spiritual sensitivities might get

in the way of making hard business decisions.

Until relatively recently, the movement towards an integration of spirituality and

business had remained largely in the popular literature and was therefore highly anecdotal

in nature, with very little empirical research being published to support it. Since 1999,

however, academic interest appears to have increased. The Academy of Management

approved the creation of a special interest group in Management, Spirituality and

Religion in 1999 (Neal & Biberman, 2003b). The Journal of Organizational Change

Management has published two, two-issue special editions (Biberman & Whitty, 1999a;

1999b; Neal & Biberman, 2003a, 2004a). The Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and

Organizational Performance (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003a), a 500-plus page tome

with contributions from some of the field’s pioneers, was published in 2003. Still, the

vast majority of what has been published is not empirical research, which is certainly

understandable given the relative newness of the topic as a legitimate field of study; yet,

more empirical study is required to enhance the development and refinement of theory or

it risks being impractical, or even irrelevant.

This study seeks to answer some of the as yet unanswered, relevant questions by

exploring the approach to incorporating spirituality in three, for-profit businesses. In

particular, the areas of exploration include:

• How does management define and measure success? Does it differ from

what one might see in an organization not interested in spirituality?

• What specific things are they doing to encourage or support a spiritual

approach? Programs? Policies? Procedures?

5

• How does management’s view of spirituality affect how they

operationalize it within their organization?

• How well does it seem to be working in terms of employee “buy-in” or

alignment?

• What are some of the implications of choosing to take a spiritual approach

to running a business—both challenges and benefits?

• What are the implications in terms of the overall culture?

My intention is to provide an empirical link between the theories and the anecdotal

evidence of the implications and practices of incorporating a spiritual approach in

business. By collecting data from all levels of the organizations, including both

subjective, self-report data and assessment data, a relatively complete view of the

organizations studied becomes available. Furthermore, by including data drawn from an

implicit, nonverbal level of perception and understanding, issues of congruence between

explicit and implicit perceptions, and of alignment between executives and employees

provide additional depth to the understanding of the organizations studied. By looking at

the real-world approaches, and their various implications, we should be able to find some

valuable, and practical information and ideas to assist both theory-building and

refinement, and those wishing to implement a more conscious and open approach to

spirituality in their own workplace.

6

Chapter 2: Literature Review

In the last 10 to 15 years there have been numerous works published in the popular

press on spirituality in business, with varying degrees of connection made directly to

spirituality. Some make the connection to spirituality explicit in their titles: Spirit at

Work: Discovering the Spirituality in Leadership (Conger, 1994); The Spiritual Style of

Management (McMichael, 1996); Reawakening the Spirit in Work (Hawley, 1993);

Leading from Within: Twelve Concepts for Leaders Who Seek a Spiritual Frame of

Reference (Beeman & Glenn, 2005); Spirituality in the Workplace (Guillory, 2000);

Behind the Bottom Line: Powering Business Life with Spiritual Wisdom (Graves &

Addington, 2003). Others use terms that invoke spirituality: Awakening the Corporate

Soul (Klein & Izzo, 1998); Igniting the Soul at Work (Rabbin, 2002); Bringing Your Soul

to Work (Peppers & Briskin, 2000); The Stirring of Soul in the Workplace (Briskin,

1998); Mystic in the Marketplace (Sturner, 1994). Some take a less direct approach in

their titles: Reclaiming Higher Ground (Secretan, 1997); Going Deep (Percy, 1997);

Competitive Business Caring Business (Paulson, 2002). There are also those that come

from a particular spiritual perspective: What Would Buddha Do at Work? (Metcalf &

Hateley, 2001); Awake at Work (Carroll, 2004); The Tao at Work (Herman, 1994); Jesus

CEO (Jones, 1995). Even such well-known business best-sellers as The Seven Habits of

Highly Effective People (Covey, 1989) and The Fifth Discipline (Senge, 1990) include

decidedly spiritual elements. This partial list, and many others, deal variously with issues

of spirituality, personal growth, compassion, community, awareness, values,

interconnectedness, reflection, renewal and so forth, all within the context of running or

7

working in a business. What almost all have in common is that they are highly anecdotal,

philosophical, or theoretical.

As a legitimate academic field of study, spirituality in business is quite young. The

Academy of Management approved the creation of a special interest group in

Management, Spirituality and Religion in 1999 (Neal & Biberman, 2003b). The Centre

for Spirituality in the Workplace at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia was

created in 2004, and is Canada’s first academic-based center dealing with Spirituality in

Business. As would be expected for such a young field, most of the academic literature

published on the topic has tended to be theoretical, or working on determining the

conceptual boundaries, and definitions; some work has also been done on assessment

development to test the constructs. While some work has been exploring how individual

spirituality might relate to other business-related fields of inquiry, such as ethics

(Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003b), most of the empirical work that has been done has

been based primarily on self-report data, and most of that from senior management or

professionals, as will be seen in the examples below.

In this chapter I review some of the more salient areas of the field, beginning with

why we are seeing such a surge in interest in spirituality within the business context. Next

I present an overview of some of the issues of definition, followed by some theoretical

frameworks that have been proposed for understanding or implementing spirituality in

the workplace. Finally, I review some of the empirical work in spirituality in business

that has been published to date.

8

Why Now?

Many of the academics writing in this field begin with what they believe are the

reasons we are seeing such an explosion in interest in linking spirituality to business. In

most cases, several possible explanations are offered; the likelihood is that there is not

one reason, but that it is a confluence of factors coming together to generate the interest.

One explanation suggests that the interest in spirituality in business is a response to

corporate re-engineering, restructuring, downsizing, rightsizing and the resulting

diminishing of trust experienced by many in the workforce (Burack, 1999; Garcia-Zamor,

2003; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003b; Parbouteeah & Cullen, 2003; Pfeffer, 2003). The

belief, prevalent in mid-late 20th Century North America, that one’s company would take

care of him or her, that loyalty would be repaid with a job for life, has been shattered.

More recently, whatever trust in business existed has been further eroded by highly

publicized scandals such as those at Enron and Tyco and other large employers (e.g.,

United Airlines) finding ways out of their pension commitments. With that trust between

organization and worker broken, employees may be looking for more evidence that they

can place their trust in their employer, or they may be taking the stance that if they cannot

rely on their work to provide security, they will go where they can find greater meaning

in their work.

Another explanation addresses the fact that people spend so much time in the

workplace, or in work-related activities, that work is a central part of human existence,

and therefore, it is natural that people would begin to look to work to find fulfillment

(Hoffman, 2003; Pfeffer, 2003) and find that much of their spiritual journey happens

within that context (King & Nicol, 1999). The increase in time spent at work is also

9

coupled with an identification of the general decline of other outlets for achieving a sense

of community and meaning (Parbouteeah & Cullen, 2003).

The aging of the baby-boomer generation is another possible explanation. As this

large demographic cohort is beginning to recognize the inevitability of their death, they

are becoming more interested in contemplating the meaning of their lives (Kurth, 2003;

Neal, 1997). Another baby boomer-related explanation relates to the fact that large

portions of this generation were a part of, or directly witnessed, mass explorations into

the nature of consciousness, alternative lifestyles, protests against the “military-

industrial” establishment, and so forth in their youth during the 1960s and 1970s. Many

of these same people went on to successful careers somewhere within the very

establishment against which they had rebelled. It is these idealistic boomers who are now

in power, and as they reach the apex of their careers, they may be questioning the

meaning of all the hard work and what they have to show for it (Hoffman, 2003).

Increased global competition may also account for increased interest (Brandt, 1996;

Neal, Lichtenstein & Banner, 1999). As competition has increased, business leaders are

recognizing the need to harness more of their employees’ talents, creativity, and

commitment. To do so requires appealing to a deeper level of motivation than just

economic reward; employees need to be made to feel a part of something important, as

well as be allowed to bring more of themselves to work and not be bound by narrowly

defined, task-based job descriptions.

Exposure to the philosophies and principles of some Eastern spiritual traditions has

led to a general increase in interest in spirituality, and has presented Westerners with

“new” ways of exploring the integration of spirituality into their daily lives. The

10

increased awareness of, and interest in Eastern spiritual traditions are cited as additional

influences leading to the growth of the field as the general interest makes its way into the

context of the workplace (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003c).

A number of people have put forth developmental explanations. Maslow’s hierarchy

of needs is also mentioned in connection with the growing interest in spirituality. As

Western societies experience greater material success, and increasing numbers have their

lower-order survival and security needs met, the higher-order needs of self-actualization

are receiving attention from more people (Burack, 1999; Butts, 1999; Tischler, 1999).

Tischler points out that a shift away from a strong focus on physical and security needs

for survival in both the U.S. and the economically developed parts of Europe may be an

indication that Maslow’s hierarchy can be applied at a social level. Barrett’s (2003) work

on levels of organizations’ consciousness is modeled on the hierarchy of needs also,

suggesting that a developmental understanding of organizations and society as a whole

may indeed be a reasonable framework for understanding some of these dynamics.

Another developmental explanation suggests that the move to a new stage of economic

development may also be contributing to the increased interest in spirituality in the

workplace. Tracing the transitions from agrarian, through industrial and then service-

based economies, Dehler and Welsh (2003) point out that we are now moving into the

“experience economy,” which has led to workers creating careers based on skill

development and expertise rather than belonging to a particular organization. As such,

work begins to become about much more than pay, with enjoyment and fulfillment taking

a more prominent role. This in turn leads to questions of “why” do something as much as

“how” to do it. Some look to the more general increase in interest in spirituality, coupled

11

with the increasing pace of change, and suggest that humanity is in “a time of rapid

human evolution and spiritual growth” (Neal & Biberman, 2003b). Although the West

has tended to separate the inner and outer worlds of experience, it may be that such

societies are entering a phase of reintegration. The transformation is not just within

individuals, but is also happening at an organizational and societal level, and is

potentially equally “spiritual” in those realms (Neal, Bergmann Lichtenstein & Banner,

1999). While the hierarchy of needs model suggests that overall success in meeting

survival and security needs is a good explanation for the growing interest in spirituality,

the acute threat to safety and security as a result of the attacks of September 11, 2001,

may also have contributed to the growing interest in the United States (Bradley & King

Kauanui, 2003; Garcia-Zamor, 2003).

Clearly, there are many possible explanations for the rise in interest in spirituality

within the context of the workplace. The likelihood is that many of these issues are

playing some role. Whether one perceives the reasons to be more grounded in reactions

to environmental factors such as downsizing, corporate scandals, or even simply a

function of how much time people spend at work, or as an inevitable stage of

human/societal development likely affects whether it is perceived as the next

management fad or the beginning of a true shift in how we understand the form and

function of business organizations. My own bias, or perhaps hope, is that the interest

signals a much broader developmental change.

What Is It?

Just as there are many reasons available for why spirituality in business has been

receiving attention, there are many ideas of just what “spirituality” means in this context.

12

In fact, the lack of a broadly accepted conceptual definition is often cited as one of the

difficulties hampering empirical investigation into spirituality in business (Giacalone &

Jurkiewicz, 2003b; Kinjerski & Skrypnek, 2004). Garcia-Zamor (2003) suggests that the

spirit-at-work movement is mired in a “definitional muss” (p. 356). He states that some of

the difficulty comes from the fact that some writers confuse religion and spirituality, and

is further complicated by the fact that culture may affect the manifestation of spirituality.

In discussing spirituality in the context of organizational transformation, Dehler and

Welsh (1994) state that the discussion is “poorly explicated in terms of both meaning and

relationship with other organizational concepts” (p. 17). Dehler and Welsh (2003) also

suggest that it may be overly optimistic to expect definitional consensus at this stage in

the development of the field. Ingersoll (2003) states that spirituality actually defies an

absolute, operational definition, and that the approach should be to build up a construct

instead of a definition.

While there are not one or even two commonly accepted definitions of spirituality in

the workplace, almost everyone agrees that spirituality and religion are not the same, that

religion can be understood as particular ways in which spirituality may be understood or

practiced, but that spirituality is the broader concept (e.g., Ashmos & Duchon, 2000;

Kolodinsky, Bowen & Ferris, 2003; Mitroff & Denton, 1999). Also, there are several

elements or dimensions of spirituality that tend to be repeated in many of the discussions:

transcendence, the sense of contributing, or being connected to something bigger than

oneself (Ashforth & Pratt, 2003; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003b; Kurth, 2003;

Paloutzian, Emmons & Keortge, 2003; Primeaux & Vega, 2002); service, the importance

of seeing one’s work or organization as serving others (Kurth, 2003; Kolodinsky, Bowen

13

& Ferris, 2003); community, the need to feel a connection to others (Ashmos & Duchon,

2000; Buchholz & Rosenthal, 2003; Parbouteeah & Cullen, 2003); meaning and

fulfillment, the importance of work being satisfying and contributing to a sense of

meaning and purpose (Burack, 1999; Lee, Sirgy, Efraty & Siegel, 2003; Tepper, 2003;

Zellars & Perrewé, 2003); spiritual well-being or wellness, the sense that the work

environment is supportive of one’s spiritual values (Lee, et al., 2003; Ingersoll, 2003);

wholeness, allowing employees to bring their whole selves to work (Ashforth & Pratt,

2003; Dehler & Welsh, 2003; Elm, 2003; Furnham, 2003); and personal development, the

recognition that people want and need to grow and develop their full potential (Ashforth

& Pratt, 2003; Butts, 1999; Tischler, 1999). Some also link spirituality to other, related

concepts such as ethics (Furnham, 2003; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003b), hope (Adams,

Snyder, Rand, King, Sigmun & Pulvers, 2003), honesty (Elm, 2003), and forgiveness

(Yamhure Thompson & Shahen, 2003).

Mitroff and Denton (1999), in one of the most cited studies of spirituality in

business, collected data from 215 senior executives and human resource professionals

using both a mailed questionnaire and in-depth interviews. The questionnaires were

mailed to human resource managers and executives, mostly on the West Coast of the

United States, with 131 usable responses (with a return rate of 7.5%). The interviews

were done with senior executives of an East Coast manufacturing company (N = 14), a

West Coast utility (N = 13), members of professional alliances and associations that

promote spirituality in business (N = 18), and various for-profit and not-for-profit

organizations (N = 23). They found that there were not widely varying definitions of

spirituality coming from their participants, and that the distinction made between

14

spirituality and religion was also clear, with 60% of respondents expressing a positive

view of spirituality and a negative view of religion. The meanings given to spirituality

were common and specific enough that Mitroff and Denton offer this definition:

“Spirituality is the basic desire to find ultimate meaning and purpose in one’s life and to

live an integrated life” (p. xv). They also suggest that this search for meaning and

wholeness is both constant, and never-ending.

Ashmos and Duchon (2000) propose a three-dimensional understanding of

spirituality as operationalized in the business context. They begin with the idea that a part

of spiritual identity is tied up in one’s inner life. Spirituality at work, therefore, must

acknowledge and address the inner life of the workers. Furthermore, any recognition of

spirituality in the workplace must see the development of people’s spiritual selves as

equal in importance to the development of their intellectual selves, and that organizations

have just as much ability to diminish the spirit as nourish it (p. 136). Next they point to

the human relations movement’s work on job satisfaction and employee happiness, and

more recent work by well-known theologians such as Matthew Fox and Thomas Moore

as evidence that employees want to feel their work has meaning (p. 136). Finally,

Ashmos and Duchon suggest that an important part of simply being alive is being in

relationship with others. They see being in community as an essential part of spiritual

development (p. 137). Thus, the three components of spirituality at work are an inner life,

meaningful work, and community. “We define spirituality at work as 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).

15

Ashforth and Pratt (2003), also propose a three-dimensional construct for spirituality

in the workplace. In their conceptualization, spirituality at work includes a transcendent

dimension, whereby there is transcendence of self to connect to something greater, such

as other people, a cause, or one’s sense of the divine. Holism and harmony form their

second dimension. Holism refers to the integration of identities, beliefs, and so on into a

coherent sense of self. Harmony is experienced when that integration is “synergistic and

informs one’s behavior” (p. 93). They also suggest that holism and harmony require a

degree of self-awareness, and is often understood in terms of authenticity. Their third

dimension is growth, which refers to the personal development and desire to self-

actualize or fulfill one’s potential. “If transcendence leads to connection, and holism and

harmony to coherence, then growth leads to completeness” (p. 94).

Kinjerski and Skrypnek (2004) collected data from 14 professionals who do work

consulting and/or researching within the field of spirituality in business. They asked each

respondent what spirit at work is and what elements are present in the experience of spirit

at work. Their respondents had difficulty defining the concept, and some suggested it was

not worth doing so, that it was too complex a concept, and that breaking it into its

constituent parts would “destroy what you are watching” (p. 31). Kinjerski and Skrypnek

were unable to come to a definition based upon the responses to the question “What is

spirit at work?” However, a thematic analysis of the data did uncover six themes relating

to the experience of spirit at work: physical, affective, cognitive, interpersonal, spiritual,

and mystical. This in turn led to the following definition of spirit at work:

Spirit at work is a distinct state that is characterized by physical, affective, cognitive, interpersonal, spiritual, and mystical dimensions. Most individuals describe the experience as including: a physical sensation characterized by a positive state of arousal or energy; positive affect characterized by a profound

16

feeling of well-being and joy; cognitive features involving a sense of being authentic, an awareness of alignment between one’s values and beliefs and one’s work, and a belief that one is engaged in meaningful work that has a higher purpose; an interpersonal dimension characterized by a sense of connection to others and a common purpose; a spiritual presence characterized by a sense of connection to something larger than self, such as a higher power, the Universe, nature or humanity; and a mystical dimension characterized by a sense of perfection, transcendence, living in the moment, and experiences that were awe-inspiring, mysterious, or sacred. (p. 37)

Their definition of spirit at work is more a description of a particular type of

experience. Kinjerski and Skrypnek (2004) do point out that their definition is relevant to

the individual level of spirit at work rather than the organizational level, and that further

research is required to explore what organizational factors will support, or impede such

experience. They do not discuss whether this definition, derived from data provided by

individuals who are directly involved in the field, would be more generally understood

and applicable to those who are working in organizations, who are not spending their

time thinking about what spirituality means.

Completing an extensive review of the literature, and comparing her findings with

the statements of six executives she interviewed, Marques (as cited in Marques, Dhiman

& King, 2005) developed a “new, all-inclusive definition of spirituality in the workplace”

(p. 87).

Spirituality in the workplace is an experience of interconnectedness, shared by all those involved in a work process, initially triggered by the awareness that each is individually driven by an inner power, which raises and maintains his or her sense of honesty, creativeness, proactivity, kindness, dependability, confidence, and courage; consequently leading to the collective creation of an aesthetically motivational environment characterized by a sense of purpose, high ethical standards, acceptance, peace, trust, respect, understanding, appreciation, care, involvement, helpfulness, encouragement, achievement, and perspective, thus establishing and atmosphere of enhanced team performance and overall harmony, and ultimately guiding the organization to become a leader in its industry and community, through its exudation of fairness, cooperativeness, vision, responsibility, charity, creativity, high productivity, and accomplishment. (p. 87)

17

Such a definition does cover a lot of the territory of spirituality in the business

context, and I suspect Marques would get little argument about whether the particular

characteristics, traits, and behaviors mentioned are spiritually congruent. However, the

question of whether it is actually “all-inclusive” or not aside, in my view, this definition

is evidence of the difficulty in developing a usable definition of the concept.

Freshman (1999) performed a textual analysis on literature, email messages from a

spirituality in business online discussion group, and responses to a survey asking

specifically what spirituality in business meant to the respondents, and how they apply it.

Her analysis led her to conclude that there were no one, two or even three things that

could be said about it that would cover all of the ways in which it is understood.

Furthermore, “definitions and applications of ‘spirituality in the workplace’ are unique to

individuals. One must be careful not to presuppose otherwise” (p. 326). Freshman also

suggests that researchers, or anyone doing any kind of organizational intervention around

spirituality should ensure inclusivity, and allow the definitions and goals to be

determined by the participants themselves. Krishnakumar and Neck (2002) agree, “the

importance lies not in providing a single definition for the spirituality term, but rather to

first understand the differing perspectives and then to encourage employees to practice

their own sense of spirituality in the workplace” (p. 156). Furthermore, “multiple views

of spirituality are natural and logical (given the diversity of the workforce) and the search

for a definitive description of the term is not the best exercise” (p. 154).

My own constantly evolving understanding of what spirituality means to me, and

how I might define it for myself, leads me to agree with Freshman (1999), Krishnakumar

and Neck (2002) and others (e.g., Ashforth & Pratt, 2003; Ashmos & Duchon, 2000;

18

Vaill, 1989) who prefer to leave the definition somewhat open, and focus more on the

general construct within which the topic can be explored without being constrained by

definitions that will naturally limit the concept. “Unlike religion, which ‘is about

answers. . . spirituality is about questions’ [Mirvis, 1997, p. 197]. Spirituality as a

process, therefore, is highly subjective and fluid and often idiosyncratic” (Ashforth &

Pratt, 2003, p. 94). It is with this in mind that this study is designed, and as such, no

specific definition is offered to orient participants. What is important for this study is that

participants respond based solely on their own understanding of, and relationship to

spirituality, with no limiting conceptual or definitional constraints coming from me.

Frameworks

Even without settling on a definition of spirituality in the workplace, it is quite

possible to avoid a sense of complete disorientation. Although theoretical frameworks

can be built around a particular, explicit definition, it is not required. Frameworks and

models can also be built around observation, expectation, or in contrast to something else.

So developed, frameworks and models can be very useful in helping to understand a

phenomenon, both in terms of why it occurs and how, even in the absence of a clear,

limiting definition. In fact, in the case of something like spirituality, where there are

numerous ways to understand it, a good framework will be independent of any one,

specific definition.

In the early stages of theory development, frameworks will naturally be somewhat

tentative and incomplete, but can still offer a lens through which to interpret and

understand our observations. Ideally, additional observations will contribute to

acceptance, refinement, or rejection of the models.

19

In Mitroff and Denton’s previously mentioned study of executives and human

resource professionals, their interview data revealed hints of vague underlying models

that could be used for organizations incorporating spirituality into the workplace. Taking

the rare hints seriously Mitroff and Denton set out to see if they could flesh out some

models based upon previously published books, and supplemented by the interview data.

That exploration led to the development of a framework including the five distinct

models outlined below, from which Mitroff and Denton then take what they consider to

be the best aspects of each of the five to propose a Best-Practice Model.

Prompted by statements made by interviewees who were practicing ministers and

indicated they saw no separation between their religious selves and their business selves,

Mitroff and Denton developed a model for the Religion-Based Organization, (Mitroff &

Denton, 1999, pp. 57-75). Drawn mostly from the book, Transforming Your Workplace

for Christ by William Nix, which they consider to be the clearest and strongest statement

of the principles and zeal of the Religion-Based Organization, it is admittedly an extreme

example. As with all of their models, Mitroff and Denton suggest that detailing the

features in their more extreme aspects helps to highlight the benefits and dangers of an

approach. The focus is on organizations with a fundamentalist Christian foundation,

where it is understood that God is the real CEO, and that the organization exists for

Christ. (They do suggest that the model could apply to any fundamentalist religion where

the organization is understood to exist for a particular deity.) Management is based on the

Word of God, the Bible is their text, their ultimate guide in all decisions and policies, and

is read very literally. The organization’s competition is believed to be Satan, and the

individual souls associated with it are in danger of eternal damnation. The structure of

20

such an organization is a very strict hierarchy, with God at the top, and as employees

hand themselves over to God, they put their complete trust in the organization. For these

organizations, there are a very small number of relevant stakeholders, including God,

employees and their families, the individual souls, and Satan, the main competition.

Growth of the business is restricted, as greed is seen as evil and must be controlled. These

organizations exhibit a high level of hope, for through God, all things are possible. There

is also a high level of cohesiveness, as employees will all tend to share the same belief

system, and take comfort in being around like-minded people on a crusade for Christ. I

would add that there are likely very clear expectations in terms of accepted behavior.

Mitroff and Denton also point out that the degree of homogeneity can be a problem, as

can the restrictions imposed and expectation of conformity.

The next model they suggest is The Evolutionary Organization (Mitroff & Denton,

1999, pp. 77-98), which is generally understood as an organization that began as more

traditionally religious, but has evolved into something more ecumenical. They identify

two primary ways in which an Evolutionary Organization can come into being; an

organization may evolve in response to the many small crises experienced as the result of

changing times and evolving influences of society (the YMCA), or may be the result of a

major crisis event, or personal crisis of meaning (Tom’s of Maine). The YMCA began in

1844 as an explicitly Christian (specifically, Protestant) organization with the mission of

helping young men and women moving from rural areas into the cities in search of work,

and ensuring that proper Christian values were being preserved. Over time, the YMCA

recognized that to remain relevant, it had to serve the secular needs of its members as

well as their moral, religious needs. It has responded to increasingly secular influences in

21

society by evolving to where it is now “just another secular organization competing to

help overstressed Americans deal with the day-to-day business of their lives” (p. 84).

Tom’s of Maine has a much shorter history, having evolved over a 5 to 7 year period.

Drawing from Tom Chappell’s book, The Soul of a Business: Managing for Profit and

the Common Good, Mitroff and Denton relate how the founding of Tom’s of Maine was

precipitated by a spiritual crisis. Tom Chappell was a very successful businessman who

became aware of deep feelings of dissatisfaction and disillusionment, and felt he had lost

his soul. Chappell went to his minister for guidance, which led him to enroll at the

Harvard Divinity School to study theology in a nondenominational setting. Meanwhile,

Chappell continued to oversee his business, and as he explored spirituality he spent more

and more time arguing with his board of directors to convince them of the importance of

basing the business on both quality products and doing what was “right.” Through this

process, Chappell developed the habit of active (spiritual) listening, and taking all

stakeholders’ positions seriously, while maintaining his own conviction. Mitroff and

Denton liken this to the hero’s journey, with Chappell returning from his journey to

recover his soul with absolute conviction and a willingness to weather the battles to see

his vision become reality. Mitroff and Denton state that in both the YMCA and Tom’s of

Maine, specific religious traditions played a part initially, but they developed into broader

spiritually based organizations. As such, the Evolutionary Organization is understood to

be built from change, and remain open to change; such organizations are quite open to

spirituality and exploring the unknown. While they do not abandon the utilitarian guides

to organizations, they will supplement them with a wide range of nonreligious,

philosophical, and spiritual texts. Evolutionary Organizations value the whole person,

22

and recognize that one can never fully leave one’s personal life at the door. The

stakeholders include not only current owners and employees, but future generations as

well. Hope and purpose are focused on the outcome of evolution. Active (spiritual)

listening is practiced, and attempts are made to engage all stakeholders as fully as

possible. Development of the organization is more important than growth for growth’s

sake.

The idea for their next model, the Recovering Organization (Mitroff & Denton,

1999, pp. 99-122), was prompted by interviews with people who had been, or were

currently in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). The model, therefore, is based upon the

underlying principles of AA and makes use of the work of Lee Robbins, who they

suggest has done the most systematic work on the application of those principles to

organizations. AA is known to include spirituality, and the acceptance of a power greater

than oneself, as a central part of the program for recovering alcoholics. Mitroff and

Denton’s interviewees who were involved with AA indicated that they had looked for

ways to apply some of the principles of AA to their organizations, but Mitroff and

Denton also state that there are no significant examples of Recovering Organizations

available. That said, drawing on the principles behind the Twelve-Step programs, the

Recovering Organization model is seen as a potentially viable approach. Of all the

models, the Recovering Organization has the most developed set of rules for talking

about spirituality; while such an organization is comfortable discussing spirituality and

sees it as just a part of daily life, they are very careful not to offend anyone or be seen as

proselytizing. As with AA, these organizations operate with an emphasis on results rather

than rules and procedures; if something does not work, try something else. One of the

23

interesting things Mitroff and Denton point out about AA is that it both is and is not an

organization. There are no permanent leaders at the local or national levels, there is no

hierarchy, members are free to come and go as they see fit, or even start new AA groups

on their own. For the Recovering Organization model, this leads to the principle that

everyone has the option of being involved in planning and policy making at all levels.

Managers are seen as facilitators, and may even be chosen by subordinates. Training in

facilitation skills is common, and mentoring is highly valued, similar to AA where a

recovering alcoholic has a sponsor to help guide him or her through the recovery process.

These organizations believe that the accepted way of doing things does not necessarily

work, and are willing to look to alternatives. They also believe that ultimately, what is

really required is a different set of higher ethical principles and practices. Recovering

Organizations will also do regular spiritual or moral “audits” to check how they are doing

living up to their ideals, and they are willing to look at the wrongs they have committed

and make reparations.

The next model Mitroff and Denton propose is the Socially Responsible

Organization (1999, pp. 123-141), an organization built upon the understanding that it

has a binding contract with society as a whole. For this model, Mitroff and Denton draw

primarily on the book Ben & Jerry’s Double-Dip: Lead with Your Values and Make

Money, Too, by Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield (of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream fame). Ben

& Jerry’s, the Vermont-based ice-cream company, has become well-known for their for

social activism, as have its founders, Ben and Jerry. The principles underlying Mitroff

and Denton’s Socially-Responsible Organization are basically Ben & Jerry’s principles as

distilled from their book. Such organizations believe they have a responsibility to serve

24

society, and to make the world a better place; and, rather than leave that to chance, it

becomes a central part of the mission of the organization. Socially Responsible

Organizations believe that business is necessary to help solve social problems, and they

will often see themselves as setting an example of how all business should be. While

these organizations may not present themselves in explicitly spiritual terms, they tend to

be comfortable talking about things like soul. Their values will be very public, and they

will show how they live up to their ideals (the names of some of their ice cream flavors,

for example, Rain Forest Crunch, are small examples of Ben & Jerry’s values being made

public). Their version of hope is based on the belief that good consequences will come

from leading with good values (although not stated by Mitroff and Denton, this might be

understood as karma). It does not matter what the social issue chosen is, they just believe

that organizations should do something and should set the threshold for contributing

relatively low (i.e., do not set a high level of profit as the prerequisite for doing

something socially meaningful). Socially Responsible organizations will tend to recruit

spiritually, and engage the whole person; they recognize that they may not be able to

change everyone’s ways, so they are willing to set up new infrastructure and partnerships

and do as much as possible to foster mutual growth. Mitroff and Denton see this model as

being a sort of hybrid between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. One of the

primary dangers of the Socially Responsible Organization is they may adopt a “holier

than thou” attitude, and be so dogmatic about their values as to become almost cult-like.

Mitroff and Denton also note that while Ben & Jerry’s appears to be a prime example of a

Socially Responsible Organization, accounts have begun to surface from former

employees, suggesting that the inner workings of the organization were not always as

25

pleasant and open as has been represented. (Mitroff and Denton mention that a former

CEO of Ben & Jerry’s, Fred Lager, has written an account that presents Ben Cohen as

somewhat dictatorial.)

The Values-Based Organization (Mitroff & Denton, 1999, pp. 143-163) is

characterized as being a “family-style” organization. Mitroff and Denton modeled this

type of organization in part after Kingston Technology Company, a designer and

manufacturer of various computer and laser printer components, located in Southern

California. The primary sources for much of the detail of this model were two books,

Dorothy Marcic’s Managing with the Wisdom of Love: Uncovering Virtue in People and

Organizations, and Trust in the Balance: Building Successful Organizations on Results,

Integrity, and Concern, by Robert Shaw. The picture presented of Kingston, based upon

internal documents and reports in the popular business press, show that the company has

a strong underlying principle: the company is family, “a healthy, caring, and extended

family” (p. 145). Built on the deeply held personal values of the founder or leaders,

Values-Based Organizations tend to place importance on what they consider to be

ultimate values. The values are understood in nonreligious, nonspiritual terms, and will

usually include honesty, integrity, awareness, respect, and trust. The values are also

understood to be very concrete guides for behavior, rather than abstract concepts. Often

the values may be conceived of in terms of the Golden Rule and will always be spoken of

in very neutral language. Values-Based Organizations will tend to want to stay clear of

religious or spiritual language, wanting to avoid both the dangers of fundamentalism and

the mushiness of the “New Age.” They perceive values to be more real than spiritual

principles such as faith. Such organizations will tend to treat people as whole persons and

26

with respect. All stakeholders will be viewed as part of the extended family. Being

profitable is usually one of the important values of such an organization, although it may

not be the most important. Values-based organizations rely on assessments and measures

to know how they are doing on things such as employee job satisfaction or health, and

may institute programs and training to help them do better. However, there is often a high

degree of skepticism in such organizations, as programs alone are usually not enough—

sometimes deeper structural changes may be required. Mitroff and Denton believe that

values and virtues are not sufficient, that people are searching for something more

meaningful, and that to support that we need different and better institutions (p. 163).

The Best-Practice Model offered by Mitroff and Denton (1999, pp. 177-185) draws

from each of the other models, beginning with the Values-Based Organization as the

starting point. “By best we mean a strategy that is least likely to incur an intense

counterreaction by stakeholders. As a result, such a strategy is inherently conservative”

(p. 177). Although they are critical of the Values-Based Organizations, it is the starting

place for Mitroff and Denton’s Best-Practice Model because it is the least controversial.

It is very clear that the organization is not associated with any particular religious

tradition or spiritual path, and expression of religious ideas is discouraged. The Best-

Practice Model also recognizes that spirituality adds a critical element to life that is not

supplied in any other way and that hope and optimism through developing the “soul” of

an organization is a necessity (as in the Religion-Based Organization). The Recovering

Organization offers the perspective that there is a power greater than oneself, and the

concept of regular spiritual or moral audits to see how the organization is doing in living

up to their ideals, and ensuring they do not slide into becoming cult-like. From the

27

Evolutionary Organization the Best-Practice Model draws the idea of listening to all

stakeholders and ensuring they are taken seriously, and includes the idea of exploring a

broad base of philosophical texts. It may also bring in outside speakers, and conduct

workshops to facilitate the personal growth of everyone in the organization. The Best-

Practice Model draws a sense of social responsibility from the Socially Responsible

Organization. The threshold at which social contributions are made is set purposely low,

and the organization acts in a way consistent with having a social conscience on a day-to-

day basis. At the same time, the Best-Practice Model recognizes that to place serving

external stakeholders above internal stakeholders is inconsistent with the underlying

spiritual values.

Mitroff and Denton do point out that none of the models is very advanced, from a

developmental standpoint; invoking Ken Wilber’s four quadrant model of orientation of

spiritual experience (inner-individual, outer-individual, inner-communal, and outer-

communal), they suggest that none of their models is adequately developed in all of the

areas. For example, their model of a Religion-Based Organization is very strongly

developed in the inner-communal realm, wherein their orientation to spirituality is

completely tied up in their particular group. Mitroff and Denton suggest that Ben &

Jerry’s, their best example of a Socially-Responsible Organization, is much more highly

developed in the outer-communal realm than the inner-communal.

Although Mitroff and Denton’s framework is a useful start for exploring some ways

in which spirituality may be incorporated into business organizations, or for determining

where existing organizations fit in the grand scheme, there are definitely some

shortcomings. First, the models are based primarily on books by the founders of business

28

organizations known to be religiously-based, socially responsible, values-based, and so

forth, or other writers on the topic, refined by data they had already gathered from senior

managers and human resource professionals. As such, the implications for the cultures as

a whole, and the impact on and involvement of employees are not explored, and it is not

at all clear just how applicable any of the models is to actual for-profit organizations,

other than those that served as the basis for a couple of the models. Data gathered from

all levels of a variety of such organizations would be required to ensure a thorough

assessment of each of the styles and their impact on organizational culture and

employees. Another problem with the framework is that the Religion-Based Organization

they present is, as they themselves admit, a rather extreme picture. While such

organizations may exist, it would be useful to know more about the characteristics of

organizations that are founded on explicitly religious principles, but that are not so

fundamentalist, or wanting to convert everyone who walks through the door. Even their

description of the Best-Practice Model seems rather intolerant of anything and everything

religious. Furthermore, while it appears to be a reasonable approach, the focus on

avoiding spiritual language and religious expression suggests an attempt to side-step

some of the ambiguity and difficulties inherent in choosing a spiritual path for one’s life

and one’s organization. Lastly, as presented, Mitroff and Denton’s models seem most

suited to relatively specific understandings of what spirituality is, and as such each has

limited applicability. Mitroff and Denton do realize this, as they are clearly suggesting

that the challenge is to move away from the models they uncovered to something akin to

their Best-Practice Model, “Whereas early in the twentieth century the challenge was to

learn how to evolve from the Religious to the Values-Based Organization, the challenge

29

today it to learn how to evolve from the Values-Based to the Spiritually Based

Oragnization” (p. 183). Whether their version of the Spiritually Based Organization as

presented in the Best-Practice Model is the best route to that goal remains to be seen.

Ashforth and Pratt (2003) offer a more general framework of ways in which

spirituality might be operationalized in business organizations. Their continuum goes

from enabling, through partnership to directing. An enabling organization’s approach to

spirituality allows for high levels of individual control, and acknowledges the individual

nature of the spiritual journey. This approach leads to the creation of an environment that

will tend to be passive, with a style of management that makes room for each individual’s

spiritual strivings and will avoid imposing any particular worldview. One of the results of

this kind of approach is that the culture will grow from the bottom up (p. 96). This

approach is very similar to the “spiritual freedom model” recommended by

Krishnakumar and Neck (2002) based on their analysis of the diversity of definitions and

understanding of spirituality, whereby the organization encourages employees to be free

to express their own spiritual beliefs, and supports the spiritual journeys of employees

regardless of their particular beliefs. While an enabling approach or “spiritual freedom

model” allows for a high level of individual freedom to decide the degree to which one

wishes to include his or her spiritual journey as part of his or her work and how to do so,

Ashforth and Pratt (2003) suggest there are some dangers with this approach. Employees

may question the organization and management’s decisions more. The diversity of

special requests to accommodate individual spiritual paths could lead to questions about

where to draw the line, and possibly resentment if some requests are honored and others

are not. It is also possible that even though there is no overt pressure to be spiritual, the

30

fact that some may choose to be very explicit in their expressions of spirituality could

lead others to experience a subtle pressure to display theirs also (p. 97). Krishnakumar

and Neck (2002) also acknowledge that the diversity of views and requests might require

an organization to exercise restraint at times, but they suggest this might only be an

extreme case (p. 162). I suspect the reality is that it would depend greatly on how well

senior management manages expectations, as well as the size of the organization, the

nature of the work and requests for non-work-related spiritual considerations, as well as

the overall maturity of the employees, and the degree of heterogeneity among the

workforce.

Partnering organizations focus on shared control of the environment, with both

bottom-up and top-down influences determining the nature of the culture. Ashforth and

Pratt (2003) suggest that in partnering organizations, it is the spiritual strivings that are

important, with the actual practices, values, and beliefs tending to grow out of the process

and remaining open to adjustment (p. 101). In partnering organizations, individuals and

the organization will tend to coevolve, and the context of the spiritual journey will be

more communal and less idiosyncratic than in enabling organizations, even though it may

remain open to multiple understandings and expressions of spirituality. To make this

work, partnering organizations require a certain type of leadership, specifically servant-

leadership (or similar types such as stewardship [Block, 1993]). These organizations

emphasize holistic work environments, personal development, shared vision, trust, and

the exploration of spiritual meaning within the context of the organization’s mission (p.

101). They also value community and a sense of unity while, at their best, not imposing

particular beliefs. While the influence of individuals on the culture and the development

31

of the understanding of what spirituality means in their particular context can give rise to

a feeling of empowerment, and personal connection to the spiritual character of the

organization, there can exist a pressure to display one’s spirituality and conform to the

collective (p. 102).

Directing organizations are those that tend to exhibit a high degree of organizational

control. Worldview and values will tend to be imposed on individuals within the

organization by senior management or the organizational culture itself. The environment

is created primarily from the top down and likely values homogeneity more than

diversity. This approach is most commonly found in organizations with very strong

cultures built upon a particular cosmology. Rather than being open to and supportive of

the idiosyncrasies of individually determined spiritual beliefs and practices, the

spirituality of directing organizations is more like (and generally based upon) an

institutionalized religion. Given the insistence on a particular worldview and expression

of spirituality, these types of organizations will tend to appeal to those who are

predisposed to agree with that worldview. Combined with careful selection procedures,

this will often ensure the continued homogeneity of spiritual belief and practice within

the organization. One of the perceived benefits of a directing approach is that such strong

cultures will often lead to strong commitment, as those who do not fully agree with the

underlying principles will tend to be weeded out (Ashforth & Pratt, 2003, p. 99). In

addition, being a member of a group of like-minded people can be an antidote to the

fragmentation experienced by so many in our modern, pluralistic society (p. 100). The

dangers of a directing approach include the pressure some individuals may feel to

convert, the potential for misplaced blind faith in management, difficulty adapting to a

32

changing business environment, and a loss of external legitimacy in the face of public

wariness toward such a closed culture (p. 100).

The enabling-partnering-directing continuum is a particularly useful framework, as it

allows for a contextually alive understanding of the dynamics within an organization

surrounding their approach to spirituality. While it can be understood as a way to label an

organization’s approach to spirituality at a particular point in time, it can also be

employed as a way to understand the potential for movement along the continuum. As the

environment changes, as the players change, as the organization evolves, perhaps

organizations can exhibit behaviors that are a blend of the three approaches, and change

over time as the context changes. By presenting the framework as a continuum rather

than a set number of discreet approaches allows for movement, adjustment, and blending,

as well as the possibility for projecting what a subtle shift in one direction or the other

might entail.

Another framework approach involves looking at why organizational leaders might

with to embrace spirituality in the context of their organizations. Giacalone and Eylon

(2000) discuss this in the context of “new paradigm” thought. They suggest that multiple

worldviews are co-existing and changing, making it difficult to assess the direction and

development of the new paradigm (p. 1220); however, Giacalone and Eylon do find that

“what is clear is that the evolving new paradigm is driven by an emerging focus on

interconnectedness, interdependence, the constancy of change, the inclusion of

quantitative and qualitative aspects of existence, and a metamorphosing relationship to

materialism” (p. 1220). Given that it is still unclear what the new paradigm might look

like in practice, their focus is on the motivations behind business leaders’ adherence to

33

new paradigm ways of thinking about and running their businesses. Giacalone and Eylon

present a four-quadrant model for understanding the possible motivations of such new

paradigm leaders along the axes of profit goals versus moral goals, and business mindset

versus global mindset. They name the four categories New Paradigm Darwinists, New

Paradigm Pragmatists, New Paradigm Missionaries, and New Paradigm Humanitarians

(2000, p. 1222).

For New Paradigm Darwinists, in the profit goals and business mindset quadrant,

profit and efficiency are paramount, but recognizing that to remain competitive they must

change with the times, they will reluctantly entertain new paradigm thought (p. 1222).

The New Paradigm Pragmatists, in the profit goals and global mindset quadrant, are also

concerned with profit and efficiency, but have a more global focus. They recognize that

in order to remain successful, they must take the global whole into account (p. 1223).

New Paradigm Missionaries, in the moral goals and business mindset quadrant, embrace

new paradigm thought for a very different reason, a moral imperative towards

benevolence and harmonious relations, although they too are concerned about business

realities and profit. So while they may bring in measures to improve the quality of

worklife, they do so with consideration of the costs involved (2000, p. 1223). The New

Paradigm Humanitarians, in the moral goals and global mindset quadrant, are also

motivated by a moral desire, but within a much larger context. In this quadrant, profit is

secondary to the moral goals, which also go beyond the particular business with which

one might be involved. “They are more interested in building a better world. . . than in

building a better business” (p. 1224). While Giacalone and Eylon acknowledge that both

individuals and organizations may move within and among these four orientations, when

34

considered alongside an examination of what leaders are actually doing within their

organizations, this framework may be useful in deepening the understanding of one’s

observations as underlying motivational factors can help provide context.

Although not, strictly speaking, a framework for understanding spirituality in

business, a particular form of leadership is worth exploring here. Implicit in most of

Mitroff and Denton’s (1999) models for incorporating spirituality is that it is the leaders

who set the tone. Giacalone and Eylon (2000) focus on leaders when considering the

motivation for adhering to new paradigm cosmologies. Neal (2000) suggests that it is a

service orientation to leadership that is most aligned with spirituality. Ashforth and Pratt

(2003) specifically mention the requirement for servant-leader style of leadership to make

the partnership model function well. Many others also mention servant-leadership in the

context of discussions of spirituality in business (e.g., Braham, 1999; Kolodinsky, Brown

& Ferris, 2003; Korac-Kakabadse, Kouzmin & Kakabadse, 2002; Pielstick, 2005). Robert

K. Greenleaf (1977) wrote one of the most enduring treatises on leadership. He brought

forth the concept of servant-leadership in response, in part, to the student unrest he

witnessed in the late 1960s, and prompted by intuitive insight he had gained much earlier

from reading Hermann Hesse’s Journey to the East, in which the man first known as a

humble servant turned out to be the esteemed and respected leader of a spiritual

community.

The servant-leader is servant first. He or she seeks to ensure that those led have

whatever they need to succeed at their mission. Greenleaf points out the measure of a

servant-leader:

Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And,

35

what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit, or, at least, not be further deprived? (1977, pp. 13-14)

Greenleaf suggests several characteristics or stances of the servant-leader. The

servant-leader makes active use of listening and understanding—he or she automatically

responds to problems by listening, and when communicating focuses more actively on

understanding than on being understood (1977, p. 16). Language and imagination are

appreciated for what they are—the servant-leader recognizes that language is limited, it is

more like a map than the territory, and that a leap of imagination is required for

understanding. The servant-leader says just enough to facilitate that leap of imagination

(p. 18). Withdrawal is actively used to assist with sorting out the important from the

unimportant, and to facilitate seeing both content and context (p. 19). The servant-leader

always empathizes, never rejects. Even while refusing to accept poor performance, he or

she always accepts the person (p. 20). Recognizing that all relevant information is rarely

available when important decisions must be made, the servant-leader will be able to see

more clearly the potential effects and directions of decisions, and can use intuition to fill

the information gap (p. 23). The foresight needed for faith in one’s intuition is facilitated

by seeing “now” as a dynamic movement of past, present, and future (p. 25). The servant-

leader will have developed a greater tolerance than most for a more comprehensive

awareness, filtering out less than most of us tend to do. This increased awareness

provides the basis for detachment and the ability to see things as they truly are (p. 27).

The servant-leader uses persuasion rather than command-and-control tactics in order to

move people in a particular direction (p. 29). He or she will tend to see that problems are

“in here” rather than only “out there.” Thus, when confronted with a problem, they will

look first inside to work on changing what is needed to be changed within (p. 43). The

36

servant-leader is motivated to aid in the healing of people and society, but recognizes that

the motive itself is one’s own healing (p. 36).

The degree to which any of the frameworks presented here would actually be found

in practice is unclear, but they all provide useful lenses through which one can

understand some of the possible approaches to incorporating spirituality in the business

context. Although the models offered by Mitroff and Denton are relatively specific, and

in some cases extreme, they all contain features that could feasibly be found in actual

organizations to some degree. Not intended as a prescription, the first five models serve

to help make sense of what one might observe in organizations taking a spiritual

approach. Their Best-Practice Model is offered as a suggestion for what organizations

should be doing to become more spiritually grounded. Ashmos and Duchon’s framework

is much more general, providing a sense more of the underlying approach to spirituality

in business rather than the specific features or elements. As such, it offers a more

generally applicable way to make sense of how organizations are operationalizing their

own particular brand of spirituality, whatever the underlying beliefs may be. Giacalone

and Eylon provide a framework that does not deal with the specifics of how spirituality is

incorporated into the business setting, but rather why it is. Often, understanding the

motivation behind particular actions and behaviors provides very valuable context that

contributes to making the picture more complete. Whether using their framework or not,

it is important to consider why an organization is adopting a particular approach, as a

cynical adoption of spiritual language and programs simply to try to get more

productivity will likely have very different results than a genuine desire to be more

spiritually attuned. Finally, the principles of servant-leadership are offered as one view of

37

a particular stance a leader may take that is considered highly consistent with a general,

nonsectarian notion of spirituality. How completely and consistently any manager, or

management team, could embody the principles of servant-leadership is not clear, but to

the degree to which they can do so, it seems reasonable to expect it would create a very

employee friendly environment at the very least.

Empirical Research

Theoretical frameworks are useful, and necessary; and, empirical research needs to

be done to help refine the frameworks and models in order to increase their usefulness,

clarify their applicability, and further our understanding of the phenomena they purport to

explain or contextualize. Although frameworks have begun to be offered, there is not yet

a large body of empirical research published in the field of spirituality in business

(Bradley & King Kauanui, 2003; Milliman, Czaplewski & Ferguson, 2003; Neal &

Biberman, 2003b; Neal & Biberman, 2004b). To date, what research has been done has

tended to focus on development of definitions and assessment tools, self-report data from

senior management and professionals, or relatively narrow explorations of the impact of a

spiritual approach or the individual experience of spirituality at work on other business-

relevant topics such as employee attitudes or employee experience of strain.

The work of Ashmos and Duchon (2000) is among the most cited research in the

spirituality in business literature. In addition to developing a definition of spirituality in

the workplace consisting of three dimensions (inner life, meaningful work and

community), they developed and tested an instrument designed to measure spirituality in

the workplace. Their instrument included questions designed to elicit information

regarding individuals’ experience of an inner life at work, the meaningfulness of work,

38

and the conditions for community. The questions were also designed to differentiate

between individual, work group and organization level experience and perception. Their

analysis of the data from 696 respondents from four hospital systems in four U.S. cities

(one in the Midwest, one in the mid-South, and two in the Southwest) shows that the

items assessing the individual level produced the cleanest factor structure. At the

individual level, the three expected factors—inner life, meaningful work and conditions

for community—were all found, along with four additional factors: blocks to spirituality

(which they see as the inverse of the first three factors), personal responsibility and

positive connections with others (considered as additional aspects of community), and

contemplation (seen as additional behaviors associated with inner life). Thus, they

suggest, the data support their construct at the individual level, and confirm their

contention that spirituality in the workplace consists of inner life, meaningful work, and

community; however, without analyzing their data in comparison with a rating or

measure of the overall perception of the spirituality of the organization, it is unclear how

they arrive at this second conclusion. At the work unit level, the factors were the sense of

community (community), and identification with the work unit’s values, goals and

mission (meaningful work), but the construct did not hold together as well as at the

individual level. The same was true of the organization level, where the factors were the

perception of and attitudes about the organization’s values, and an evaluation of the

individual in relation to the organization. Ashmos and Duchon suggest that it was much

easier for people to assess themselves and their own experience than the work group or

organization. Reasons given include the increasingly abstract nature of the construct as

39

one moves away from direct personal experience, and the possibility that translation of

questions to the organizational context may have been inadequate (p. 143).

Milliman, Czaplewski and Ferguson (2003) took Ashmos and Duchon’s study a step

farther, by connecting three of their dimensions of spirituality in the workplace to five

variables for measuring organization-relevant employee attitudes and behaviors. They

chose to look at meaningful work (individual level), community (work unit level), and

alignment with the organization’s values (organization level). Interestingly, they indicate

that they chose not to focus on the transcendent aspect of workplace spirituality because

they believe it is more likely to impact an individual’s personal life. While this is open to

debate, my own perspective is that the transcendent aspects of spirituality have the

capacity to affect and transform all aspects of one’s life; to acknowledge that there is a

transcendent aspect, and then suggest that its impact is limited to an individual’s

“personal life” suggests a misunderstanding of transcendence and misses the point about

spirituality in the workplace including the whole person. Even considering transcendence

in its most mundane form—simply the experience of being connected to something larger

than oneself—it seems reasonable that experiences of transcendence at work would

contribute to the sense of doing meaningful work. That said, they also acknowledge the

complex nature of the construct of spirituality, and made the choice to focus on the three

particular variables for their likelihood of having a close relationship with their intended

objective, and also in part for the purpose of parsimony. The three dimensions of

workplace spirituality were compared with five attitudinal variables: organizational

commitment; intention to quit; intrinsic work satisfaction; job involvement; and

organization-based self-esteem. Milliman et al.’s main hypotheses were:

40

1. The spirituality of the individual is positively related to the organization

commitment of the individual.

2. The greater the spirituality of the individual, the lower his or her intention

to quit.

3. The greater the experience of workplace spirituality, the greater the

intrinsic work satisfaction.

4. The greater the workplace spirituality, the greater the job involvement.

5. The greater the workplace spirituality, the greater the organization-based

self-esteem.

The hypotheses were tested with their assessment administered to 200 part-time

MBA students, most of whom were working full-time. Using structural equation

modeling (SEM) to analyze the data, Milliman et al. (2003) found that meaningful work

had an expected predictive relationship to four of the five attitudinal variables; it did not

offer significant predictive power to intention to quit, although the expected negative

direction of the relationship was present. Sense of community related as expected to all

five of the attitudinal variables. Alignment with the organization’s values was only

significantly related to organization commitment and intention to quit; however, although

alignment offered no predictive value on three of the five attitudinal variables over and

above meaningful work and sense of community, it did correlate with all five.

Milliman et al. (2003) acknowledge that one of the limitations of their study is that

their participants were mostly professionals. Additional studies with a broader range of

levels of employees are needed to confirm their findings. They also suggest it would be

worthwhile to include qualitative data regarding perceptions of the spirituality of the

41

workplace to provide the ability for cross-validation. I would add that in interpreting the

data they did collect, one needs to consider that their sample is made up of part-time

MBA students. While some part-time MBA students are pursuing the degree with support

from their employer and with the intention of staying with the same employer when they

graduate, many pursue the MBA as a way to facilitate a change of career. So, for

example, while they may find their work generally meaningful, they may still intend to

quit once they graduate. This study is a good first step towards connecting the concept of

spirituality to organization specific variables; but, as the authors themselves admit, it is

just a first step.

In their study of the spirituality of small business owners (SBO) and employee

health concerns, Bennett, Patterson and Wiitala (2004) found no relationship between

SBO spiritual orientation and reported employee health concerns. A significant inverse

relationship was found between SBO orientation and work-life “spillover” incidents

(issues arising from difficulties managing work-life stress). As data collected were

limited to the SBOs or their representatives, it is difficult to draw any solid conclusions

from this study. A study that includes reports from employees, and data regarding the

actual number and types of incidents, and measures of health and well-being are needed

to make the connection between the SBO spiritual orientation and employee health.

Duerr (2004) interviewed 79 people who have founded or lead organizations where

contemplative practices play an important role. Most of the interviewees worked in the

Northeast United States (44%) or on the West Coast (33%), in non-profit organizations

(88% of represented organizations). Duerr’s analysis of the interview data revealed the

42

emergent idea of contemplative awareness as an organizing principle for the workplace.

The five main characteristics of such a workplace are:

• incorporation of contemplative practices into all aspects of work—this

could include beginning all meetings with a moment of silence, providing

space for meditation or reflection, or reflective dialogue

• embodiment and exploration of organizational values—members of the

organization are actively engaged with the organization’s mission

statement through an ongoing process of reflection

• movement between cycles of action and inaction—there is an equal

emphasis on “outer” and “inner” work

• balance of process with product—high value is place not just on achieving

goals, but also on how they work towards the goals, focus more on

relationships than tasks

• organizational structure reflects a contemplative philosophy—

characterized by flexibility, spontaneity and very little hierarchy, may be

envisioned in circular form rather than the typical organization chart

Duerr (2004) found that many of her interviewees used nonspiritual language when

discussing or teaching contemplative practices in secular settings. Duerr suggests that a

contemplative approach transcends the “spirituality” label, and as such may be

appropriate in secular settings. Duerr also points out that the contemplative approach is

similar in some ways to Ashforth and Pratt’s (2003) enabling approach to spirituality in

the workplace. The contemplative approach is also consistent with aspects of the servant-

leader style of management. While the data are interesting, and suggest a potentially

43

valuable approach, Duerr’s (2004) sample was likely predisposed to valuing

contemplation. In addition to most of the interviewees being associated with non-profit

organizations, 31% identified themselves as Buddhist, and 27% identified themselves as

“spiritual, but not religious.” All of the interviewees were founders, directors, or senior

executives of their organizations. Additional research is needed to determine how well

employees of various backgrounds and levels within an organization would take to such

an approach, and how to implement a contemplative approach in an environment where it

has not been fostered from the beginning.

Powell (1998) conducted a study on the use of reflection in organizations, and

although not positioned as a study of spirituality in business, she states that “reflection as

a way of being. . . . [is] found as a ‘still small voice’ in the organization, expressed as

spirituality, the feminine, and human side of business” (p. xiii). Powell defines reflection:

as a practice of mirroring the present and past in order to discover and create meaning. . . The aim of reflection is to help the individual or organization to act, think, or be in a way that transforms the present into a more whole future. (p. 21)

I would suggest that reflection, as put forth by Powell, might be considered an active

and purposeful aspect of contemplation.

Powell states that both individuals, and the organization as a whole, reflected, that

patterns were holographic, and that the leadership played a major role in modeling when,

how, and whether to reflect (1998, p. xiii). However, it was also apparent that the ways in

which reflection were used in this particular organization did not tend to lead towards

growth and development in any meaningful way. Reflection, in this organization tended

towards single-loop learning (where they learn that a mistake has been made, but do not

generalize that learning into any meaningful ongoing learning, i.e., similar mistakes are

made over again), and reflection in forms such as planning, strategizing, and visioning (p.

44

xiii). In addition, those who spoke of spirituality in connection with reflection made it

quite clear that they did not feel free to talk about it in the workplace (1998, p. 208). One

participant went as far as to say, “I cannot talk about meditation here. . . there’s a strong

separation of church and state here, or church and business. . . reflection is probably the

core of my life. . . I mean it in terms of spiritual” (p. 209). Another person noted that he

could not really take any time to sit and reflect while at work, even when that time was

available, for if a superior happened by while he was sitting and reflecting, he might just

get more work assigned to him (p. 204). That last statement calls into question just how

committed the organization really is to reflection as a way of being, and suggests that the

organization studied by Powell would certainly not qualify as a contemplative

organization as outlined by Duerr (2004). That said, given that Powell’s (1998) sample

consisted of 57 of the 5000 employees of the organization studied, the findings can not be

considered conclusive.

In Levin’s (1997) study, reflection is also an important concept. However, Levin

includes it as a piece of a bigger whole as she takes a very different approach, studying

the impact of inner work on professional effectiveness. Her study of 30 executives and

professionals, all of whom had done some form of inner work, had a greater focus on

individuals, and on perceived outcomes. Levin’s thematic analysis of the data obtained

through in-depth interviews revealed several interesting themes:

The data suggested that inner work contributed to participants’ increased use of intuition, greater involvement of others, increased self-awareness as well as the awareness of others’ contexts, the need for authenticity, and changing values regarding work. Encompassing these five themes was an overall, global theme regarding the expansion of boundaries and the ability to see the bigger picture. (p. iii)

45

Levin’s study attempts to make a direct connection between inner work and job

performance. While this is an important link to explore, Levin’s study falls short of its

mark on at least one very important count—Levin’s data is limited to that obtained

through self-reports. While the participants may well believe they are better at decision-

making, dealing with others, using intuition, and so forth, there is no evidence presented

to support the conclusion that they are, in fact, more effective. Additional data, obtained

through observations of co-workers, superiors, subordinates, and clients, are needed to

make the connection more convincingly.

Hahn d’Errico’s (1998) study deals with spirituality more explictly—exploring “how

spiritual attitudes and beliefs impact the work of external organizational consultants” (p.

ix). Guided by her own belief that “with the acknowledgement of constant change as a

reality and a growing sense of the interconnectedness of all things, awareness of

individual philosophy and beliefs is pivotal” (p. 6), one of her stated aims in exploring

the connection of spirituality and work is to help business people “identify ways in which

the acknowledgement and interweaving of spiritual values influence work” (p. 5). Based

on interviews with 12 external organizational consultants of varying cultural and

religious backgrounds, all living and working in the U.S., Hahn d’Errico’s analysis

revealed themes such as: a clear distinction between spirituality and religion; spirituality

defined in terms of universal principles (e.g., unity, interconnectedness, compassion);

spirituality is a personal experience, and requires action, service, and self-awareness; the

sense that life is a series of inter-connected lessons, and that understanding of that can be

applied in their work; the importance, and difficulty, of maintaining balance and

46

detachment; and that their attitudes influenced their work, including through using

intuition (1998, p. x).

As with Duerr’s (2004) and Powell’s (1998) studies, Hahn d’Errico found that even

those participants who self-identified as very spiritually oriented and acted from a

spiritual foundation did not speak openly about spirituality with clients (1998, p. 320).

The reasons offered included a fear of being seen as proselytizing or as following a fad,

and the perceived resistance due to the separation of church and state (p. 321). It is also

interesting to note that Hahn d’Errico, not being American born and raised, was surprised

by this finding (p. 320). The question that is implied by this is the importance of the

larger culture within which an organization operates when considering issues of

spirituality in business.

Hahn d’Errico was also surprised to find that several of the consultants interviewed

mentioned their “concern about whether attention to spirituality in work settings

enhances the productivity of workers and the ‘bottom line’ of organizational goals”

(1998, p. 322). Hahn d’Errico had begun the project with concern about “the impact that

attention to spirituality in the workplace would have on people’s lives and well-being” (p.

322). From my own perspective, this highlights one of the challenges involved in

researching spirituality in business—some of us who believe that a spiritual approach is

necessary for the well-being of employees and society resist calls to “justify” it on the

basis of the “bottom line,” as the whole concept of maximizing the “bottom line” as the

ultimate measure of business success is seen as one of the things needing to be rethought.

That said, for businesses to remain in business, they cannot ignore the bottom line

47

altogether and the connection does need to be made between approaches to creating a

spiritual workplace and the various areas and levels of potential impact.

Mitroff and Denton’s (1999) study also investigated spirituality explicitly. In

addition to presenting the frameworks explored above for how spirituality might be

incorporated into the business context, Mitroff and Denton also used empirical research,

both qualitative and quantitative, to explore the meaning and place of spirituality in

“Corporate America.” From the analysis of the data obtained from their 131 mailed

questionnaires and 68 interviews, all with senior executives and human resource

professionals, Mitroff and Denton arrived at four general findings:

the data strongly suggest that those organizations that identify more strongly with spirituality or that have a greater sense of spirituality have employees who (1) are less fearful of their organizations, (2) are far less likely to compromise their basic beliefs and values in the workplace, (3) perceive their organizations as significantly more profitable, and (4) report that they can bring significantly more of their complete selves to work. (p. xiv)

Their data suggest that while people want to bring spirituality into the workplace,

they find that there is a lack of positive role models of just how to do so. As also found in

the studies by Powell (1998) and Hahn d’Errico (1998), many respondents indicated a

fear of even raising the topic of spirituality while at work (Mitroff & Denton, 1999, p.

xvi). One of the most telling findings in this study was the presence in many respondents

of feelings of deep ambivalence (p. 44); while they wanted to be able to express their

spirituality in the workplace, most were hesitant to do so. Among the concerns they

voiced were fear of offending their peers and concern about whether such expression

might leave them open to being taken advantage of (p. 44). (Interestingly, although many

of the interviewees in Duerr’s [2004] study indicated they did not speak of contemplation

in spiritual terms, that was not characterized as coming from a place of fear. This is

48

perhaps partly due to the nature of Duerr’s sample, but I wonder if any of the difference

might also be due to changes in the organizational climate between 1999 and 2004.)

When asked what gave them meaning in their work, the number one answer given

by Mitroff and Denton’s respondents was “the ability to realize my full potential as a

person” with “ being associated with a good organization” coming in a close second

(1999, p. 36). When asked what parts of themselves they could bring to work, most

responded that they felt comfortable bringing their intelligence and creativity far more

than their emotions or soul (p. 37). As Mitroff and Denton point out, when looked at

together, the answers to these two questions indicate a clear gap between the ideal and the

actual situation (p. 37).

The quantitative data collected in their study measured respondents’ perceptions of

their organizations on such scales as: warm vs. cold; rigid vs. flexible; autocratic vs.

democratic; turbulent vs. calm; profits-first vs. people-first; tolerant vs. intolerant; and

others. On almost every measure, those organizations that identify themselves as more

spiritual were superior to those identified as less spiritual (p. 49).

In closing the section on their research findings, Mitroff and Denton underscore the

importance of spirituality in the workplace with a quote from one of their respondents:

I believe that there is no alternative to organizations becoming more spiritual. The only organizations that will survive are those that have a deep value base. But values are not enough. Most of corporate America doesn’t realize it, but we are running out of gimmicks to motivate the workforce. The only thing that will really motivate people is that which gives them deep meaning and purpose in their jobs and in their lives in general. This thing is not a gimmick. Whatever you call it, it is spiritual at its base. (1999, p. 52)

Although their study is cited as one of the first studies in spirituality in business with

a solid grounding in empirical evidence, like others it relies solely on self-report data

from senior executives and professionals. In addition, about 25% of the interview data

49

was from individuals who were members of business alliances and professional

associations formed for the purpose of promoting spirituality in the workplace. As such,

while this research is valuable as an early move into the empirical study of spirituality in

business, it is unclear how generalizable their findings are.

With the majority of empirical research on spirituality in business published to date

focusing on the self-reported perceptions and experience of senior managers and

professionals, it is not clear what the real implications are for organizations as a whole.

The studies available provide a basis for understanding what these senior people are

thinking, how they view spirituality, and ways in which they think it can be, and is being,

incorporated in business, but they provide a partial picture at best. Although there are

some studies that include data from a broader range of stakeholders, they are dealing with

limited aspects of the topic such as the relation between spirituality and work related

stress. The voices of employees are noticeably missing from the research on the broad

operationalization of spirituality in the workplace.

Summary

Seeds that were planted over 30 years ago, calling for a new approach to leadership,

management, and business in general, have begun to sprout, first in the popular press, and

more recently in academia. The field is still quite young, and the empirical research on

issues of spirituality and business is just getting started—certainly more needs to be done.

We are beginning to get a better idea of what spirituality means to people in the business

context, and have some models for how it might be incorporated. However, to date the

majority of the empirical research that has been published is limited either to relatively

narrow explorations of the connection between individual spirituality and other business

50

concerns, or to self-report data from the executive suites of organizations. While both are

important, neither approach presents empirical evidence of the impact or effectiveness of

taking any specific approach to spirituality throughout the organization as a whole. The

theoretical frameworks available are interesting and provide a sense of what might be, but

have not been supported with research drawing data from the front lines all the way to the

boardroom to determine what works and what does not.

This study aims to play a small part in addressing that issue. As with many other

studies in spirituality in business, this represents a preliminary foray into a particular

aspect of the field. I believe that it is vitally important for the theory being developed to

be informed by empirical research that includes all levels of the organization, and is not

limited to self-report data. I agree with others (Benefiel, 2003; Lund Dean, Fornaciari, &

McGee, 2003; Neal & Bennett, 2000) that research into spirituality in business should not

be limited by methods traditionally accepted and expected in management research. Also,

given the highly individually determined nature of the meaning of spirituality, I agree

with Freshman (1999) and others (e.g., Ashforth & Pratt, 2003; Krishnakumar & Neck,

2002), that one needs to remain open to the variety of definitions and understanding that

will be present in any given setting, and that people should be free to experience

spirituality as they understand it themselves.

It is with these issues in mind that this study explores the operationalization of

spirituality in business by collecting data not only from all levels of the participating

organizations, but also by using both quantitative and qualitative methods. In addition,

through the use of a projective assessment technique, data is collected from the intuitive,

implicit, nonverbal level of participants’ understanding of the topics explored. Thus,

51

rather than look for evidence of particular aspects or features of spirituality that are

consistent with one definition or another, no definition is required or offered. Each

individual’s own implicit understanding of spirituality is drawn out and compared with

their implicit understanding of their organization, providing an indication of their

perceptions of the spirituality of their organizations at a level not constrained by the

limitations of language and rational comparison. Combined with interview and survey

data, and an assessment measuring expressions of spirituality, the resulting profiles of the

organizations may provide additional insight into some of the issues of operationalization

addressed in the frameworks available for understanding spirituality in business.

52

Chapter 3: Research Methods

General Design

To explore spirituality in the business context I chose a multiple case study method,

wherein I gathered both qualitative and quantitative data from each of three companies.

Case studies are considered to be a good method for researching phenomena as they

occur in the everyday world (Yin, 1984, p. 13). By following a case study approach, I

was able to collect data from multiple sources and from several different angles which,

when taken together, provide a comprehensive picture of the organizational cultures and

internal dynamics as they relate to the perceptions of the spirituality of the organizations.

Issues of Validity

Internal Validity

Internal validity is the degree to which the findings of the study accurately measure

or describe the phenomena being explored. In this study, there are several potential

threats to internal validity, including: the possibility that employees’ answers to questions

were colored by how they perceived their superiors would like them to respond; the

degree to which the employees who chose to participate may or may not have been

representative of the organization as a whole; the incomplete and possibly inaccurate data

collected through self-reports; the possibility that communication among respondents will

have affected their responses; and the ambiguity of the term “spirituality” and its nature

as a highly individually understood concept.

Threats to internal validity were handled in several ways. First, the design itself

addressed this issue in part; by collecting data using several different methods and

instruments, some of the potential for inaccurate interpretation due to false positive or

53

false negative reporting was reduced. In addition, the nature of the Projective Differential

(see the Instruments section below for a description of this method of assessment) is such

that areas of inconsistency of reporting are actually captured and highlighted as a part of

the analysis. Furthermore, the Projective Differential provides an effective means to

allow participants to maintain and respond from their own, implicit understanding of

spirituality without contamination from me, or the limitations of language.

In order to further minimize threats to internal validity, I paid close attention to

procedure. For example, in presenting myself and my study, I differentiated myself from

a consultant brought in by the company, intending to make it clear to all employees that I

was not working for the company and would not be making specific recommendations

for change. I assured all respondents that their participation would be held in confidence,

and that said confidentiality would be protected in part by having all assessments and

questionnaires returned directly to me, rather than through the organization. In addition, I

further ensured adherence to issues of confidentiality by allowing each of the assessments

completed by employees to be done using code numbers for which only I had the

reference. Pseudonyms were used for all executives completing interviews and

assessments, as well as for the organizations themselves.

External Validity

External validity is the degree to which findings of a study can be generalized. By

their nature, case studies may be subject to questionability regarding external validity.

One way in which I intended to handle this threat was by conducting my research in three

separate, unrelated organizations. While this does not ensure generalizability to the whole

of the business community, it does significantly strengthen external validity as compared

54

to a single case study. By analyzing all data both within and across the participating

organizations, thus comparing and contrasting the findings, allows for increased

confidence in their external validity.

Participants

The individual participants in this study were the management teams and employees

of three participating, for profit, business organizations. Selection criteria were based

primarily on organization level factors rather than individual participant qualifications.

The primary means of identifying organizations for potential inclusion in this study were

references from academic advisors, family members, and magazine articles. As an

organization was identified as possibly fitting the profile I was looking for, I initiated

contact by email or phone (see Appendix A for the information provided at the time of

initial contact). In the few cases where my initial contact person was interested in the

study, we discussed the particulars via phone or email. The primary criteria for

participation included:

1. the organization was privately held

2. the organization had been in business for at least 5 years

3. there were between 50 and 200 employees

4. the organization was a viable entity (see Appendix B for a discussion of

viability in the context of this study)

5. the organization was located in the San Francisco Bay Area

6. the leadership of the organization had to state that they were trying to

operate their organization on spiritual principles or in an explicitly

spiritually congruent way

55

After a period of time with little success finding suitable organizations that were

willing to both spend the time and open themselves up to my exploration, I chose to relax

the criteria somewhat. Of the organizations that did participate in this study, none was

located in the San Francisco Bay Area, and one had slightly fewer than 50 employees.

The three organizations varied in terms of degree of how explicitly spiritual they were.

One of the organizations was a co-operative credit union, and as such is not exactly

“privately held.” I also became aware that in most cases I would not gain access to

detailed financial information prior to formalizing our commitment to work together,

therefore the use of financial information for pre-screening was dropped. However,

relevant financial ratios are provided as part of the data collected.

Data Collection

I collected both qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative data were obtained

through the use of semistructured interviews with the executives and a survey instrument

completed by employees. Quantitative data were collected using the Expressions of

Spirituality Inventory and the Projective Differential process coupled with a Semantic

Differential, completed by executives and employees.

Semistructured Interviews

Each member of the management or executive team of each organization was asked

to participate in a semistructured interview (see Appendix C for questions). My intention

with the interviews was to learn about the executives’ own sense of spirituality, their

general approach to, or philosophy of business, and specifically how they incorporate

spirituality into how they run their business. Using a semistructured format allowed room

for the exploration of unforeseen areas of discussion, should they arise, while ensuring

56

that the predetermined specific areas of inquiry were covered. In most cases, I used the

questions as a rough guide to ensure that I was covering the areas in which I was

interested; however, in most cases I found I had to refer to the questions only

infrequently.

Customized Employee Survey

After the completion of in-depth interviews with the executives of each organization,

I developed a survey instrument to be administered to employees (Appendix D). The

survey was partially customized for each organization, based upon the interview data

collected for the organization. By customizing the survey based upon the interview data

from each organization, I was able to ensure that the questions asked were relevant and

partially specific to each organization.

Expressions of Spirituality Inventory

The Expressions of Spirituality Inventory (ESI) is a 98-item self-report instrument

using a 5-point Likert scale designed to measure a five factor descriptive model of the

expressions of spirituality. The five factors are:

1. Experiential/Phenomenological

2. Cognitive Orientation Towards Spirituality

3. Existential Well-Being

4. Paranormal Beliefs

5. Religiousness

The ESI was developed by Douglas MacDonald (2000) as a result of his recognition

that there were a large number of assessments of spirituality, each of which seemed to

measure somewhat different dimensions, albeit with some degree of overlap. MacDonald

57

completed an extensive review of both theoretical and empirical literature in order to

develop inclusionary and exclusionary assumptions regarding spirituality.

These assumptions can be summarized as follows: (a) spirituality is a multi-dimensional construct that includes complex experiential, cognitive, affective, physiological, behavioral, and social components; (b) spirituality is inherently an experiential phenomenon/construct that includes experiences labeled as spiritual,

religious, peak, mystical, transpersonal, transcendent, and numinous [italics in original]; (c) spirituality is accessible to all people and qualitative and quantitative differences in the expressions of spirituality can be measured across individuals; (d) spirituality is not synonymous with religion but reflects a construct domain that includes intrinsic religiousness; and (e) spirituality includes paranormal beliefs, experiences, and practices. (p.158)

In order to develop the ESI, MacDonald (2000) used an exploratory factor analysis

procedure to determine if there were underlying factors in existing measures of

spirituality that “could be used as the basis of an organizational model of spirituality” (p.

157). The measures he used in this study were: the Spirituality Assessment Scale (SAS),

Spiritual Orientation Inventory (SOI), Index of Core Spiritual Experience (INSPIRIT),

Mystical Experiences Scale (MES), Peak Experiences Scale (PES), Intrinsic Religious

Motivation Scale (IRMS), Self-Expansiveness Level Form (SELF), Transpersonal

Orientation to Learning (TOTL), Ego Grasping Orientation (EGO), East-West

Questionnaire (EWQ), and the Paranormal Beliefs Scale (PBS). MacDonald had a sample

of 534 students complete each of the assessments. A factor analysis was performed using

all scales and subscales and resulted in the generation of six stable factors (the five

described above, and Products of Spirituality).

A pool of 218 items was then constructed in order to measure the six dimensions

discovered. With a sample of 938 university students, a principal axis factor analysis

found that Products of Spirituality consistently loaded on the factor identified as

Cognitive Orientation to Spirituality, thus five factors were decided upon (MacDonald,

58

2000, pp. 171-172). The 218 item inventory was reviewed in order to revise the items for

inclusion based on how strongly they load on the expected factor, how meaningfully they

contribute to the intradimensional factor structure, level of corrected-item-to-scale

correlation, and contribution to the scale reliability (p.174). After this refinement, 98

items remained, with all items producing strong loadings on the expected dimensions. In

further study, the ESI was found to have reliability coefficients ranging from .85 to .97.

Item-to-corrected-dimension total score correlations ranged from .40 to .80 for all items.

For my study I used a revised, short-form of the ESI, made up of 30 items, six for

each dimension measured. The ESI-Revised (ESI-R) was developed by MacDonald

(2000) primarily as a result of feedback from research participants that the 98-item

version was too long, contained too much repetition, or contained difficult to understand

statements (the reverse/negatively worded statements, primarily a problem for

participants whose first language is not English). The 30 items for the short form were

selected from the 98-item ESI based upon uniqueness of content and evidence of

satisfactory psychometric properties. The ESI-R has psychometric properties similar to

that of the 98-item version, producing scores with good reliability (alpha ranging from

.80 to .89), and satisfactory factorial validity.

In addition to using the ESI-R with the management team members in order to assess

their expressions of spirituality, I had employees complete the ESI-R as well. This was

to allow for the exploration of differences between the spiritual expression of executives

and employees, to provide additional information that would help to explain possible

discrepancies between executive and employee perceptions of spirituality in the

organization.

59

The Projective Differential and Semantic Differential

Both the Projective Differential (PD; Raynolds, 1970) and the Semantic Differential

(SemDf; Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957) are more means of assessment than

assessments of a particular issue. Each PD session is completed with small groups of

people engaging in the assessment process at the same time. This assessment technique

provides the opportunity to obtain both “R-mode” and “L-mode data.” Derived from

studies on the “left-brain” vs. “right-brain” processing of information, “R-mode” refers to

symbolic, intuitive process, which may also be below the level of conscious awareness.

“L-mode” refers to verbal, logical processing. Thus, the PD provides data regarding

nonverbal, implicit levels of knowing, opinion, and belief about the organizations and

spirituality.

Using a projective technique, the PD allows one to obtain information from

participants at a non-verbal level. In the version of the PD used in this study, five abstract

images, similar to Rorschach inkblots are used (Raynolds & Raynolds, 1989). For each of

the topics being assessed, the five images are presented in all of the 10 paired

combinations (see Appendix E for the images and the topics used in this study).

Participants are asked to hold a thought, feeling or image of the topic in their mind, and

are then presented with each image pairing in sequence. They briefly view (i.e., for less

than 1 second) each pair of images and quickly decide upon which of the pair is

“somehow more like” the issue in question. The information obtained is not influenced

by thoughts of expectations, appropriateness, or other considerations that may come into

play when one completes a questionnaire or verbal assessment. Thus, when used in

conjunction with other methods of assessment, the PD is useful in providing indications

60

of inconsistencies, and may raise the question about how one “really” feels about an

issue.

In addition, when the results for the different questions assessed are compared, an

assessment of the degree to which the issues are aligned can be made. For example, if one

run of the pairs of images is done with “this organization” as the issue in question, and

another is done with “spirituality” as the issue in question, a comparison of the results

will indicate the degree of alignment between the organization and spirituality, as

perceived by the individual at an implicit, pre- or non-verbal level. Depending on the

topics compared, there are also different types of alignment that can be measured.

Comparing topics to an “anchor” topic such as “myself,” results in a measure of the

participants’ identification with the topic. By comparing topics to another anchor topic,

“preferred image,” we obtain an evaluation of the topic. Degrees of similarity between

topics are obtained by comparing PD choices on any other two topics. The “score”

resulting from the comparisons are known as same-choice-scores (PD-SCSs).

The projective (R-mode) portion of the assessment is supplemented by using SemDf

(L-mode) assessment completed for each topic question (sometimes a numerical rating of

participants’ conscious feelings of the topic will also be used). The SemDf uses a verbal

scale to assess connotative meanings of topics (see Appendix F for the SemDf used in

this study). Bi-polar word-pairs (e.g., hot-cold, hard-soft) with an 8-point scale between

each pair are used to derive three dimensions of meaning: evaluation, potency, and

activity. The semantic differential used in this study utilized 20 word pairs, of which 10

were evaluation word-pairs, five were potency word-pairs, and five were activity word

pairs. Similar to the PD data, the SemDf results can be used to generate evaluation,

61

identification, and similarity scores (SD-SCSs) that can then be compared to the PD-

SCSs to uncover areas of disparity between the implicit, nonverbal and explicit, verbal

perceptions and expressions of the participants.

The final step for each individual participant is to view each of the images again, this

time for several seconds, and to give each one a name. This provides additional

intriguing, qualitative data that may uncover some interesting issues and insights

regarding the organizational climate. (Names and descriptions were collected for this

study and are presented in appendixes; however, they have not been included in the

analysis of the data.)

In a paper submitted to the 1992 International System Dynamics Conference,

Raynolds and Raynolds (1992) demonstrated how the PD method of assessment could

uncover underlying problems within a small hotel chain that were not accessible through

L-mode (verbal) methods. In this case, using the PD with groups representing middle and

top management, it became clear that the two groups’ perceptions of the organization,

and its potential, were in conflict and that the development of a new strategic

management vision would be required to achieve the desired sales revenue increase. For

example, the president’s impression of the full potential of the organization was opposite

that of middle management, and the vice-president appeared to be satisfied with the status

quo.

In the months that followed the study, the president chose not to follow the vision

that had been suggested by the PD assessments and interview data, and while the

president reported that sales had increased and expenses declined, some of the middle

managers indicated that the quality of the work environment had deteriorated. In addition,

62

several executives and managers had either been transferred or had left the organization

altogether.

In another paper, Raynolds (1997) described two studies which used the Projective

Differential to evaluate the effects of transformational training (referring to “highly

complex, ambiguous, or personally involving simulations, games, experiential exercises,

and educational programs” [p. 286]). In the first, the PD was administered to students in

an undergraduate course in organizational behaviour at the University of Southern

California. After taking part in a creativity training module, the effects were assessed

using both the PD and a semantic differential. The non-verbal PD uncovered quantitative

effects of the creativity training that were missed or showed up differently in the verbal

SemDf, including a heightened process orientation that was completely missed by the

SemDf measures (p. 304). The second study also involved students in an undergraduate

organizational behaviour course, this time at Northern Arizona University. In this case,

the JOG exercises (a set of exercises derived from the PD), were used to assess the

effects of the class which included simulations, games, and experiential exercises with

transformational objectives. The results from the JOG exercises showed significant

qualitative changes in individuals’ self-perceptions. Differences in the number of times

particular pictures were chosen on the topic of “Myself (the way I really am)” between

early and late testing in the semester indicated a qualitative shift in self-perception (p.

310) that might be difficult to assess using L-mode assessment tools.

Peter Raynolds trained me in the administration, scoring, and analysis of the PD.

Therefore, I was able to facilitate the groups myself, as well as to score and interpret the

data with Raynolds’ assistance.

63

Procedure

As agreements were made with each organization for participation in the study, I

was put in touch with an individual who would be my primary contact within the

organization with the responsibility of facilitating my visit. In each case, my

organizational facilitator arranged space and equipment, and scheduled both the

management team interviews and group assessment periods. The means of organizing the

individual participation of employees within each organization was left up to the

organizational facilitators. I had hoped all employees and executives would participate.

Meetings with management team members were scheduled for 1 hour, and lasted

between 30 minutes and 1.5 hours. Each participating executive read and signed an

Informed Consent (see Appendix G) form at the beginning of our meeting, providing

them an opportunity to ask procedural questions before we began. All interviews were

recorded on both audio cassette tape and a digital recorder. Digital copies were sent to a

professional transcriptionist.

Group assessment sessions were scheduled for 1 hour, and generally lasted between

45 minutes and an hour. At the beginning of each, I provided a brief overview of the

purpose of the research, and reviewed the Informed Consent form (see Appendix H),

ensuring that all employees understood that their participation was voluntary, and giving

them the opportunity to ask questions. After collecting the Informed Consent forms I

conducted the Projective Differential process for the six topics being assessed, beginning

with a short, unrelated sample run and opportunity for questions to ensure the participants

understood what to do. Next, participants were given time to complete the Semantic

Differential and ESI-R. Although not an official part of the research process, after the

64

data collection was complete, I also allowed time for questions, and a group exercise

using the names they had chosen for the images for those who wished to do so.

Within a week of completing the primary data collection at each organization, I

prepared the employee survey. With the first organization, I initially made the survey

available online, and provided notification of its availability to all employees via e-mail.

Upon receiving only two submissions after one week, I sent paper copies of the survey

with stamped, addressed envelopes to my contact in the organization to distribute to the

employees. For the following two organizations, I provided both online and paper

versions of the employee survey. In all three organizations, the response rates for the

survey were low. Possible reasons for the low response rates include: reliance on my

contact at each organization to follow-up with employees; making the survey available a

week or more after I left the organization, which may have made it too remote; given the

nature of the questions, perceptions that the work required too much time or too much

thought given the amount of time they had already given to this project.

Treatment of Data

Management Team Interviews

Management team interview data were analyzed for broad issues with spiritual and

organization culture relevance. I began by reading each of the interview transcripts before

beginning any detailed analysis to reacquaint myself with the executives and what they

shared. Reading through all of the interview transcripts also provided me with a broad

overview of the material with which I was dealing. During a second read-through of the

transcripts, I made notes of themes and areas of interest. I then used a software program,

TAMS Analyzer (Weinstein, 2005), to code the transcripts. During that process I

65

developed additional codes, eventually reaching 82 codes, some of which involved

overlapping concepts. I then reviewed the codes and grouped them into a few broad

categories that allowed me to create a profile of each organizations’ culture as it related

to spiritually relevant issues such as definitions and measures of success, commitment to

employee well-being, and community service.

Customized Employee Survey

I had intended to perform a similar level of analysis on the data collected from the

employee survey; however, very low response rates for the survey made that

unnecessary. Survey data were reviewed for significant discrepancies with the

management interviews, and are presented as data worth noting, yet too limited from

which to draw any solid conclusions.

Projective Differential and Semantic Differential

The first step in analyzing the PD results was to score the data using an Excel

spreadsheet template provided by Peter Raynolds. The spreadsheet calculates three key

types of information: epitomizing pictures; consensus; and same-choice-scores. The

epitomizing picture scores are determined by calculating how many times each image

was chosen as a percentage of the number of times it was presented; thus, epitomizing

image scores can range from zero to 100, and the image with the highest rate of being

chosen is the epitomizing image for the topic assessed. The epitomizing image is thought

of as being the most representative of the topic for the cohort. Two types of consensus

scores are calculated: choice level and image level. The consensus scores measure the

degree to which the choices made were non-random. The choice level consensus scores

measure the departure from random across the 10 choice-points for each topic. The image

66

level consensus scores measure the departure from random across the five images

presented for each topic. The consensus scores provide an indication of the degree to

which a group has similar feelings about, or a shared understanding or perception of a

topic. The Projective Differential same-choice-scores (PD-SCS) are comparison scores,

determined by calculating the percentage of times the choice of image made for one topic

was the same as the choice made for another topic. Broadly speaking, the PD-SCSs

provide a sense of how similar two topics are perceived to be. By using the topics

“myself,” “preferred image,” and “spirituality” as “anchor” topics to which all other

topics are compared, PD-SCSs are obtained that indicate cohort identification with,

evaluation of (or attitude towards), and perceived spirituality of each topic. For the

purposes of this study, I have not included every possible comparison; only comparisons

with the topic “spirituality” have been included in the presentation of the data, providing

PD-SCSs that indicate: attitude towards spirituality; identification with spirituality;

perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort; perceived spirituality of the organization as

it is; and perceived spirituality of the organization at its best. The Semantic Differential

data were scored (also using an Excel spreadsheet template provided by Raynolds) to

produce analogous scores for comparison. Comparing the SemDf same-choice-scores

(SD-SCS) with the PD-SCS, results in scores indicating levels of INcongruence.

INcongruence scores are the difference between the explicit, verbal expressions as

measured by the SD-SCSs and the implicit, nonverbal perceptions as measured by the

PD-SCSs. INcongruence is understood as the degree of disparity between what one is

able, or willing to express at a rational, conscious, verbal level, and what one perceives at

a pre- or non-rational, nonverbal level. INcongruence indicates the presence and degree

67

of either subtle (or not so subtle) pressure to present a positive impression, or possibly

denial. INcongruence can also be indicative of the degree of importance placed on a

topic, for as the words in the SemDf are invested with meaning and emotion to the degree

that the topic matters to the participant, their SemDf results will tend towards the

extremes.

Throughout the analysis of the data, I use both tests for statistical significance and

effect size. I completed all tests for statistical significance using the SPSS Graduate Pack

version 11.0.4 for Mac OS X. I used a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet template (CEM

Center, 2005) to calculate all effect sizes. Given the small sizes of the executive cohorts,

and the uniqueness of the PD/SemDf data, I chose a conservative approach to the

significance testing, using non-parametric tests in all cases. I chose to be less

conservative in that I performed all pairwise comparisons regardless whether the main

statistical tests showed any significance. While such “fishing expeditions” are sometimes

frowned upon and run the risk of a high familywise error rate, this approach is not

considered as problematic as it once was (Howell, 1997, p. 351), and is reasonable when

doing exploratory studies; I do report actual p values for all tests, allowing the reader to

understand more precisely the degree of significance. Given the nature of the PD data and

the importance of understanding context in order to fully interpret the results, this

approach seems reasonable. Effect sizes presented are Cohen’s d values, which provide

an indication of the magnitude of the difference between topics or cohorts being

compared. Cohen’s d is calculated as the difference between the means divided by the

standard deviation. Cohen’s d values can be interpreted on a scale where d = .20 is

considered a small difference, d = .50 is a medium difference, and d = .80 is a large

68

difference (p. 217). In this study, I use words that are more consistent with the topic, so d

< .20 is “neutral” or “not very meaningful,” .20 < d < .40 is “modestly spiritual” or

“somewhat meaningful,” and .45 < d < .75 is “moderately spiritual” or “moderately

meaningful” and so forth. My intention is that the effect size is used in a way similar to

the quasi-subjective, qualitative assessment of the PD data that has been the norm; as

such, I have maintained a modest degree of the use of judgment in how the scale is

applied to the differing contexts. This approach is consistent with the evaluation of the

meaning of d as suggested by Howell (p. 217), using a mix of prior research, personal

assessment of “how much” difference is important, and Cohen’s own scale.

The presentation of the PD related data includes the epitomizing images and

consensus scores without any additional quantitative comparisons or analysis. The PD-

SCSs for each cohort are presented, along with the effect size as an indication of the

strength of the PD-SCS. The effect sizes presented were calculated based on a

comparison with a hypothetical, perfectly neutral result. The random expectation for PD-

SCSs is 50% (the same choice made on two topics 50% of the time). For a truly neutral

cohort-level PD-SCS, I also assumed that the distribution would be perfectly flat, with a

standard deviation of 31.784. Cohen’s d was calculated using the standard deviation of

the neutral condition. This comparison provides a sense of “how spiritual” the cohorts

perceived the topics to be as compared to neither spiritual nor not-spiritual (i.e., no

relationship).

The PD-SCSs for the two cohorts in each organization are also compared, using the

Mann-Whitney U-Test and Cohen’s d for effect size. These comparisons tell us how

different the cohorts being compared were in their perceptions of the spirituality of the

69

topics. I also performed between-topics comparisons for each cohort, using Wilcoxon

matched-pairs signed-ranks tests and Cohen’s d for effect size, providing a sense of the

within-cohort relative levels of perceived spirituality. The between-topics comparisons

are provided in appendixes.

INcongruence values are presented next. INcongruence values are calculated by

subtracting the PD-SCSs from the SD-SCSs for each topic for a cohort, and are an

indication of the degree of disparity between the explicit, verbal expression and the

implicit, nonverbal perceptions of the spirituality of the topics. Both significance and

effect size measures of the INcongruence values are presented. Significance was

calculated using Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Tests between the SD-SCS and PD-SCS for

each topic for each cohort. The effect sizes of the INcongruence use the SD-SCSs and the

PD-SCSs and the pooled standard deviation to calculate Cohen’s d. The effect size of the

INcongruence provides a sense of how meaningful the disparity is for the cohort on each

topic. Between-cohort comparisons for each organization are also presented using Mann-

Whitney U-Tests and Cohen’s d using pooled standard deviations for each topic

compared. This comparison provides an indication of how similar the cohorts were in

terms of their degree of INcongruence, and therefore their experience of pressure or

emotional import of the topics. In addition, I performed between-topics comparisons of

INcongruence levels for each cohort using Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Tests and Cohen’s d

using pooled standard deviations of the topics to gauge the relative levels of

INcongruence for each cohort. The between-topics comparisons are provided in

appendixes.

70

In addition to the within-organization comparisons between cohorts, I also

performed comparisons among the organizations for each cohort level (i.e., among

management cohorts, and among employee cohorts). For each of the PD-SCSs and the

INcongruence levels, I used Kruskal-Wallis tests as the first level of analysis to determine

whether there were any statistically significant differences among the cohorts. I followed

the initial tests with all pairwise comparisons, using Mann-Whitney U-Tests and Cohen’s

d calculations using pooled standard deviations. These comparisons provide a sense of

the differences among the management groups, and among the employee groups of the

three organizations in terms of their perceptions of the spirituality of the topics and the

amount of disparity between their verbal and nonverbal responses.

Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised

The ESI-R results are presented following the PD data for each organization. Each

cohort’s subscales means and standard deviations are provided in appendixes. I have also

included an ESI-R Total mean, which is the sum of the subscales in order to provide a

more general sense of relative levels of spiritual expression overall. Between-cohort

comparisons of ESI-R subscales were performed using Mann-Whitney U-Tests and

Cohen’s d using pooled standard deviations for each organization. These comparisons

provide an indication of how similar management and their employees are in their

spiritual expression as measured by the ESI-R. I also performed between-subscale

comparisons for each cohort to get a sense of the relative strength of each of the ESI-R

subscales. Between-subscales comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon Signed

Ranks Tests and Cohen’s d calculated using pooled standard deviations.

71

I also compared whole organization ESI-R results to the means of two known

samples: the Norms from MacDonald’s (2000) development of the ESI; and two groups

from the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology’s Transpersonal Assessments Practicum

(using the “pretest” data from two classes in 2002; Raynolds, personal communication,

November, 2005). These comparisons help to place the results of the organizations

studied in a broader perspective to provide a sense of relative meaning. Cohen’s d values

were calculated using pooled standard deviations.

Comparisons of ESI-R results among same-level cohorts were also performed to

provide a sense of the differences in the spiritual expression between the organizations.

Comparisons were done using Kruskal-Wallis tests first to determine if there were any

significant differences among the cohorts on each of the subscales. Those tests were

followed by all pairwise tests for each subscale, using Mann-Whitney U-Tests and effect

sizes calculated with pooled standard deviations. In addition to the among same-level

cohort comparisons of ESI-R subscales means, I performed comparisons between whole

organization ESI-R subscale means—using the same testing protocol—to provide a sense

of the differences in the expressions of spirituality of the organizations. The primary

rationale for including the whole organization comparisons of ESI-R data is the fact that I

used the whole organization ESI-R subscale means to gain perspective on the spiritual

expression of the organizations in comparison to known populations; therefore, it seemed

appropriate to compare them to one another as well.

Delimitations

This study was delimited to privately held organizations with between 45 and 200

employees. The primary reason for this decision was my expectation that leadership

72

would have greater freedom to influence privately held organizations through their own

beliefs—an expectation based on awareness that management of publicly traded

companies must answer to a much broader set of stakeholders, many of whom are

primarily concerned with financial return only. I also wished to study organizations that

were large enough to be relatively complex, yet small enough that the influence of

leadership was not too diluted by the time it reached “lower” levels of the organization.

The implications of this decision are that any conclusions made may not be

generalizable to organizations that are significantly larger, or smaller, in terms of

employee count, or organizations that are publicly traded. The degree of applicability is

discussed in chapter 5.

Departures From Plan

There were a few ways in which the study has changed from what was originally

proposed in response to various unanticipated difficulties:

• The proposal included a plan to collect thoughts and questions from two

alumni groups, of which I am a member, to help ensure the management

interview questions were addressing issues of interest to business people.

Both alumni groups denied my request to post announcements on their

email lists. I decided the contribution that might be provided by these data

was not worth the additional time to pursue other avenues.

• I had intended to use financial information as part of the process for pre-

screening organizations. That may have been a little naïve, as the

willingness to share financial information was somewhat variable, even

after agreeing to participate. Financial information was collected, but not

73

until after arrangements for participation had been made.

• All organizations were to be located in the San Francisco Bay area in

order to make the process both more affordable and convenient, especially

if multiple visits would be required. Although I did meet or correspond

with a few Bay Area companies, we were unable to come to suitable

arrangements for their participation. As a result, none of the participating

organizations was local.

• I intended to complete in-depth interviews with employees to supplement

the employee surveys. I did make arrangements to make a second trip to

the first organization to interview employees, and upon my arrival

discovered that only two had scheduled time to speak with me. As all three

organizations required air travel and accommodations to visit, it was not

feasible to follow a procedure that would require the additional time and

expense. In addition, had I done enough employee interviews at each

organization to obtain meaningful data (i.e., enough to provide comfort

that it was not just the extremely happy or extremely angry employees

speaking with me), I would not have had the space to present it here. I do

believe that in-depth employee interviews would be a valuable addition to

this study, but were I to plan the procedure now, I would schedule them to

take place after the initial analysis of the Projective Differential data to

provide a context for a more relevant and focused interview.

• I had proposed that I would rank organizations based on a PD meta-score.

Discussions with the originator of the PD led to the recognition that the

74

PD data are so multi-dimensional that any meta-score is meaningless at

worst and somewhat arbitrary and entirely contextual at best, if such a

calculation could be determined at all. We ultimately decided that the

potential payoff in terms of additional understanding of the data would be

negligible.

• I set out to explore spirituality in the context of three organizations that

had, by their own evaluation, been successful in incorporating a spiritual

approach in order to uncover some specific, transferable ideas for making

spirituality a part of an organization’s culture. Of the organizations that

did participate, none would claim they had “figured it out,” and one of the

three did not use the term “spirituality” at all. As such, this study is less

about uncovering and evaluating specific policies and procedures than it is

about three very different approaches to trying to be open to spirituality

and being values-based.

75

Chapter 4: Findings

In this chapter, the data are presented first by organization, then by between-

organization comparisons. The section for each organization includes a brief description

of the company, followed by qualitative, and then quantitative data.

The qualitative data provide a sense of the culture of each organization, with each

“profile” organized around a few key themes and/or exemplars that serve as indicators of

the organization’s culture and the nature of the work environment, including:

Initial impressions—My initial impressions of each organization are relevant to the extent that their willingness to go out of their way to participate in this research may be an indication of their commitment to the idea of “spirituality in business.” This also provides an “outsider’s” view of how the organization presents itself.

Measures of success—How each company defines and measures success is indicative of how they prioritize and balance the potentially competing interests of their culture and the need to make a profit.

Employee performance management—The ways in which the organizations deal with issues such as performance appraisals provides a sense of how management views employees.

Flexibility in work style—The degree to which flexibility is present in the work environment may indicate the degree of trust and autonomy present; it should be noted that the degree of flexibility that is feasible may be determined in part by the nature of the business.

Commitment to personal growth, well-being and wholeness—Differences in the ways in which this commitment manifests provide a view of how employees are valued beyond their instrumental utility.

Workplace community—How people in the workplace relate to one another, and the degree to which that is explicitly attended to, may be indicative of, or may contribute to how connected employees feel to the organization.

Community service—How each organization views and practices service in the wider community provides a sense of where they place themselves in a broader perspective than their own self-interest.

76

Spirituality/Values—The degree to which spirituality or “values” are explicitly and implicitly expressed and reinforced contributes to the perception of the organization as being spiritually grounded.

The profiles are drawn from the interviews with senior management, materials the

company provided to aid my understanding of their organization, employee surveys, and

my own observations while visiting the organization. Although each profile is divided

into sections, there is a good deal of overlap, and some examples provided easily fit into

more than one section.

For purposes of readability, repeated instances of meaningless phrases such as “you

know,” and “like,” have been removed from interview quotes without ellipses being

added in their place. To protect confidentiality, names and details of each organization

and individual have been altered, in some cases resulting in the need to change parts of

quotations. In no case have any changes been made that would alter the meaning or

intention of the speaker.

The quantitative data include results from the Projective Differential (PD), Semantic

Differential (SemDf), and the Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised (ESI-R), and

are presented by topic, senior management and employee “cohorts” separately, and in

comparison to one another. Some data are also presented for each company as a whole.

Comparisons between the cohorts of the three organizations follow at the end of the

chapter, after each organization’s data have been fully presented.

For each organization, the Projective Differential Epitomizing Images are presented

first. The epitomizing image for each topic is the image that was chosen at the highest

rate as a percentage of times it was presented as an option for the topic. The topics

assessed with the PD were: the organization as it actually is; the organization at its best

possible; the opposite cohort; “myself” as I really am; preferred image; and spirituality.

77

The epitomizing image is understood to be representative of the topic for the participating

cohort; the higher the rate at which it was chosen, the stronger the implicit associations

between the image and the topic are for that cohort. The images are abstract and carry no

inherent meaning other than that which participants project onto them, and for the

analysis done in this study it is not important to know what the image chosen for a topic

was, but only how the choices among topics compared. Having said that, having

participants give names or descriptions for each image after completing the projective

assessment can provide an additional, qualitative level of understanding of their

responses and the organizational dynamics. For the purposes of this study, the image

names and descriptions have not been analyzed, but are included in appendixes.

Also important when considering the epitomizing image is the degree of consensus.

As described in chapter 3, there are two levels of consensus: by choice, and by image.

Both levels of consensus are presented. Consensus calculations represent the degree to

which the organization or cohort made similar choices, and is therefore how similar their

perceptions, feelings, and understanding are of each topic.

The rest of the PD data presented are from the “Spirituality” related subset of the

data collected (i.e., comparisons with the topic “Spirituality” rather than all possible PD

comparisons). First, the Projective Differential Same Choice Scores (PD-SCS) are

presented. Expressed in scores from 0 to 100 representing the percentage of times the

same image choice was made for both topics being compared, the PD-SCSs indicate the

similarity between the choices made on one topic and the choices made on another topic.

Three types of same-choice scores are used in the current study—evaluation,

identification, and perceived spirituality. Comparing choices made on the topic “Prefer”

78

(the preferred image in each pairing) with the choices made on the topic “Spirituality,”

produces a PD-SCS indicating the organization’s or cohort’s attitude towards spirituality.

Comparing choices made on the topic “Myself, as I am” with the topic “Spirituality”

results in a PD-SCS that provides a sense of the cohort’s degree of identification with

spirituality. Comparing the image choices made for the topic “Spirituality” with each of

the remaining topics, provides PD-SCSs representing the perceived spirituality of the

organization as it is, the organization at its best, and the opposite cohort (the opposite

cohort assessed by executives is the employee cohort, and vice versa). Thus, the PD-

SCSs provide a good sense of the “how much” and “where” of “Spirituality” within the

organizations.

Within-cohort comparisons among PD-SCSs provide a sense of the degree to which

each topic was perceived by the cohort to be more or less spiritual than the other topics.

Between-cohort comparisons of PD-SCSs indicate the degrees and types of similarity

between the management teams and their employees in their attitudes towards and

identification with spirituality and their perceptions of the spirituality of organization-

related topics.

INcongruence levels are presented next. The term “INcongruence” refers to the

disparity or disconnect between participants’ implicit, intuitive, nonverbal (perhaps pre or

subconscious) perceptions and their explicit, rational, verbal thoughts or expressions

regarding the spirituality of the topics. INcongruence scores are the difference between

the Semantic Differential Same Choice Score (SD-SCS) and the PD-SCS for each topic.

The SD-SCSs are derived from the administration of the SemDf for which the same

topics were used as for the PD. For this study, the SemDf data and SD-SCSs are not

79

themselves a primary concern, but used solely for the purpose of comparison with the

PD-SCSs (SD-SCS data are included in appendixes). High INcongruence scores may

indicate subtle pressures or expectations (possibly unspoken, or even unconscious) to

create or present a particular impression, or possibly a low level of awareness or high

level of denial. It is also possible that the participants’ awareness of the purpose of this

study influenced their SemDf responses and therefore their SD-SCSs, and in turn, the

INcongruence levels.

Within-cohort comparisons among INcongruence scores are provided to indicate

how the degree of disparity between the implicit and explicit perceptions of the

spirituality of the topics differs between topics, and thus whether the pressure

experienced by the cohort to appear positive is topic-specific or more general. Between-

cohort comparisons of INcongruence scores provide a sense of the differences between

the management teams and their employees in the amount of pressure they each

experience to appear positive in their assessment of the spirituality of the topics. When

presenting the INcongruence results, I generally write of the pressure to perceive things

in a certain way, pressure that may or may not be explicit, or even conscious. I use the

term “pressure” partly out of convenience, intending to indicate that something was

present to cause a differential between the nonverbal and verbal responses.

ESI-R data are presented next, including cohort means for the ESI-R as a whole and

mean scores for each of the subscales. Within-cohort comparisons of ESI-R subscale

means indicate the relative “strength” of each of the subscales for each of the cohorts.

Between-cohort comparisons of the ESI-R subscale means provide a sense of the

similarity between management teams and their employees in their orientation towards

80

spirituality. To provide additional context for understanding the spirituality profile of the

organizations, ESI-R subscale means are compared to a set of “norms” from

MacDonald’s original study (2000), and to data from the Institute of Transpersonal

Psychology (ITP) Transpersonal Assessments Practicum (Raynolds, personal

communication, November, 2005), positioning each organization in relation to two

known populations. The ESI “Norms” are from the test development and validation

sample of 938 university students; the ITP sample is a combined sample of two classes of

students attending ITP, a graduate school of psychology that explicitly includes

spirituality in the curriculum.

Comparisons between the management (EXEC) and employee (EMPL) cohort

results for each of the types of data illustrate the degrees and types of similarity or

dissimilarity of their perceptions. Are management and their employees on the same page

and if so, how so? and if not, where are the disconnects?

Following the data for each organization, comparisons between cohorts of the same

level from each organization and comparisons between whole organizations are

presented. This provides a view of some of the ways the organizations themselves are

similar or different.

The Projective Differential is not a typical pencil and paper, quantitative assessment.

Although numbers are derived from the data and statistical tests can be performed, the

nature of the assessment and analyses processes are such that interpreting the data by

strict standards of statistical methodology may not be appropriate (Raynolds, personal

communications, Fall, 2005). So, although statistical analyses have been performed on

these data, the language used to describe the results is more suggestive than conclusive. I

81

tend to put more weight on effect sizes than statistical significance, as explorations into

the statistical analyses of PD data have shown effect size calculations to be highly

consistent with the years of experience of the PD’s author and the quasi-subjective,

qualitative assessment of some aspects of the PD data heretofore typically performed.

Wisdom Works

Wisdom Works (WW) is a publishing company whose product line focuses on

spiritual wisdom and transformation, and personal-growth-related products. At the time I

visited WW, there were 45 employees, most of whom worked in a single building. A

small portion of the employees worked in a warehouse not far away. The company got its

start almost 20 years ago with the Founder and CEO selling products related to

spirituality and personal growth at conferences. Since then WW has grown to have

annual sales in excess of $9 million (see Appendix H for financial ratios).

Initial Impressions

Wisdom Works’ Human Resources Manager (HR Manager) was put in charge of

helping organize my visit in terms of securing the space and equipment I needed and

scheduling group assessment sessions and executive interviews. During my visit, the HR

Manager made himself available to answer questions and provided me with materials. He

also checked in with me after each session to see that everything was proceeding

according to my needs, including whether everyone was showing up for the group

sessions. Although I was not formally introduced, it seemed that everyone at WW knew

who I was and why I was there. In addition, it was clear from the schedule that nearly

everyone in the organization would be participating in the study. After most group

sessions, at least one or two people stayed for a few minutes to discuss spirituality, the

82

research I was doing, or the Projective Differential. My impression was that, as an

organization, WW was committed to helping me get the data I needed and to the idea of

“spirituality in business” in general.

Management Team Interviews, Company Materials, Personal Observations

Interviews were conducted with all three members of the WW management team.

Materials provided include the WW Employee Handbook and a statement of the “Core

Aspirations of Wisdom Works” (see Appendix I).

“Wisdom Works is a company whose mission is to disseminate spiritual wisdom to

as many people as possible, while keeping our corporate culture healthy, sane, and

balanced.” This is the mission statement provided by the Founder/CEO prior to my visit.

According to the Core Aspirations document, WW is both mission-driven and profit-

driven—acknowledging that in order to fulfill the mission, WW needs to be financially

healthy.

The measures of success. When asked how they define and measure success, all

three members of the senior management team indicated that staying true to the mission

was the most important factor of success, while at the same time acknowledging that

financial success was necessary to meet the mission. Financial success was therefore

sometimes seen as being at the top of the list, yet not significant beyond the basic need to

make enough to stay in business, cover rising costs, and provide a modest return.

CEO: Some of the fiscal reality is how much money does this company have to make? Where’s the money going anyway? Why does it have to make a 10% profit? For who? For me?. . . One aspect of success is that you have to be profitable. . . how profitable is a different question. . . . For a company like Wisdom Works, between $8-9 million in sales, if we don’t have at least $200,000 in profit, that’s not okay, because that’s how much you need just to be okay when the roof caves in. . . . I don’t know how much more than that you need to have to be successful. . . If there was a $10 million in sales, having at least a 2% profit, I

83

don’t know, I think something’s wrong in a business like this. I would feel much more comfortable with this company being successful in the 5 and 6 range, 4, 5, 6 range. . . . ‘cause I think that gives us some breathing room. And it’s just the feeling of, if there is a downturn. . . we’re protected against that.

Associate Publisher (AP): It’s important to have a mission. And the way that I define success at Wisdom Works is, how well are we really meeting the demands of our mission, which is to disseminate spiritual wisdom and then meeting it while staying in business?. . . They [financial concerns] could never really be number one for me, not in this particular organization, maybe in another. But the reason I’m here, the reason this company exists is not really for any financial reward per se. But at the same time, obviously, we need to stay in business.

It was clear that WW could make a lot more money if they were to make some

different decisions, but that it would mean not being faithful to their mission.

Chief Operating Officer (COO): If she [the CEO] asked me, how much more money could we make, I can show her all kinds of tasks to make a lot more money, but they don’t fit with the mission. . . striking that balance between the business financial side, and the spiritual [the CEO] mission side and I think I’ve been successful at recognizing how to keep that balance. . . . Other people may come in—from a strictly financial background, “What the hell are you guys doing? You’re passing up all this opportunity.” But sometimes you need to say, “That’s okay. We recognize that we’re past that. We recognize that we’re not making as much money as we could, but, we’re true to our mission, true to ourselves.” The key, for a company like Wisdom Works, is to recognize that there are multiple measures and then understand how to balance them.

The CEO recognized the potential tension between the mission and the marketplace.

According to the AP, however, danger may exist in defining the mission too narrowly; it

is important to balance following the mission and producing products that will have an

audience.

CEO: You could say we could have all kinds of growth if we were being market-driven. It could also be the end of the whole shebang. It could be disaster, because whatever goodwill we have would go down the drain. . . . We could also make a lot more money. Look at [competitor]. . . believe me, they’re making a lot more money. And they’re growing at a much more rapid pace. But I don’t think the material is really doing anything except giving people some aphorisms about positive thinking and stuff. It’s not really getting into the roots of people’s patterns.

84

AP: There’s a certain amount of sacrifice, I mean we are relating to the marketplace. And so having to choose items for publication that we may not be that behind. . . . We have people in our marketing [saying] “Can’t you please just give us something that we can sell every once in a while?”. . . there’s certainly a certain amount of compromise, and we try to limit that, but it’s a constant. . . . Sometimes we can get a little narrow in our own definitions of what is really useful or helpful to other people. . . . That’s probably the biggest drawback to having to trying to have a spiritual emphasis is—Whose definitions are we using here? Who’s in control? Is there some judge, some arbiter of what’s spiritual and what’s not, in terms of the products that we choose?. . . Are we willing to sacrifice maybe our taste and standards for something that might really help someone that we might not normally be interested in?

Whatever the pressures to do things differently, the mission is important enough that

after going through a process of exploring selling WW, the CEO decided against letting

go of it in part because she was not willing to risk the mission for her own financial gain.

CEO: I realized after I got pretty deep with a couple potential buyers, that the people who were interested in buying the company would turn it into something very, very different than it was. The people that supposedly had “spiritual values,” believe me, the more I sat and talked to them at the table, the more I saw that Wisdom Works was supposed to be a money machine and how it would change our publishing mission and how much of the integrity of the mission would go away. . . . And then secondly, what it would do to the culture would be—it just wouldn’t be Wisdom Works anymore. And it felt like it would be a kind of betrayal to myself—the business was never supposed to be about my personal wealth. It was about a service and a cultural function. And to suddenly make it about my own comfort and wealth would backfire on me personally over time.

Other measures of success mentioned by the management team include the quality of

their products and how many people they are reaching. The quality of relationships both

within the company and with their authors, suppliers, and customers was also seen as an

important measure of success.

CEO: Very close to number one would be the quality of the products because if the products actually are just things for people to [play with], then what’s all this effort for? So the products actually have to kick. People have to use them and evolve—not just insight, but people have to experience really genuine transformation from the products we release. . . . If we made a lot of money and the products weren’t good, I would say shut the doors. I wouldn’t be able to be here, from my definition, it wouldn’t be successful. . . . Then the third thing, would be a whole quality of our relationships with each other. . . like how much

85

love did we generate? Wisdom Works’ probably had its most loving year this year. . . . It’s not the year of the best products, unfortunately, but it’s the sweetest year, so that’s a big one. “Sweet” is maybe a weird word, but it communicates the quality of the community and that goes to the quality of our relationships with our customers and everyone because when people are in that kind of mood, there’s a generosity.

Employee performance. The Employee Handbook outlines a formal performance

review process, indicating that job performance is evaluated by team leaders on an

ongoing basis, with hourly employees receiving a more formal review every 6 months,

and salaried employees receiving formal reviews annually (and less formal reviews semi-

annually). Included in the review process are: a self-review, a team review, a

performance appraisal, and an upward review (anonymous feedback to evaluate a

supervisor’s performance). During their interviews, the management team suggested it

was neither quite so formal, nor a firmly set policy.

CEO: In the self-appraisal they have to really look at how they performed the last year and also to set goals for themselves for the next year. . . . The most important part of the process is when I read their self-appraisal, do I think we’re basically in the same ballpark or not?. . . Most of the time I read the self-review and I think “Huh, that makes sense.” It’s balanced. . . . And then I dream a vision for them that’s like, “What’s my vision of what this person could be? How could they really grow here? What could they do that would blow my mind such that I would want to write them a $10,000 check?”. . . Then I type up a document that’s like my dream document. And then we go over it together. And that usually works well. People like having a dream dreamed for them.

AP: Well, it’s really been a very experimental sort of process as far as performance reviews. . . . We have sort of forms that you fill out, rate from one to five. . . . And then we’ve experimented with more group based sort of review sessions, where we sit down in a team of five or six people and each person gets a chance to speak about how they feel they’re doing and then each person in the group would comment with, “Here are your strengths and weakness, here are your areas for improvement,” rather than just sort of a manager to an individual employee which always seemed a little one-sided. . . . But that doesn’t work for everybody. It seems like every year we come up with some new review process. And there’s no formal way that managers have to do it. We give a lot of discretion to how different managers want to handle the review process. . . . We encourage creativity.

86

Performance reviews at WW may be relatively flexible when an employee is

performing reasonably well; however, performance problems are generally dealt with in a

more formal manner.

AP: So if someone is not really performing like we think they should or is the wrong hire or something, we have a standard sort of process for that. There’s first, obviously, just to sit down and chat with the manager. . . . Then it gets more formal with each step. The next step would be some sort of probation type period. . . . Then we have sort of an employment-at-risk, which is the next formal process where the probation period didn’t work and then you have actually 30 days now to turn this around, and if nothing, then you’ll have to leave. So we have a pretty specific process of how that kind of thing works.

Flexibility in work style. Generally, the work environment was described as very

flexible. The CEO indicated that the flexibility was there from the beginning, simply

because that is what works for her.

Well I always believed very, very heavily from the very beginning in flexibility because I’m a weird person. I like sometimes to work at 3 in the morning. I like to sleep late. I like to sit on the floor—and I just thought I’m not going to tell people how to do it. I don’t care when they do their job.

The CEO acknowledged that her style is not for everyone, and that good hiring

choices are a part of making it work.

When I’m interviewing people to report to me, I make sure they’re the kind of people who want to work independently. A certain type of person likes that. . . . It seems like there’s a natural selection process that happens around here. We have a 90-day trial with people and you can usually tell when people are fitting in or not and certain people are going to just start wagging their tails. They just love the fact that they’re given so much freedom and other people start looking a little lost. It often is not a good time.

The creative side of the business feels the effects of this management style most

directly, because that is where the CEO is most directly involved. The rest of the business

is overseen by the COO who, according to the CEO, “is much more of a structure-

oriented person.” However, the CEO’s flexible approach does extend throughout the

organization; number 7 of the Core Aspirations is “We strive to be flexible about work

87

schedules.” Provided arrangements can be made to ensure that the job is getting done,

WW management is very accommodating when it comes to employee requests for time

off or adjusted work schedules.

CEO: If somebody comes to me and says, “I want to take a yoga class on Thursday mornings and come in late,” it’s like “Well what do I care? Just work late, whatever. Figure it out. Talk to your manager. As long as the team is fine, I don’t care.”. . . For example, there’s a woman. . . wanted to go spend 2 months working with some kind of animal shelter out in Nevada or something and would we hold her job for her for 2 months. And it was like “Yeah.”. . . we had to hire a contract person who didn’t know any of our systems and it was pain. . . how could you say no? This is something she really cares about.

There is also flexibility afforded to teams in terms of how they organize themselves,

and how they achieve their goals, which is set out in Core Aspiration number 8. All this

flexibility is not without limits, however. The CEO related a situation where one team did

not want her to hire a replacement for their departing manager, suggesting they could

“self-manage”. Despite her reservations, she agreed. When it became clear that

personality conflicts were derailing the experiment, the CEO stepped in and appointed a

manager (eventually one team member had to be let go). Flexibility, then, is the ideal,

and leads WW to be open to trying to do things differently, but cannot be at the expense

of getting the job done.

It was also apparent that there is a good deal of flexibility in both the individuals’

workspace décor and personal attire. Employees tended to adorn their workspaces with

personal items, including photographs, posters, toys, and plants. Overhead lighting was

kept off in most areas of the building, allowing individuals to determine the amount of

light was comfortable for them through the use of desk and floor lamps. According to the

Employee Handbook, “There is no dress code” except where employees may be

88

representing WW at an external conference or other public function, in which case it is

simply requested that employees dress in a professional manner appropriate to the event.

Commitment to personal growth, well-being and wholeness. Another important

principle is the support and encouragement of the personal and spiritual growth of

employees, and the recognition of the wholeness of people as being of value. For

instance, the AP mentioned the importance of creating a sangha (a term used in Eastern

spiritual traditions, typically referring to a “community of practice”) and having WW be a

place where people can come and work on themselves. The COO said:

I’m also very open to people in sitting around, talking about, “What do you want to do with your life?” “How can I help in that process? How can Wisdom Works help in that process?” Sometimes that direction that somebody wants to go is part of Wisdom Works and sometimes it’s not, but that’s neither good nor bad. It’s what’s best for the person.

In addition to the flexibility to allow employees to pursue their personal growth and

other interests, WW provides financial support for seminars, courses, and retreats.

Although a greater portion of the cost is covered where the course is perceived to be

directly related to one’s job, resources are available for situations that are more purely

personal or spiritual growth related.

AP: We have spiritual retreat reimbursements and we’ve experimented with a lot of different things. . . . We have had people that need to leave for a certain time to do a retreat and that’s what their high priority is so, if someone says “Hey, I’d like to do this 1-month retreat,” we really want to figure out how to help them do that.

COO: We do have an educational assistance plan. . . somebody is not going to get paid to go get their MBA or their master’s in Psychology. We’re not that big of a company in the financial structure and such that we could do that, but we do encourage that to a degree. We do encourage people to take classes, whatever, for personal growth, for professional growth.

Although WW has policies regarding leaves of absence, encourages employee

participation with visiting authors, and provides financial support for programs of

89

personal and professional growth, the CEO is not sure that growth can really be achieved

through specific policies.

CEO: I want to do more to support the total growth of the people, but I don’t know if that can be done through a policy. I think it’s more just through things like that when people come forward, where do you meet them?. . . For example, our new sales manager who we’re counting on to grow the company by 10%, wants to teach dance class on Monday mornings which is when the company really kicks. . . so she told me 30 days into it that this is her opportunity. . . . And I thought, this is one of the only people around here making a six-figure salary and she wants to go teach a dance class on Monday morning. And I thought she should teach a dance class. . . . The way we probably help people grow the most is a certain type of meeting style and communication style in which people are really encouraged to talk about their whole experience, so you can check in at the beginning of the meeting, “How are you feeling? What’s going on?” It’s not just about the work. . . . it’s more that the whole environment is naturally humanized than that we have a set of training policies or something to help people become whole, growing people.

Although support for the growth and wholeness of employees is consistent, the ways

in which it is put into practice can and do change over time. There is a meditation room

on the premises, and employees are free to use it whenever they wish during the work

day; number 9 of the Core Aspirations is “We aspire to honor and include a

contemplative dimension in the workplace.” The Employee Handbook indicates that

there are “. . . individuals on staff who are skilled meditation teachers in a variety of

meditative or contemplative traditions. Monthly introductory classes are held during paid

work hours.” At the time of my visit, one employee, a massage therapist, was given space

and time to do massage. They were also completing construction of a workout area where

employees could attend to their physical well-being while at work.

The AP said having an environment where personal development is the norm can

affect how conflict is managed:

When you have people that are interested in working on themselves, are serious about, developing, I think that when conflicts arise, it makes it a very—something

90

very different happens. I think you find less anger probably in the building. . . . I think it affects some interpersonal conflict type situations a lot in the building.

Workplace community. The second Core Aspirations statement is “We build

workplace community,” which discusses prioritizing all-company meetings, events,

rituals, and opportunities to “foster authentic connections with one another.” Several

other items in the Core Aspirations statement deal directly with community and the

workplace environment, including the encouragement of authenticity, open

communication, welcoming pets into the work environment, and the honouring of a

contemplative dimension. The AP said that community goes beyond a collection of

people working together:

A lot of people really look to Wisdom Works as their sangha. This is where their spiritual brothers and sisters are that when they have difficulties they have a community. . . . The way people relate to each other here is very special and I think it’s because this container really encourages personal development and spiritual development.

For a time, WW had “salons” where, once a quarter, employees could put up their

artwork or photography, read their poetry, or display their collections. Wine and cheese

were served, and everyone was encouraged to attend. As long as there were employees

interested in sharing something, the salons continued, when there was no interest, they

stopped. Employees have an informal lunch club where they take turns cooking for each

other. Some bring their dogs to work, and are free to take them outside to play during the

work day.

When discussing seeing the company through the eyes of consultant, the CEO

suggested that it did not look very businesslike, yet was important to Wisdom Works

being what it is. According to her, the consultant said,

“What’s going on in the kitchen every day? Is this like a gourmet palace? Everybody’s cooking. You got your copywriter, he’s cooking lunch. What do you

91

mean? What do these do? They’re cooking for—they’re stirring the tofu. . . . The only person around this place who’s moving quickly is the massage therapist.” And I was like, “John, calm down.”. . . . But it was funny to see the company through his eyes because I could think, “Well this is what makes Wisdom Works Wisdom Works, which is why people like it here.” We’re not giving people stock options or a gazillion bonuses. . . what people really like is they have so much freedom and so much respect for their wholeness, meaning their emotional life, being able to be present at work, being able to build friendships, being able to cook their own lunch and have a lunch club. . . So it’s not, “Oh, let’s give them that because we can’t give them money.”. . . It’s more like this is consistent with what this company is, sweet, independent. I mean all of our products are about being in the present and all the rest, so how could we not offer this to people?

Community as a daily reality was also apparent to me, as during my visit, whenever

I encountered people in the hall, the kitchen, or outside, I would be asked how it was

going. WW employees offered to share the food they were preparing, and I was also

invited to the company Christmas party. Much of the time I could hear what appeared to

be casual conversations, including a good deal of laughter. Each of the 4 days I was there,

someone different would bring in food and cook lunch for those who wished to partake.

Throughout the day I saw people taking their dogs outside; often two employees would

go out at a time and then chat while the dogs romped. On a couple of occasions

employees went outside to play for a few minutes by tossing a football or frisbee. On

Friday afternoon, they invited in a local artist to show and sell his work in the building

lobby.

Community service. During the interviews, the Wisdom Works executives did not

mention specific types of community service or volunteerism as a part of what they do;

however, the AP made it clear that he views the whole mission of the company as one of

service, “[The CEO] and I both want a way to serve, to bring spiritual wisdom to the

world. . . . ” The CEO’s whole philosophy of business has to do with service:

Really care about what you’re doing. Be ready to tear your arms off for what you’re doing. Think of it as something that’s really going to help the world, that

92

makes a difference. Don’t worry about making money, not in the beginning. I wouldn’t focus on that. Don’t worry about it’s a cool idea to impress people you think it’s a good idea. None of that matters. Is this the idea that you think is actually a major benefit to society, that you can stand and talk about and care about and believe deeply in, that you actually think it’s going to help move the culture forward in a really genuine way? If that’s not the seed of it, then just go back and keep thinking. If that’s the seed of it inside of you and every part of you can genuinely light up and say “Oh, my God, this will really help people and this is something I can do,” and there’s a sense of, contribution, redemption, all of the qualities that make your life feel like it’s lighting up, then it’s almost like you will succeed, you will, as long as you’re not a real idiot. If you just listen to some smart people who understand numbers and you take the feedback and go. The service part is really key.

Although the interviews did not bring to light specifics of community service at

WW, the Employee Handbook does detail a few things in that area. WW will match

employees’ donations to a maximum of $300 per employee per year. Employees are also

allowed to take up to 8 hours of work time every 2 months to work for a nonprofit

organization as a company donation of employees’ time. In addition, WW contributes to

the Prison Library Project whereby customers who donate certain items to the project

receive a $10 gift certificate towards purchases from the WW catalog.

Spirituality/values as part of the company’s culture. The mission of Wisdom Works

relates directly to spirituality, therefore it is no surprise that they talk openly about

spirituality and its role in the workplace. The CEO’s perspective is that one cannot really

shut off one’s spiritual side, so a person who is spiritual will be spiritual at work:

Whoever you are is who you are in business. So if you’re a spiritual person, you’re going to be spiritual in business. It would be pretty weird to be a spiritual person but not be a spiritual person in your business. I mean, what happened? When do you turn the switch off and when do you turn the switch on? I don’t really get that. . . . The whole business is a reflection of my spiritual and religious beliefs. I mean that’s all I am and the business is a reflection of me and so I’m like where would I start? Where would I end?

The AP made the point that in the early days, WW was itself a sort of spiritual

community of like-minded people. As WW has grown, there has been a recognition that

93

not everyone will approach their spirituality in the same way, and attention needs to be

paid in order to avoid putting people off:

It was a serious sangha scene, we all meditated together. That was pretty early on in Wisdom Works’ history. [We thought] ‘This is cool and this is what we want.’ [But] running a really small business is very different than running a medium-ish-sized business. We needed sales and marketing and operations type people that were not people who had just spent a few years in India. They were coming from business school and they could help us build the business in an intelligent way. We attract a different kind of people and then we just realized that this really isn’t about some spiritual cult. This is about the mission and yes, we’re going to bring our spiritual selves to work with us, but that doesn’t need to become offensive. Everyone has their own relationship to spirituality and how they want to bring that to the workplace. . . . But now there’s too many people that aren’t here for that reason and we don’t want the requirement that you have to be into some spiritual trip or spiritual practice to be here.

The CEO indicated that the intent to operate from a spiritually grounded perspective

has not changed, although the ways in which it is expressed have changed as a result of

who is involved and what their particular interests are:

I can’t say it’s really changed. In any given year, the complexion looks different. . . we had a Human Resource Manager who was a mindfulness meditation teacher. . . we had mindfulness meditation courses. Now [the current HR Manager] is doing massage. We were doing salons when we had several writers who wanted to read their writing. Now we’re not doing salons.

The AP also made it clear that even with increased numbers of people for whom

spirituality is not the central reason they work at WW, having a culture where people can

work on themselves and can engage in their spiritual practice, is important:

The importance of having Wisdom Works be a place where people can come and work on themselves—what it means to be in a relationship with other people, the need to be honest in your communication, right and kind speech. We want that because we strive to have that with our employees at Wisdom Works. We’ve gone through different phases of how much we emphasize that and we don’t want this to be a cult or anything. . . . There are definitely handfuls of people that work here that that’s not why they’re working here. But I’d say there’s a good chunk of people that work at Wisdom Works that actually embrace it. This is a place where you can make a decent living, but it can also be a place for your spiritual practice as well.

94

The COO made it very clear that, from his perspective, incorporating spirituality into

the culture has to be done for the right reasons in order to be meaningful and successful:

If a company wants to adopt or incorporate spiritual wisdom or practices into the organization, but isn’t willing to walk the walk, then, to me, it’s just another business fad and you might as well forget it ‘cause it ain’t going to matter. It’s more than just a decision that says, “How am I going to run my business better next year?” It has to come from within the individuals. Unless the individuals involved incorporate that as part of their life outside of the business, just trying to do it inside a business to me is a charade—don’t even bother. . . . don’t come in here and tell me you’re trying to be respectful and stuff and you go home and kick the dog and beat the cat. It just doesn’t do it. . . . You have to be that person or be striving in that direction as an individual in order to be able to truly bring it to the workplace and to commit to doing that.

The fact that the very mission of WW is related directly to spirituality was seen by

the AP to affect the “energy” of the culture.

It really is a spiritual mission. It’s not about any particular religion or spiritual practice, but this is the reason we’re here. I think it brings people together. . . some people really want to know that they’re doing something out there that’s useful. . . at Wisdom Works it’s a place where people can come and feel like they’re helping. So I think when you have now 60, 70% of your staff sort of feeling that they’re actually really rallying around some spiritual purpose it changes the energy.

The CEO suggested that the spiritual grounding of WW impacts both potentially

positive and negative situations and decisions:

We had to deal with layoffs and how we were going to do it. Now we have to deal with how we’re going to deal with the bonus plan and the profit-sharing and who’s going to get all the money and how are we going to divide it up?. . . Layoffs were just the opposite, but it still had the spirituality to me, which was the process which is “Okay, we’re trying to come up with something here that’s really the best for everybody concerned.”

Having a spiritually grounded culture is seen as integral to the identity of WW, but it

would be a lot easier to run a company without the spiritual dimension.

COO: I see drawbacks. . . . It would be a hell of a lot easier to run the business without having this element to it. But then it’s not what I want to do. . . . It would be a hell of a lot easier, but it wouldn’t be Wisdom Works and it wouldn’t be me and it wouldn’t be [the CEO] and it wouldn’t be anybody that’s here.

95

The AP acknowledged that there are also non-business related drawbacks to having a

spiritual approach.

A certain kind of spiritual snobbery I know Wisdom Works can be accused of from time to time. There’s a tendency, more so 3, 4, 5 years ago, but to me, there could be sort of a cultish type of situation, meaning, “if you don’t share the passion for spirituality that we have here, you shouldn’t be working here. There’s probably something better for you to do.” again, some snobbery.

Another value was openness. The CEO indicated that WW had had a “no secrets”

policy from the beginning. During a casual conversation with the HR Manager, I learned

that shortly after WW had experienced a failed attempt to grow into new markets, it was

decided that sharing financial information was not enough. In order to ensure that along

with information there was understanding and context, WW had all employees participate

in a seminar called “The Game of Business” which, among other things, taught everyone

how to read financial statements.

Employee Surveys

Of the 42 non-management-team employees at Wisdom Works, 7 completed the

employee survey. With such a small completion rate (16%), it is difficult to draw

definitive conclusions about the employees’ perceptions of WW from the surveys.

However, a few things of note may indicate areas for further exploration.

All respondents but 1 answered the survey in a way that was largely consistent with

what I was told by the management team. As only 1 respondent dissented on several

questions it is not possible to make broad generalizations based on his answers; however,

the primary issue appears to grow out of the individual’s sense that he is not being

supported enough in his position. He felt strong energy, such as anger, was not given

enough space within the WW environment, and instead tended to be shut down. Another

respondent said that “within the context of any small company, a certain amount of

96

hegemony tends to fall into the hands of people who lack the experience to be mature

custodians of that authority” and that decisions were sometimes made with too much

emotion and personality rather than reason and foresight. On the other hand, this same

respondent felt the overall balancing of spirituality and business in general was being

accomplished pretty well at WW. Blending and balancing a spiritual approach and

business was the one issue where there was the least agreement. Three respondents

simply answered that they felt WW did a good job of managing that balance. One said

that WW should be credited for trying, but that the “business model is more effective.”

Two felt that sometimes too much importance was placed on the financial bottom line.

Quantitative Data

All 3 members of the Wisdom Works senior management team (WW EXEC Cohort)

completed all of the quantitative assessments (N = 3 for all WW EXEC data). Of the 46

non-management employees (WW EMPL Cohort), 37 participated in this study; of those,

34 submitted complete and valid data sets (N = 34 for all WW EMPL data).

Epitomizing images. Table 1 displays the epitomizing images for each topic of the

Projective Differential for both WW cohorts. (See Appendix J for names and descriptions

WW gave to the images.)

97

Table 1

Epitomizing Images ~ Wisdom Works Cohorts

Topic Epitomizing Imagea (% chosenbc)

WW EXEC WW EMPL

Organization ~ Actual E (100.0) A (54.4)

Organization ~ Best E (100.0) A (65.4)

Opposite Cohort E (100.0) D (60.3)

Myself ~ Actual E (100.0) A (55.1)

Prefer E (100.0) A (57.4)

Spirituality E (75.0) A (65.4)

Note: WW EXEC = Wisdom Works Executive Cohort (N = 3). WW EMPL = Wisdom Works Employee

Cohort (N = 34). Organization ~ Actual = the organization as it actually is; Organization ~ Best = the

organization at its best; Opposite Cohort = the opposite cohort of the respondent (i.e., for employees, the

opposite cohort is the executives, and vice versa); Myself ~ Actual = myself as I actually am; Prefer = the

preferred image.

aMultiple epitomizing images indicates a tie; (i.e., each image was chosen the same number of times). bPercentages are based on the number of times an image was chosen as a percentage of the total number of

times the image was presented. cAs the epitomizing image’s percentage chosen increases, the fewer images

are “close” to being chosen with the same incidence, thus the epitomizing image more fully represents the

topic.

The WW EXEC cohort chose image “E” almost every time it appeared as a possible

choice. Only on the topic “Spirituality” did this cohort choose another image when

presented paired with image “E.” This suggests that this particular cohort did not greatly

differentiate between these topics, and likely that there was a high degree of agreement

between the three executives on how they perceived the topics. The WW EMPL cohort,

on the other hand, chose image “A” for every topic except “Opposite Cohort,” for which

“D” was the epitomizing image, and in no case was an epitomizing image chosen that

was as clearly representative as was the case for the WW EXEC cohort’s choices. WW

EMPL chose “A” as epitomizing image for both spirituality and the organization at its

best, 65.4% of the times it appeared; the rest of the topics’ epitomizing images were

chosen between 54.4% and 60.3% of the time they were presented. Although these results

98

suggest that these two cohorts viewed each of the directly assessed topics somewhat

differently from one another, between-cohort same-choice-scores would have to be

calculated for each topic to determine the actual extent of the differences. For this study,

the more relevant measure is the level of perceived spirituality of each of the topics, for

which same-choice-scores have been calculated.

Consensus levels. Table 2 shows the levels of agreement between the participants in

each cohort on the individual choices (df = 10) and the images (df = 5).

Table 2

Topic Consensus Levels ~ Wisdom Works Cohorts

Topic Sum 2a p(df10) Sum 2b p(df5)

WW EXEC

Organization ~ Actual 24.667 6.014E-03 26.667 6.623E-05

Organization ~ Best 19.333 0.0362 20.667 9.363E-04

Opposite Cohort 19.333 0.0362 20.667 9.363E-04

Myself ~ Actual 22.000 0.0151 24.000 2.171E-04

Prefer 22.000 0.0151 24.667 1.616E-04

Spirituality 14.000 0.0173 16.667 5.177E-03

WW EMPL

Organization ~ Actual 6.588 .7637 5.588 .3484

Organization ~ Best 29.647 9.782E-04 33.118 3.566E-06

Opposite Cohort 16.824 .0784 11.706 .0391

Myself ~ Actual 11.059 .3530 7.177 .2078

Prefer 17.765 .0591 17.412 3.782E-03

Spirituality 37.882 3.978E-05 37.059 5.829E-07

Note. WW EXEC = Wisdom Works Executive Cohort (N = 3). WW EMPL = Wisdom Works Employee

Cohort (N = 34). Organization ~ Actual = the organization as it actually is; Organization ~ Best = the

organization at its best; Opposite Cohort = the opposite cohort of the respondent (i.e., for employees, the

opposite cohort is the executives, and vice versa); Myself ~ Actual = myself as I actually am; Prefer = the

preferred image.

aSum of Chi-squares for the 10 choices. bSum of Chi-squares for the 5 images.

99

On all topics, the WW EXEC displayed high levels of consensus, with significance

at least at the p < .05 level, and most with much higher levels of significance. This

indicates that the WW EXECs did indeed have very similar perceptions to one another on

each of the topics. For the WW EMPL cohort, consensus was very high for both

“Spirituality” and “Organization ~ Best” (p < .001 in all measures of consensus).

Consensus was also relatively high for the “Prefer” topic, although not quite at a level of

statistical significance when measured based on the choice level, (p[df10] = .0591). The

two lowest levels of consensus were on “Organization ~ Actual,” and “Myself ~ Actual,”

neither of which was statistically significant. The level of consensus on their view of the

WW EXEC cohort (“Opposite Cohort” topic) was not significant on the choice level

measurement, but was significant (p < .05) on the image comparisons. The suggestion

here is that the WW EMPL cohort had similar perceptions of spirituality, what they liked,

and what they believed WW could be when at its best. They appeared not to see

themselves as particularly similar as individuals and had differing views of how the

organization actually is. The level of consensus regarding their perceptions of the

management team is not as clear, with consensus hovering around the limits of statistical

significance, but as the only topic with a different epitomizing images, something seems

to be going on here.

Projective Differential same choice scores. Table 3 shows the similarity between the

choices made on “Spirituality” and each of the other topics through the cohorts’ PD-SCSs

for each topic. This provides a sense of each cohort’s attitude towards spirituality,

identification with spirituality, and the perceived spirituality of the organization as it is,

at its best, and of their opposite cohort.

100

Table 3

Projective Differential Same Choice Scores (PD-SCS) ~ Wisdom Works Cohorts

Same Choice Scores and Effect Size

Topic PD-SCS da Qualitative Assessmentb

WW EXEC

Attitude towards Spirituality 83.33 1.0487 very positive

Identification with Spirituality 80.00 0.9439 spiritual

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 80.00 0.9439 spiritual

Spirituality ~ Org. Best 83.33 1.0487 very spiritual

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 66.67 0.5244 moderately spiritual

WW EMPL

Attitude towards Spirituality 75.00 0.7866 positive

Identification with Spirituality 70.59 0.6478 moderately spiritual

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 56.47 0.2036 neutral/spiritual

Spirituality ~ Org. Best 70.59 0.6478 moderately spiritual

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 45.00 -0.1573 neutral

Note. WW EXEC = Wisdom Works Executive Cohort (N = 3). WW EMPL = Wisdom Works Employee Cohort (N = 34). Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is;

Spirituality ~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp.

Cohort = the perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite

cohort is the employee cohort and vice versa).

aCohen’s d is based on comparing the cohort’s PD-SCS with a hypothetical “perfectly neutral” condition

where the same choice score is 50 and the distribution is flat (standard deviation = 31.8). bThe “Qualitative

Assessment” is based on the value of Cohen’s d and is intended to indicate the degree to which the

association between the two topics is considered negative, neutral or positive.

Clearly, the WW EXEC cohort’s responses were more positive on the similarity

between spirituality and the other topics than were the WW EMPL cohort’s responses,

with all but one topic having 80% or higher same-choices as spirituality. For both WW

cohorts, the opposite cohort was seen as least spiritual of the topics, but for the WW

EMPL cohort, the management team (their opposite cohort) was seen as slightly

dissimilar to spirituality (although within the neutral effect size range at d = -0.1573).

101

Although on the positive side of neutral, the WW EMPL perception of the spirituality of

the organization as it is was only modestly more positive than neutral (d = 0.2036).

I also examined the differences in PD-SCSs within each cohort to determine the

degree to which their perceptions of the spirituality of the topics differed meaningfully

from topic to topic. A Friedman Test showed no significant differences existed among

PD-SCSs for the WW EXEC cohort ( 2 = 4.000, p(df4) = .4060), but there were

significant differences among PD-SCSs for the WW EMPL cohort ( 2 = 41.719, p(df4) =

1.908E-08). Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks tests between each pair of PD-SCSs

for each cohort were also performed, and although none of the differences between topics

was statistically significant for the WW EXEC cohort, the differences between the

spirituality of the opposite cohort and all other topics were in the moderately large to

very large range in terms of effect size, with d ranging from 0.7228 to 1.1517 (see Table

K1). This suggests that the executives’ perception of the spirituality of the employees,

although positive, was markedly lower than their perception of the spirituality of the

organization both as it is and at its best, and lower than their attitude towards and

identification with spirituality.

For the WW EMPL cohort there was no difference between their identification with

spirituality and the spirituality of the organization at its best, suggesting that they viewed

their own spirituality as highly consistent with how spiritual the organization could

become. However, several between-topics differences for this cohort were both

significant and had large effect sizes. Differences in the “very large” range of effect size

(|d| > 1) indicate a much more positive attitude towards spirituality than a perception of

either the organization as it is or the management team (opposite cohort) as spiritual (|d|

102

= 1.1405 and 1.5393 respectively). Very large effect sizes also suggest this cohort saw

themselves as much more spiritual than the management team (|d| = 1.1937) and that the

management team was not perceived to be as spiritual as the organization at its best could

be (|d| = 1.3146 ). The fact that the WW EMPL’s perception of the spirituality of their

opposite cohort was the only PD-SCS that was less than 50 makes all comparisons with

opposite cohort worthy of note. (See Table K2.)

Table 4 shows the comparisons between the two cohorts’ PD-SCSs, providing a

sense of just how the two cohorts differed in their views of the spirituality of the topics.

Table 4

Between Cohort Differences in PD-SCSs ~ Wisdom Works Cohorts

Statistics

Topic Differencea db Uc p

Attitude towards Spirituality -8.33 -0.4997 38.000 .4620

Identification with Spirituality -9.41 -0.4480 38.500 .4794

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -23.53 -1.4538 13.000 .0297

Spirituality ~ Org. Best -12.75 -0.7668 29.500 .2184

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort -21.67 -1.0004 20.000 .0809

Note. Executive Cohort (N = 3). Employee Cohort (N = 34). Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived

spirituality of the organization as it actually is; Spirituality ~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the

organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort = the perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e.,

for the executive respondents, the opposite cohort is the employee cohort).

aDifferences are derived by subtracting the EXEC PD-SCS values from the EMPL PD-SCS values. Negative differences indicate that the EXEC cohort scored the item higher than the EMPL cohort. bCohen’s

d values are based on the pooled std. dev. – negative values are indicative of the EXEC cohort scoring the

item higher than the EMPL cohort. cMann-Whitney U statistic.

Only their difference on the spirituality of the organization as it is was significant (p

< .05); however all of the differences between the WW EXEC and WW EMPL cohorts

were at least moderately meaningful, with effect sizes ranging from d = -0.4480 to -

1.4538. The lowest differences, on attitude towards and identification with spirituality,

103

were moderately meaningful based on effect size, suggesting that whereas the WW

EXEC cohort was more positive in these self-referential associations, the difference was

moderate. On the other hand, the two cohorts’ differences on the spirituality of the other-

referential (organization based and cohort) comparisons with spirituality were somewhat

more meaningful. These results suggest that whereas these two cohorts perceived

spirituality with roughly similar levels of positive attitude, and themselves at somewhat

similar levels of identification with spirituality, the management cohort tended to view

the organization (both as it is and at its best) as notably more spiritual than did the

employees. The management cohort also had a much more positive view of the

employees’ spirituality than vice versa.

INcongruence. The differences between the Semantic Differential Same Choice

Scores (SD-SCS) and the Projective Differential Same Choice Scores (PD-SCS) of the

two WW cohorts, indicating levels of INcongruence between their explicit, verbal

expressions and their implicit nonverbal perceptions, are presented in Table 5.

Table 5

INcongruence ~ Wisdom Works Cohorts

Difference Between SD-SCS & PD-SCS

Topic INcongruenced de Zf p

WW EXEC

Attitude towards Spirituality 5.71 0.3286 -1.342a .1797

Identification with Spirituality -2.83 -0.1592 -0.535b .5930

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -6.05 -0.3929 .000c 1.000

Spirituality ~ Org. Best -6.30 -0.3689 -1.604b .1088

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 2.49 0.4434 -0.535a .5930

104

Topic INcongruenced de Zf p

WW EMPL

Attitude towards Spirituality 10.25 0.6513 -2.825a 4.730E-03

Identification with Spirituality 2.30 0.1473 -.6240a .5326

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 16.30 1.3161 -4.488a 7.190E-06

Spirituality ~ Org. Best 6.26 0.4748 -1.428a .1534

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 23.67g 1.3866 -4.642a 3.455E-06

Note. WW EXEC = Wisdom Works Executive Cohort (N = 3). WW EMPL = Wisdom Works Employee

Cohort (N = 34). Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is;

Spirituality ~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp.

Cohort = the perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite

cohort is the employee cohort).

aBased on negative ranks. bBased on positive ranks. cThe sum of negative ranks equals the sum of positive

ranks. dINcongruence values are the difference between the Same Choice Scores based on the Semantic

Differential (SD-SCS) and the Same Choice Scores based on the Projective Differential (PD-SCS). Positive

INcongruence indicates that the SD-SCSs were higher than the PD-SCSs. eCohen’s d values are based on the pooled standard deviations of the SD-SCSs and PD-SCSs and are bias corrected. fZ scores of Wilcoxon

matched-pairs signed-ranks test. gPD-SCS was in “negative” range (below 50) and SD-SCS was in positive

range (above 50).

Although the WW EXEC cohort did not exhibit either particularly high or significant

levels of INcongruence on any of the topics, it is interesting to note that on three topics

they were more positive in their projective assessment than their semantic assessment of

the spirituality of the topics. This is notable because generally, when assessing topics on

which people usually wish to be seen in a positive light, their verbal responses will tend

to be higher than their nonverbal responses as they try to ensure a positive appearance.

This cohort, however, was slightly less positive in their verbal assessment of their

identification with spirituality, and the spirituality of the organization both as it is and at

its best. As the differences are small, we need to be careful not to read too much into this,

however it may be an indication of the WW EXECs wanting to be careful in their

balancing of the spiritual with the business side of the organization, or perhaps a desire to

maintain a degree of humility. That none of the WW EXEC cohort’s INcongruence

105

values were higher than the low-moderate level (the highest being on the spirituality of

the opposite cohort, d = 0.4434) suggests that this cohort is relatively in tune with their

deeper sense of these topics, without either much pressure to appear other than they are or

high levels of denial.

INcongruence levels of the WW EMPL cohort on the spirituality of both the

opposite cohort and the organization as it is were very high (d > 1.3, p < .001),

suggesting pressure to think of, or represent, the organization and the management team

as much more spiritual than the employees perceive them to be at a deeper level. The

INcongruence on this cohort’s attitude towards spirituality was also significant (p < .01),

and the effect size was moderate (d = 0.6513). Although the effect size was not as notable

as it was for the INcongruence on the spirituality of the opposite cohort or the spirituality

of the organization as it is, it is large enough to suggest that there may also be some

pressure to view spirituality in general in a positive light. Given the nature of the

business of Wisdom Works, this is not particularly surprising, and even though the

INcongruence level indicates that their explicit expression was somewhat more positive

than their implicit perception, we should remember that their implicit attitude to

spirituality was itself moderately high (PD-SCS = 75, see Table 3).

I also examined whether the INcongruence levels differed meaningfully between

topics for either cohort. Friedman Tests showed that differences among WW EXEC

INcongruence levels were not significant ( 2 of 2.933, p(df4) = .5690), and differences

between the WW EMPL INcongruence levels were ( 2 of 22.188, p(df4) = 1.838E-04).

Not surprisingly, for the WW EXEC cohort, between-topics comparisons showed

that differences in INcongruence levels were moderate to very high in those cases where

106

one topic was scored more positively on the projective differential (resulting in a positive

value INcongruence) and the other more positively on the semantic differential (resulting

in a negative value INcongruence). Since none of the INcongruence levels themselves

were notably high, and the large differences between INcongruence levels were only

between those topics where the INcongruence was in opposite directions, we can not say

with certainty that there is more pressure to appear positive on some topics than others; it

could just as easily be that there is more pressure not to appear too positive on some

topics. (See Table K3 for full results of between-topic comparisons of INcongruence for

the WW EXEC cohort.)

The WW EMPL cohort’s INcongruence differences were another story (see Table

K4). The INcongruence level for the spirituality of the opposite cohort was significantly

higher (p < .01) than that of every other topic except the spirituality of the organization

as it is. Effect sizes for the comparisons of INcongruence in the spirituality of the

opposite cohort with all other topics (not including the comparison with the spirituality of

the organization as it is) ranged from moderate (d = 0.6854) to very high (d = 1.0074),

suggesting that the pressure to view the management team as spiritual was meaningfully

higher than for any other topic except the organization as it is. There also appears to have

been somewhat more pressure to perceive the organization as it is as spiritual, as the

comparison of INcongruence between that topic and all others resulted in effect sizes in

the low moderate to high moderate range (|d| between 0.3450 and 0.7239).

Table 6 displays the results of comparisons between the two cohorts’ INcongruence

data, indicating which topics exhibited meaningful differences between the cohorts’ in

their degree of verbal vs. nonverbal disconnect.

107

Table 6

Between Cohort Differences in INcongruence ~ Wisdom Works Cohorts

Statistics

Topic Differencea db Uc p

Attitude towards Spirituality 4.54 0.2364 46.000 .7806

Identification with Spirituality 5.13 0.2262 46.000 .7808

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 22.35 1.4315 16.500 .0549

Spirituality ~ Org. Best 12.55 0.6670 29.000 .2209

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 21.18 1.0967 16.500 .0549

Note. Executive Cohort (N = 3). Employee Cohort (N = 34). Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived

spirituality of the organization as it actually is; Spirituality ~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the

organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort = the perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e.,

for the executive respondents, the opposite cohort is the employee cohort).

aDifferences are derived by subtracting the EXEC INcongruence values from the EMPL INcongruence

values. Negative differences indicate that the EXEC cohort had a higher level of INcongruence on the topic than did the EMPL cohort. bCohen’s d values are based on the pooled std. dev. – negative values are

indicative of the EXEC cohort scoring the item higher than the EMPL cohort. cMann-Whitney U statistic.

Differences between the cohorts on INcongruence levels for attitude towards and

identification with spirituality were neither significant nor displayed meaningful effect

sizes, suggesting that pressure to feel positively about spirituality and to perceive oneself

as spiritual were similar for both WW cohorts. Although not quite significant, the

differences in INcongruence for both the spirituality of the organization as it is and the

spirituality of the opposite cohort were in the very large effect size range with d of

1.4315 and 1.0967 respectively, suggesting that the employee cohort felt much more

pressure to see the organization as it is and their opposite cohort as spiritual than did the

management team.

Expressions of Spirituality Inventory. On the ESI-R, the WW EXEC cohort scored

highest on the Cognitive Orientation (COS) subscale, followed closely by Experiential-

Phenomenological (EPD) subscale, with mean scores of 19.67 and 19.33 respectively; the

lowest mean score was on the Religiousness (REL) subscale at 12.33. (See Table K5 for

108

full results). The WW EMPL cohort’s mean scores on the ESI-R ranged from a high of

19.56 (COS) to a low of 14.76 (REL), and all subscales were in the same relative order as

the for the WW EXEC cohort. (See Table K6 for full results).

For both WW cohorts, the COS and EPD subscales scored the highest followed by

Existential Well-Being (EWB), Paranormal Beliefs (PAR) and finally REL as the lowest.

Comparisons of the actual mean scores showed no significant differences between the

two cohorts on either the mean ESI-R total score or any of the ESI-R subscale means.

The WW EMPL cohort’s means were moderately higher than the WW EXEC cohort’s

means on PAR and REL (d = 0.6578 and 0.5481 respectively). (See Table K7 for full

results comparing the cohorts’ ESI-R subscale means).

I tested each WW cohort’s ESI-R data to determine whether differences among the

subscales were enough to suggest a particular orientation to spirituality over any other

orientation measured. A Friedman Test on the WW EXEC cohort’s ESI-R subscale data

revealed no significant differences among subscale means ( 2 = 6.947 and p[df4] =

.1387). Testing the WW EMPL’s ESI-R subscale data, on the other hand, showed

significant differences among their subscale means ( 2 = 41.364 and p[df4] = 2.259E-

08). Comparisons performed on each pair of the WW EXEC’s subscale means (see Table

K8) revealed that the WW EXEC mean score on the COS subscale was at least

moderately higher than every other subscale except for EPD, with effect sizes ranging

from a moderate |d| = 0.6094 to a very high |d| = 1.0782. REL and PAR, the two

subscales with the lowest means, were not notably different from one another, but were

both in the high-moderate to very high effect size range (|d| between 0.7376 and 1.0782)

when compared to every other subscale. These results suggest that this cohort’s

109

expression of spirituality tended towards non-theistic aspects of spiritual belief and a

perception that spirituality is directly relevant to living (COS) and towards personal

spiritual experience (EPD) more so than the other types of expression measured, although

the well-being factor is not far behind.

For the WW EMPL cohort, the between-subscale pairs testing (see Table K9)

revealed that this cohort’s highest mean score (COS) was significantly higher than all

other ESI-R subscales (p < .01 or better), except for the EPD subscale. Effect sizes of the

difference between COS and all other subscales except EPD were all in the high

moderate to very high range (|d| = 0.7158 to |d| = 1.1918). The cohort’s mean score on

the EPD subscale was significantly higher than EWB (p < .05), and higher than both PAR

and REL (p < .01). These results clearly indicate that the WW EMPL cohort tended to

express spirituality through a framework of non-theistic aspects of spirituality and

personal spiritual experience more than any of the other ways measured by the ESI-R.

In order to provide additional context for understanding the WW spirituality profile,

I also compared the WW ESI-R data (for the organization as a whole, N = 37) to the

Norms (N = 938) established by MacDonald (2000) and to a sample from ITP (N = 60).

Table 7 shows the results of those comparisons.

110

Table 7

ESI-R ~ Differences in Means Between Wisdom Works (WW) & Norms and WW & ITP

ESI-R Subscale MWW MNorms (dWW-Normsa) MITP (dWW-ITP

b)

COS 19.57 14.39 (1.0514) 21.27 (-0.5032)

EPD 18.81 9.89 (1.8626) 20.27 (-0.3017)

EWB 16.57 14.94 (0.3606) 16.88 (-0.0777)

PAR 15.51 12.47 (0.5930) 17.67 (-0.5075)

REL 14.57 13.61 (0.1665) 15.68 (-0.2649)

Note. Norms = Norms established by MacDonald (2000). ITP = Institute of Transpersonal Psychology.

ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation towards Spirituality;

EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR = Paranormal Beliefs; REL =

Religiousness.

aCohen’s d calculated on difference between WW and Norm means using pooled standard deviation

corrected for bias. bCohen’s d calculated on difference between WW and ITP means using pooled standard

deviation corrected for bias.

On every subscale, WW as a whole scored higher than the Norms established by

MacDonald. Of particular note are the EPD and COS subscales, with meaningfully higher

mean scores (d > 1). Also of note is the relative score or ranking of each subscale;

whereas WW’s two highest scores were on COS and EPD, the Norms scored EWB and

COS as the two highest. In contrast, when compared to data from ITP, WW scored lower

on every subscale. ITP scored moderately higher on COS and PAR (|d| > 0.5). All other

differences between WW and ITP subscale means were low to very low.

Co-Op Credit

Co-Op Credit (CC) is a co-operative credit union operating in the United States since

the early 1930s. At the time of my visit, CC had 180 employees working in 10 branches

and the head office. The President had been with Co-Op Credit for 15 years, 14 as

President. Both Co-Op Credit’s loan and deposit portfolios are in excess of $400 million,

putting CC in the National Credit Union Administration’s peer group 5, the second

largest asset category (NCUA, 2003). (See Appendix L for financial ratios.)

111

Initial Impressions

It is relevant to note how I first became aware of the organization and the potential

of having them as participants in this study. In the spring of 2003 I attended an

international conference on Spirituality in Business, where the President and Vice-

President of Employee Development (VP-ED) happened to be presenting in one of the

small group sessions. They were discussing the culture they were trying to create and

maintain at CC, and how they were going about accomplishing it. I spoke to them briefly

after the session, and within 5 weeks of that meeting, I was at CC gathering data.

The Director of Administrative Affairs (DAA), together with the VP-ED, took the

lead in facilitating my visit. Space and equipment were secured, and both group sessions

and interviews were scheduled ahead of my arrival. In the group sessions at head office,

some people from branch operations came in to attend. In addition, the DAA took me to

two branches to conduct group sessions before they opened in the morning. While I

conducted the sessions with the branch staff, he did some of the work to get the branch

ready to open.

Although my two principal contacts appeared to do most of the work supporting my

visit logistically, both the President and the VP of Human Resources, Marketing, and

Business Development (VP-HR) checked in with me on a regular basis and provided me

with additional materials as it occurred to them. I was also invited to participate in a

“Values Session” conducted by the President and VP-ED (see below), and a barbeque

“party” scheduled for one of the branches (it was rained out). The senior people at CC

seemed very committed to helping me get the data I needed and, by extension, to the idea

of “spirituality in business.”

112

Management Team Interviews, Company Materials, Personal Observations

Interviews were conducted with all 6 members of the senior management team.

Materials provided included the “Heart Book,” a copy of the original “Heart Document,”

and a copy of thoughts and questions the President of CC wrote after participating in an

interview about psychologically healthy work environments. (See Appendix M for a copy

of the “Heart Book.”)

The mission statement printed in the inside front of the “Heart Book,” a journal

given to all new employees, is: “Co-Op Credit is a financial cooperative committed to

providing competitive, quality financial services with emphasis on safety, sound

operations and respect for our members and employees.”

The measures of success. As a financial institution, CC is federally regulated, and

therefore is required to adhere to certain financial guidelines; however, when discussing

issues of definition and measurement of success, all 6 members of the senior management

team indicated that although financial success was needed in order to stay in business, it

is not what drives the organization.

Chief Financial Officer (CFO): Co-Op Credit does not want to be financially driven but we want to be financially strong. . . . We have to have a margin if we’re going to have a mission but the bottom line is we’re not going to let an expense ratio or an analysis kill a decision if it’s best for people, if it’s best for long term. We’re not going to be financially driven and that, to me as a CFO, is a statement that differentiates Co-Op Credit from the marketplace. . . . We’re a financial institution and you would think we would say, “Our primary goal is to be financially strong.” And we want to be strong but we’re not driven by it. If we look at success factors that is not the first question “how we do financially?” That is one of the 10 questions that we ask and how does that relate to all the others.

Most of the management team was in tune with the priorities of the CC President,

who said, “My priorities here are my employees first, longevity of the organization

second and then the customers, the members that we serve.” In one way or another, each

113

of the senior people indicated that support for the growth, well-being, or just good

treatment of employees was of primary concern when considering what it means to be

successful.

Vice-President of Operations (VP-Ops): To me success for the long term is success as far as seeing people develop and are they developing professionally and are they developing in their personal life? Are we here as a resource for the person—not only here at work but sometimes for the people outside of work and recognizing that sometimes people go through some pretty crummy things and so in the end are we there for them for those types of events as well. . . . When I’m old and retired and I look back on my life at Co-Op Credit it’s not going to be important to me what our ROI was in 2003. What’s going to matter to me is the friends that I made here and how I interacted with them and was I help to them along the way in times of difficulty? To me that’s more valuable although, you’ve got to have the business side of it to stay in business.

VP-ED: Success measured by members and their financial well-being. . . . Success measured by employees and their personal well being. . . . I think this contribution to the human care is essential to success and we’re on it.

Vice-President of Lending (VP-Lending): I’ve come to realize that it’s not just the bottom line. . . . From a philosophical standpoint, creating an environment that people want to work in and make it fun to work has become much more of a priority to me than it ever has been.

Although financial measures appear not to be of primary concern, the President also

indicated that, for him, part of the objective of being in business is to push things to the

limit to see what the potential really is.

President: We’re very successful on the business side. We made good business decisions. We don’t play to lose. We’re always leveraging the regulators. It’s not unusual for us to be in contact with the regulators three or four times a year because we push things to the limit. We’re not willing to sit back and—a lot of credit unions. . . just try not to screw it up. . . . What are you going to do with it to help change it and to really leverage what you have?. . . It would be a waste for us to have such a strong culture and have a good balance sheet and income statement from the traditional business measures and not to take this thing to the market to see what it could do beyond what we’re doing now. So as long as we’re leveraging it and pushing ourselves and not sitting back and being complacent and—that’s success. . . . otherwise I just get a bellyache.

114

Although CC is “always leveraging the regulators” in how they run the business, CC

also has the second highest rating the regulators can give for “safety and soundness” of

the institution. According to the President of CC, it is at least partly their culture that

makes pushing the limits workable—even though the office-bound regulatory officers

sometimes see things they do not like in CC’s documentation or the speed at which they

are growing, upon visiting CC the Field Examiners generally report back that not only is

there nothing wrong, but it is amazing what CC is accomplishing. The President’s sense

is that “the culture rubs off on them.”

Employee performance. Although like most organizations, CC has a policy dealing

with performance reviews and appraisals, according to the VP-HR, CC’s performance

appraisal system was being changed at the time of my visit:

We used to have a series of forms that you would fill out if it was an employee or a director. . . within the last year we’ve changed that. . . . My dream is that everybody would have a journal of their own and they would sit down and have a conversation with the person they report to and instead of having all these reviews and everything it’s, “Sat down, met with Cathy. . . Well, here’s the things she’s going to be working on and plan to meet on this date.” You don’t need any more than that. . . . As long as people are having ongoing conversations with the folks that report to them. . . . for right now it’s a wide open format—go through the book [the “Heart Book”/journal—see below] and look at the words and maybe have the employee write what words are most important to them and why. [The President] really does not—and I agree with him—want performance appraisals to be about the numbers—it’s about them, the people and choosing to come to work every day.

Comments from the CFO helped to elaborate on what this more informal approach

is, and the rationale behind it:

The whole focus on the annual review is not so much, “What have you accomplished? Where are you going?” because we’re talking about that every day. It’s as an individual, “What’s happening in your life? How can Co-Op Credit help that?” So the focus really as you get higher in the organization level. . . [the performance aspect] is not even documented or detailed. It’s more the human side of it. And if you’re a good servant-leader you are talking to your people and

115

saying, “How can I help you?” And you know what the issues are every day of the week versus. . . why wait through the year and keep a little folder of it?

The CFO said he had not done a written performance appraisal for any of his

directors in the previous 3 years. From his perspective there are two “prongs” to what it

takes to be successful at CC: being self-sufficient and proactive, “the traditional things—

you’re ‘an expert’ at what you do;” and personal growth, “whether that be spirituality,

your own professionalism—whatever it is.” He felt that personal growth was probably

given a little more weight at CC.

No one on the management team mentioned a set procedure for dealing with

corrective action for underperforming or problem employees. The topic did arise when

discussing conflict, and in cases where corrective action was mentioned, it was

approached somewhat informally, simply involving discussions with the employee—

multiple discussions if necessary. According to the VP-HR, they do have difficulty firing

people, “[The President] always says, ‘One last chance. One last chance.’ And it’s like

with some folks we give them so many chances.” The VP-Ops said that he had only fired

one person, and although difficult, because the person was a friend, he also found it easy

because he had given him so many chances to change his behaviour.

Flexibility in work style. The nature of CC’s business militates against much

flexibility in work hours. They have to deal with the realities of the business day for their

retail (branch) operations, and as the majority of the head-office operations are either

engaged in the support of branch operations or dealing with other financial institutions

and businesses, the traditional business day must be observed. Flexibility comes into play

in dealing with exceptional situations. At least at the senior management level there is

116

room to be away to deal with non-work issues, and others will pick up the slack. For

example, when the VP-HR’s mother was ill with cancer:

I was able to go to all of her chemotherapy treatments and to be there at home with her when she was sick and so that was such a relief. . . . But there was no expectation on me to be calling and checking my messages or checking with the directors who report to me. I’ve had three maternity leaves over the last 4 years and the directors who report to me have grown to understand what they need to do when things come up when [I’m not] around.

According to the CC President,

We pretty much have a standard policy that if things are going bad for somebody, we just [say], “Leave for a while and we’ll work it out when you get back.” So we try to do things that way to make it easy for people. . . [We] recognize the struggles that exist in everyday life.

Flexibility also appears in more subtle ways at CC. The VP-Lending commented that

employees are encouraged to take risks, and it is okay if things do not always work out,

“[The President] encourages us to skin our knees, not only as his vice-presidents, but all

the way down to the front lines.”

CC’s approach to planning also exhibits a high degree of flexibility. The President

commented that their business plans are kept deliberately flexible, and even a little

ambiguous. What once was spelled out in detail in documents of 140 pages, is now

covered in 4 pages.

What I found is that when we wrote the big extravagant ones we tied ourselves into a specific approach and although it was developed over a period of time it was worthless 2 months into the year. . . . The way I’d do it if I didn’t have a lot of those outside influences and people, is that we’d put a budget together so people could have something to see where we’re going to go but the rest of it would just be conversation with my directors and the other folks about, “Where are we going today?”

From his perspective, an open, informal, flexible approach to planning leaves open

greater possibility for taking advantage of unforeseen opportunities, rather than saying

“Well, it’s not in the plan” when someone comes up with a new idea.

117

The President’s approach to employee travel expenses demonstrates a flexible and

trusting approach.

We assume they’re traveling to better themselves for the organization and personally—they’re away from their family so enjoy yourself a little bit. And somebody’s not going to sit here and going over to see if you went to a Yankee’s game or you did—in fact, we encourage people to do that.

This tendency towards flexibility, trust, and ambiguity can sometimes be a problem,

according to the CFO.

At times we tend to give our employees a lot of rope. . . whether it’s attendance policies, sick policies—I can name a number of those where we have gone to the point where maybe we’ve—I don’t want to say trusted too much ‘cause I don’t know if it’s such a thing but we maybe have left it too ambiguous at times. Some people can’t deal in gray.

Commitment to personal growth, well-being and wholeness. Co-Op Credit’s

commitment to the personal growth, wholeness, and well-being of their employees is

considerable and explicit. The position of VP-ED was created explicitly to attend to the

well-being and personal growth of the employees a couple of years prior to my visit, in

response to a challenge the president made to all of the vice-presidents, “What do you

want to be doing in the organization 2 or 3 years from now?” In proposing the position,

the VP-ED included two major conditions to which the president had to agree: the

position was organization-neutral, no departments report to the VP-ED; and he would not

be asked for any benchmarking or measurement for at least 3 to 5 years.

One of the things that really drives me is this saying that says “In times of change learners will inherit the Earth while the learned will find themselves perfectly equipped to deal with a world that doesn’t exist.” It’s a phrase that I can’t get out of my head. . . . The more I can draw people into that environment of taking the risk of being a learner is a stronger and stronger sign to me that we’re doing it right.

Among the things the VP-ED has done is organize internal seminars and training

with experts on such topics as nutrition, menopause, stress reduction, servant-leadership,

118

and transformational leadership. In some cases the experts are then brought in-house to

help develop additional training and/or kept on retainer and are available to employees

who have requested individual sessions. Although the VP-ED helps make the connection

between the employee and the expert, invoices from the experts show only that sessions

have taken place; no names are included on the invoices for individual sessions.

The VP-ED is also available for sessions with individual employees on whatever

topics they may wish to discuss. Generally, this has taken the form of helping employees

write “Personal Mission Statements” or learning plans. He also writes on the company

intranet on topics such as the effects of sunshine on mood, on “personal growth” books

that he has read, and in response to issues that arise in the workplace, such as discussing

Rabbi Kushner’s “Why Bad things Happen to Good People” when an employee had a

miscarriage. Writings from experts in various fields are also posted on the company’s

intranet (and some on the internet website also). The VP-ED appears to be the center of

CC’s efforts to support and encourage personal growth, well-being, and wholeness, yet it

was also clear that the rest of the management team fully support the initiative.

The second prong of what it takes to be successful at CC, according to the CFO, is

“personal growth.” He also indicated that during an annual review, the discussions were

more about what is happening in the individual’s life and how CC can help. The VP-

Lending commented on the importance of creating an environment that helps people

“become who they are.” When asked about her areas of responsibility, the VP-HR

responded, “The biggest one is taking care of the hearts and souls of the 180 people who

work here.”

119

The President was aware that people have plenty of stress in their lives and is

concerned about how CC contributes to adding to or reducing that stress.

They can go to the Employee Assistance Program, but still there’s more in the society that we can do and some of those things would be—I was doing some reading recently [from] the book Take a Load Off Your Heart, about eating and stress management and those things but the average person just in their daily life has a shitload of stress and so, I was thinking, “Well, how much more do we place on an individual as an organization?”. . . How much more stress is somebody putting on the young person going on the teller line or someone who just got in a fight with her husband and is coming into work today? I used to think that it made sense to say, “People should look forward to coming to work,”—nobody’s going to do that. But at least it’d be innocuous, that when you come to work it’s safe. It’s not going to add to the stress you already have in your life. We can’t alleviate everybody’s stress that they have in their life but if we can give them a safe haven where they know that all they have to do is come in here and do their job, it’s safe—and even if they don’t do their job it’s safe, because you’ll always be treated respectfully and you do that then—it’s not a program but it’s a belief and some things that we try to sprinkle through everything else that we do.

Care for the wholeness of employees also manifests in a recognition that everyone

has a life outside of work. Recognizing the importance of family and other commitments

aside from work led CC to go the opposite direction from their competition when it

comes to work hours. Just as other credit unions were opening on Sundays, CC made the

decision not to open on Sundays, and also to reduce branch hours on Saturdays.

Workplace community. Much of what Co-Op Credit is as a community also seems to

grow out of the belief in the need to care for one another at a very fundamental level. I

was told several stories where the CC community rallied to support an employee in need.

When a young mother’s husband suddenly died of a brain tumor, the VP-HR checked in

with her regularly and tried to ensure that she and her children were nourished. CC

organized a fundraiser to assist this young woman and her children. When the VP-HR’s

mother died, CC management helped take care of the funeral arrangements and organized

and provided food for the reception. When a young woman in a branch was dealing with

120

an abusive relationship, the director of her branch supported her and helped her find her

way out. Although dealt with largely on an ad hoc basis, the President indicated a desire

to create a process to ensure that senior management is made aware when someone is in

need. CC also has a Charitable Contributions Committee consisting entirely of employees

(i.e., no senior management representation on the committee), charged with dealing with

requests from employees in need.

Given that the employees are spread between 11 locations, day-to-day interactions

tend to be limited to those in the same location. The layout of the head-office was such

that the frequency and quality of casual interactions between people in the building was

difficult to assess. The time I spent in branches was limited to the assessment sessions, so

I did not observe the day-to-day type interactions among branch staff. As a result, it is

hard to know how much CC is like a community on a daily basis.

Among the things CC does on a regular basis are company-wide “celebrations”

where management puts on a barbeque for all employees. In addition, the President takes

some employees from head-office to make quarterly visits to each branch to put on a

barbeque. Head-office staff take over the branch operation while the President and others

cook for the branch staff.

Regular “focal meetings” are also held, partly for training, and partly to foster

community. Each focal group is composed of employees from different areas, and every

employee attends a focal meeting once per quarter. Trainings, such as those in diet and

nutrition, may be part of these meetings. Other topics may include the Mission Statement

and what CC is doing to support it, or perhaps not support it. The President and VP-ED

hold regular “Values Sessions” to foster community and employee involvement in the

121

ongoing creation and maintenance of the culture. (See “Spirituality/Values as part of the

company’s culture” below.) Regular meetings can also be opportunities to reinforce

community.

VP-HR: I had meeting with all the directors and I read this piece on community because when I first read it I thought, “that’s our group.”. . . [she read aloud to open the meeting] “Community. Somewhere there are people to whom we can speak with passion without having the words catch in our throats. Somewhere a circle of hands will open to receive us. Eyes will light up as we enter. Voices will celebrate with us whenever we come into our own power. Community means strength that joins all strength to do the work that needs to be done. Arms to hold us when we falter. A circle of healing, a circle of friends. Some place where we can be free.”

Community service. In addition to the training and education programs provided to

employees, CC also offers classes to its members (clients) to help them manage their

financial well-being. The VP-ED said they are beginning to offer more “human

development” resources to members:

The organization really reaches out to the members and tries to make their life better financially. There’s classes that we teach and resources that we put out there for them. Now we’ve started to move very gently into the offering this idea of human development to our members. In very, very subtle ways and one of them is on our webpage this thing that we call “Insights” that we’re offering wellness in mind, body and spirit. It’s short essays written by well-respected authors. So we are getting people that are coming in and starting to read short essays on wellness issues, diet, for example. Issues of personal development. . . . I think the spirit of learning that we’ve cultivated here can be an outreach to our members. . . I think it would follow that overall philosophy [or] value of learning beyond financial well being.

The majority of the community service engaged in or supported by CC is related to

education, leadership, and human development. Beyond providing services and resources

to their membership, CC sponsors a luncheon speaker series at a local university that is

open to everyone. CC is a financial supporter of the Reading Center for Servant

Leadership and the Heartland Institute and also sponsors two students from a local

business school to take part in Heartland Institute programs. Through two foundations

122

CC provides funding for a variety of other, mostly education-related causes. One supports

grants to individuals or groups wishing to do something in the area of cooperative

development or cooperative education. The other supports a broader range of educational

activities, such as a member’s request to attend a conference on Spirituality in Business.

The board of that foundation is composed entirely of non-senior-management employees.

Spirituality/values as part of the company’s culture.

President: There was a time—and when I tell the story to the employees I call it the “Dark Ages”—about a 2-year period—where we went total conventional business. And it was because we were concerned about productivity, our margins and our sales numbers, so we put in a sales program—we gave people really strong, tough, really difficult goals to achieve and if you didn’t make them, you weren’t around, you had a corrective action. And that was also the worst time in my career here. I hated it. And right before we shifted over to really staying true to what I believed in I was going to leave here because I decided that if that’s what business is, I didn’t want anything to do with it.

Although the President of CC began his tenure following what he believed, “just

trying to get people focused on giving a shit about each other and what they do and

understanding that there’s more to coming to work than just coming to work,” after

surviving the “Dark Ages” the focus on creating a particular kind of culture became very

strong and explicit. Based on his comments, and those of others in senior management,

the culture of caring for and respecting the wholeness of people is really embodied by the

President, who says “we’re an organization based on unconditional love.”

VP-Lending: [The President] holds sessions with the staff and he talks about Co-Op Credit and he uses the word “love.”. . . He’s not afraid to use the word “love” and he expresses to us that he loves everybody that works here. . . . He does a lot of things that really show that he cares about the people that work here and to me that helps create the environment for us to care about Co-Op Credit.

VP-HR: We try to do our best in this organization to take care of people’s hearts and their family’s hearts. I mean it’s not just the employee. And a community of practice. Unconditional love—[the President] talks about unconditional love all the time.

123

The President attributed this approach to his mother, who taught him that people are

valuable just for who they are, “If you go out and you make a mistake, you make a

mistake, but you’re still precious as a person and the hell with conventional wisdom. . . .

Just love each other and take care of people.”

The idea of unconditional love leads to (and grows out of) the idea of the intrinsic

value of people versus their instrumental value. The VP-Lending commented that part of

how he viewed spirituality in the workplace and creating an environment where people

are cared for includes that “you don’t treat them as a means to an end.” In a casual

conversation with the President, he made clear that even when people do not perform

their jobs well, it does not change their value as a person, and their right to be treated

with respect, dignity, and love.

In the interviews, senior management were comfortable talking about spirituality and

about their culture in terms of spirituality, even though that was not necessarily the

framework they might use on a daily basis.

CFO: In the workplace, spirituality really has—finding yourself, being true to yourself—there’s more to life than work. There’s something—there’s meaning.

VP-Lending: When I say the word “spirituality” it’s more of allowing someone to think about and to question what are they doing—“Why am I here?” It’s kind of a daily drive—“Do I really want to come to work?” But it’s creating that environment for people to question that with us, versus somebody questioning it and management going, “What do you mean you’re questioning coming to work? You better think about that or you’re not going to have a job.”

VP-ED: I think the steps we’re taking in terms of human care. The care about one’s own existence. . . . I don’t want to say it’s simple spirituality, but a caring for one’s spiritual well being. . . . But the idea of maybe it’s simply caring about yourself that I think is spiritual.

VP-HR: I didn’t grow up in a spiritual family and my idea of spiritual is having a place to come to work to be together and in a trusting and caring atmosphere and I do my best every day to come in and do that. I’m not the type of person that’s

124

going to push my opinions on people—when I think of the word spirituality I think about a place to be.

Although CC is located in an area that is largely of white, Christian background, and

some executives mentioned their own Christian background, when talking about

spirituality they all made it clear that it was not about Christianity, or any specific

religious beliefs. They displayed a sensitivity to the fact that not everyone has the same

beliefs.

CFO: You really need to be sensitive because that whole definition can be just so far and [the President] does a really good job because there’s no doubt—he makes it very clear of his personal beliefs but on the same point he also allows people to define spirituality in their own context.

VP-Ops: There isn’t any real corporate religion or corporate spirituality. I think what happens here is that we just don’t put down people’s spirituality. . . . Let them be spiritual beings and let that manifest itself. In some ways that makes Co-Op Credit unique, and that perplexes me. Why is that unique? That should not be. That should be the norm.

VP-Lending: When I hear “spirituality in the workplace”—to me it could be easily referred to as more of a religious type thing and that’s not how it is at Co-Op Credit. On the other hand, we wouldn’t stop someone’s religious belief from happening. We had some folks that used to get together on a monthly or bi-monthly basis before work and come in and it was like a Christian Bible study. And we would’ve been open to any other group coming forward and asking to use the space for the same thing.

In discussing how his own beliefs influence how he approaches running the

business, the President said that experiences in his church had led him to think that

religion might actually get in the way of successful leadership:

I’ve been trying to make a connection to Christianity by—I’ve read on Buddhism and Hinduism and I’m trying to figure out all these things—Judaism and everything and I see a lot of similar lessons and I know that there’s a connection there in my religious life with where I’m at but I’m a bit too secular to make decisions about God. . . . I was the Parish Director at our church and it was absolutely the worst experience of my life. I’ll never, ever do it again. Because here’s all these people at church with their suits and ties and I’m in jeans and a t-shirt and they’re all being all cozy and, “Peace be with you,” and then we go to a voter’s meeting afterwards and they’re yelling at each other and nobody wants to

125

get along—I really don’t know that religious orientation of a leadership group has a lot to do with whether or not it’s going to be successful. I would almost argue the opposite.

Other than the President’s view of how a religious orientation might not be a good

predictor of leadership, there were few other mentions of potentially negative aspects of

having a spiritual approach. The CFO indicated a concern that people might not “get”

what the spirituality is all about, and read too much into it:

The negative thing about spirituality in the workplace is that rightfully or wrongfully the word “spiritual” sometimes carries on a different connotation for some that maybe have not had some deep spiritual awakenings or they’ve had a negative experience or their view is more shallow. . . . Especially this younger group—the 18 to 25—there’s still some maturity issues. . . . It’s not necessarily a born-again experience or “I’ve got that deep sense” but—the negative side is that some people can read more into—I’ve heard even some say that their definition of spirituality—some have seen it as a TV evangelist. And that’s their definition and whether you call that good or bad or whatever but—so some people that don’t have that experience or don’t understand it can come away walking around, “Ooh boy, this could be really a different kind of a place.”

The VP-Lending, talking more generally about the challenges of having the CC

culture, mentioned the amount of autonomy people are given:

For the supervisors and the front liners you’re creating an environment where people are more free to make their own choices on certain things and it’s more difficult for the supervisor then to keep that in check if it falls outside of what we would say our railroad tracks are as far as values and permitted behavior versus having to stretch—“ this is your job and this is what you’re going to do and if you deviate the slightest from that you’re going to be reprimanded in some way.” From the manager’s standpoint there’s more of a challenge for them to do the job. . . . Some people may argue that with that type of philosophy your people aren’t as productive. So that would be the down side, but I don’t see that.

The VP-Lending also commented on the difficulty in dealing with other companies

when, as an organization, values are so important.

The other challenge is the issue of partnering with companies that have similar values as we do. . . . It’s a challenge interacting with individuals that we know don’t have the same values, I think both personally and from a corporate standpoint. As the economy changes and it gets a little more tough I think that it’ll be a challenge for us to continue to find companies that we’ll want to partner with

126

that share the same values. . . . Something that we’re recognizing, too, as we grow and mature is “Do we want to do business with companies that don’t fit the same type of values that we have?” And not that we’d go on and just partner up with anybody in the past but I think that would become a little more important to us as we move forward.

The one other negative mentioned about the culture was that the desire to come to

major decisions through consensus among the management group sometimes took a long

time. This, in turn, could result in individuals at the Director level feeling impatient and

wondering why the senior management group could not make a decision.

The culture of CC is not generally framed in terms of spirituality explicitly, but the

VP-ED said he felt they were in the early stages of exploring what it means to have a

spiritual approach. His statements suggested that spirituality might become more explicit.

The place for spirituality within the organization? I think it’s getting healthier. I think we’re in a sense in the very early stages of—if it’s having a strong impact—the thought for it to be here is sound. . . . I would say we’re at the beginning of that journey. . . . Telling the truth—idea of charity—the idea of caring. . . . I think we’re beyond awareness. . . . How would [I] see it in the future manifesting itself fully? . . . I don’t even know if I’d want to put a picture on it, but “Who am I? What do I love? What is my gift to this place or to the planet Earth? And how shall I live knowing I’m going to die?” I think those are all questions that we’ll explore to get to a more comfortable level—a higher level of spirituality within this organization.

I was fortunate to be visiting when a “Values Session” was scheduled, and I was

invited to attend. All employees attend a Values Session each year, and all new

employees do so shortly after joining CC. The Values Session took place in a large

conference room at the head office. Refreshments were brought in for attendees. The

room was organized with small tables with two chairs each, set up in a circle,

surrounding a table with candles. About 20 people were present, including the President

and the VP-ED. I had expected to be an observer, but the President suggested that I join

in as a participant. Once everyone was seated, the President introduced himself and

127

talked about being excited and a little nervous. He then had us go around the circle,

introduce ourselves and “check in” about how we were feeling. One young woman

commented that she was a little cold. When we got around to the VP-ED and he did his

introduction, the President left the room and returned with a blanket, which he gave to the

young woman. Next the President told a very personal story, and then talked about how

the situation had contributed to who he was and how he approached life. The VP-ED did

the same. The President then asked us to pair up with the person next to us and share a

story; it did not have to be intensely personal, but should be meaningful to who we were.

Then the group reconvened and we were each asked to give a summary of our partner’s

story, and why it was meaningful. I noticed the President occasionally taking notes.

When everyone had shared, the President started reading from his notes, (what follows is

not an exact quote) “Love, friendship, family, caring, peace, honesty, integrity, giving,

laughter, compassion.” He said these were things he heard in our stories, the things that

came out of our lives that we valued. “As long as we strive to live by these things,” he

said, “we’ll be just fine.” The Values Session ended with a short video called “It’s in

Every One of Us” (Krutein & Pomeranz, 1987), a series of photographs of faces of

diverse ages, races, nationalities, and cultures set to David Pomeranz’s song “It’s in

Every One of Us”. The images and the lyrics together emphasized that each one of us has

wisdom within us.

In addition to participating in a Values Session, all new employees receive the

“Heart Book” (see Appendix M), a personal journal, the cover of which is adorned with

hearts. The first few pages include a copy of the Co-Op Credit Mission Statement (the

original Mission Statement of Co-Op Credit from the early 1930s has not been changed);

128

a very simple statement of what the company wants to do, and how they are going to do

it; a page for each the Guiding Beliefs (“what we believe”) and the Daily Beliefs (“how

we go about living our beliefs”) of CC. The rest of the book is blank pages to be used as a

journal.

I was also given a copy of the original “Heart Document,” a collection of thoughts,

questions and famous quotations pulled together from things shared by the President with

others in CC over many years which the VP-HR had collected. The “Heart Document”

addresses topics such as spirituality, community, service, personal growth, and love, and

was partly behind what became the “Heart Book.” The President and VP-HR intend to

continue adding to the “Heart Document” and plan to create a section of the company

intranet devoted to the President’s thoughts, questions, and sharing of resources on these

topics that would be called the “Love Shack.”

Employee Surveys

Of the 174 employees not in senior management, 13 completed the employee survey.

With such a small completion rate (7.5%), it is difficult to draw any definitive

conclusions about the employees’ perceptions of CC from these data. Overall,

respondents’ answers were very consistent with the interviews. Everyone indicated being

very happy to be working at CC and felt that CC did a good job of blending spirituality

and business. Two challenges incorporating spirituality were mentioned on the surveys:

the need to be careful not to offend anyone; and the possibility that some people will take

advantage of the flexibility and good intentions of management.

All respondents considered CC to be a “spiritually oriented” organization, although

one individual stated that it was not her version of spirituality. This same individual said

129

CC was very supportive of her personal path and growth. Although most felt that there

was a great deal of variety in the people working at CC, one felt everyone was pretty

much alike, with similar beliefs and values.

One felt that there was occasionally too much favouritism in how decisions were

made, and how management reacted differently to different people not acting with the

Mission Statement. This same individual felt it was important to make sure that people be

allowed to be who they are, instead of who CC wants them to be. Interestingly, this

person was very positive regarding the honesty, integrity, self-awareness, and spirituality

of CC.

Quantitative Data

Of the 6 members of the Co-Op Credit senior management team (CC EXEC), 4

submitted complete and valid data sets (N = 4 for all CC EXEC cohort data). Of the 180

employees at Co-Op Credit, 59 participated in this study, and 58 complete and valid data

sets were obtained (N = 58 for all CC EMPL cohort data).

Epitomizing images. Table 8 displays the epitomizing images for each topic of the

Projective Differential for both CC cohorts. (See Appendix N for names and descriptions

CC gave to the images.)

130

Table 8

Epitomizing Images ~ Co-Op Credit Cohorts

Topic Epitomizing Imagea (% chosenbc)

CC EXEC CC EMPL

Organization ~ Actual D & E (56.3) E (77.2)

Organization ~ Best B & E (62.5) E (73.3)

Opposite Cohort B (68.8) E (58.2)

Myself ~ Actual B (75.0) E (74.1)

Prefer B (68.8) E (76.3)

Spirituality A & D (62.5) A (66.8)

Note: CC EXEC = Co-Op Credit Executive Cohort (N = 4). CC EMPL = Co-Op Credit Employee Cohort

(N = 58). Organization ~ Actual = the organization as it actually is; Organization ~ Best = the organization

at its best; Opposite Cohort = the opposite cohort of the respondent (i.e., for employees, the opposite cohort

is the executives, and vice versa); Myself ~ Actual = myself as I actually am; Prefer = the preferred image.

aMultiple epitomizing images indicates a tie; (i.e., each image was chosen the same number of times). bPercentages are based on the number of times an image was chosen as a percentage of the total number of

times the image was presented. cAs the epitomizing image’s percentage chosen increases, the fewer images

are “close” to being chosen with the same incidence, thus the epitomizing image more fully represents the

topic.

For the CC EXEC cohort, image “B” was the sole epitomizing image for three out of

the six topics, chosen between 68.8 and 75.0% of the times it was presented, and was one

of two epitomizing images for a fourth. Three of the six topics had two epitomizing

images, suggesting that the topics were perceived as complex by this cohort and therefore

embodied enough qualities of two of the images to lead to dual epitomizing images. It

could also mean that the topics were sufficiently ambiguous to the CC EXEC cohort to

lead away from a single clear choice, or that there was very little agreement between the

perceptions of the members of this cohort. “E” was the epitomizing image for every topic

except “Spirituality” for the CC EMPL cohort, chosen between 73.3 and 77.2% of the

times it was presented, except for “Opposite Cohort,” for which was chosen 58.2% of the

times, suggesting that although the opposite cohort was seen in a similar way to the other

131

topics with “E” as epitomizing image, it was not perceived as being as clearly “E-like” as

the others. This may indicate a lower level of consensus on the perception of the

management team by the employees. “Spirituality” was the only topic with a different

epitomizing image, for which “A” was chosen 66.8% of the times it was presented,

suggesting that spirituality is perceived somehow differently than the other topics.

Epitomizing image data for the two CC cohorts suggest that although they were not

completely in agreement with one another, there was some overlap in perceptions.

Although the CC EXEC cohort had two epitomizing images for spirituality, one of those

was image “A,” the same epitomizing image chosen by the CC EMPL cohort. The

situation was exactly the same for the organization as it is and at its best, for which the

CC EMPL cohort had image “E” as epitomizing for the topics and the CC EXEC cohort

had “E” as one of two epitomizing images, suggesting that although there were definitely

differences between the perceptions of the two cohorts, there was some degree of

agreement on those three topics.

Consensus levels. Table 9 shows the levels of agreement between the participants in

each cohort on the individual choices (df = 10) and the images (df = 5).

132

Table 9

Topic Consensus Levels ~ Co-Op Credit Cohorts

Topic Sum 2a p(df10) Sum 2b p(df5)

CC EXEC

Organization ~ Actual 5.00 .8912 2.55 .7689

Organization ~ Best 6.00 .8153 4.50 .4798

Opposite Cohort 8.00 .6288 5.00 .4159

Myself ~ Actual 9.00 .5321 6.50 .2606

Prefer 7.00 .7254 6.50 .2606

Spirituality 8.00 .6288 6.00 .3062

CC EMPL

Organization ~ Actual 78.759 8.7873E-13 92.759 1.7682E-18

Organization ~ Best 57.379 1.1312E-08 69.138 1.5488E-13

Opposite Cohort 12.897 .2295 10.414 .0643

Myself ~ Actual 75.724 3.4386E-12 79.586 1.0243E-15

Prefer 78.621 9.3507E-13 91.103 3.9398E-18

Spirituality 81.931 2.0979E-13 99.621 6.3533E-20

Note. CC EXEC = Co-Op Credit Executive Cohort (N = 4). CC EMPL = Co-Op Credit Employee Cohort

(N = 58). Organization ~ Actual = the organization as it actually is; Organization ~ Best = the organization

at its best; Opposite Cohort = the opposite cohort of the respondent (i.e., for employees, the opposite cohort

is the executives, and vice versa); Myself ~ Actual = myself as I actually am; Prefer = the preferred image.

aSum of Chi-squares for the 10 choices. bSum of Chi-squares for the 5 images.

There was very little consensus among the CC EXEC cohort on these six topics.

None of the topics had significant consensus on either the choice level (df10) calculation

or the image (df5) level calculations. Consensus levels for the CC EMPL cohort were

very high and significant (p < .001) on every topic except for “Opposite Cohort.” This

suggests that even though none of the topics was perceived as being completely more like

one image than any of the others (i.e., with an epitomizing image score of 100), there was

a remarkable level of consensus in the perceptions of most of the topics. These results

suggest that the CC EMPL cohort is probably very homogeneous in some ways, and view

133

these particular topics from very similar perspectives, except for their perceptions of the

management team. The fact that participants in this cohort were spread across several

branches and the head office might help to explain these results.

Projective Differential same choice scores. Table 10 shows PD-SCSs for each topic,

providing a sense of each cohort’s attitude towards spirituality, identification with

spirituality, and the perceived spirituality of the organization as it is, at its best, and of

their opposite cohort.

Table 10

Projective Differential Same Choice Scores (PD-SCS) ~ Co-Op Credit Cohorts

Same Choice Scores and Effect Size

Topic PD-SCS da Qualitative Assessmentb

CC EXEC

Attitude towards Spirituality 77.50 0.8652 positive

Identification with Spirituality 62.50 0.3933 neutral/spiritual

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 67.50 0.5506 moderately spiritual

Spirituality ~ Org. Best 65.00 0.4719 moderately spiritual

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 65.00 0.4719 moderately spiritual

CC EMPL

Attitude towards Spirituality 66.21 0.5099 moderately positive

Identification with Spirituality 64.14 0.4448 moderately spiritual

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 62.41 0.3906 neutral/spiritual

Spirituality ~ Org. Best 61.03 0.3472 neutral/spiritual

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 54.66 0.1465 neutral

Note. CC EXEC = Co-Op Credit Executive Cohort (N = 4). CC EMPL = Co-Op Credit Employee Cohort

(N = 58). Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is;

Spirituality ~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp.

Cohort = the perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite

cohort is the employee cohort and vice versa).

aCohen’s d is based on comparing the organization’s PD-SCS with a hypothetical “perfectly neutral”

condition where the same choice score is 50 and the distribution is flat (standard deviation = 31.8). bThe

“Qualitative Assessment” is based on the value of Cohen’s d and is intended to indicate the degree to which

the association between the two topics is considered negative, neutral or positive.

134

All PD-SCSs for the CC EXEC cohort were in the generally positive range. Their

lowest PD-SCS was their identification with spirituality, which was in the low-moderate

range of effect size compared to neutral (d = 0.3933). At the opposite end of the

spectrum, their attitude towards spirituality had the highest PD-SCS, in the positive to

very positive effect size range (d = 0.8652) compared to neutral. These results suggest

that this cohort felt quite positive about spirituality, but did not necessarily see

themselves as highly spiritual. Each of the other three PD-SCSs was in the low-moderate

to moderate range, suggesting they were perceived as at least somewhat spiritual. The CC

EMPL PD-SCSs were also all on the positive side of neutral, but only their attitude

towards spirituality was in the moderately positive range (d = 0.5099). All other PD-

SCSs were in the low-moderate effect size range, (d = 0.3472 to 0.4448), except for the

spirituality of the opposite cohort, which was in the neutral range (d = 0.1465). This

cohort viewed all topics as more similar to spirituality than dissimilar, but only their

attitude towards spirituality was notably positive; although, their identification with

spirituality was also very close to the moderately positive range (d = 0.4448).

I also examined the differences in PD-SCSs within each cohort to determine whether

their perceptions of the spirituality of the topics differed meaningfully from topic to topic.

A Freidman Test showed no significant differences among PD-SCSs for the CC EXEC

cohort ( 2 = .743, p[df4] = .9459), but there were significant differences among topics

for the CC EMPL cohort ( 2 = 14.494, p[df4] = 5.876E-03).

Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks tests for between-topics comparisons of the

CC EXEC cohort’s PD-SCSs revealed no statistically significant differences (see Table

O1); however, it is interesting to note that the cohort’s attitude towards spirituality was

135

moderately more positive than both their identification with spirituality and the

spirituality of the organization at its best (|d| = 0.6320 and |d| = 0.6313, respectively). In

fact, their attitude towards spirituality was at least moderately stronger than the perceived

spirituality of any of the other topics. Also interesting is that very little difference existed

between the levels of perceived spirituality of any of the other topics. These results

suggest that although this cohort’s attitude towards spirituality is measurably more

positive than the perceived spirituality of the other topics, this cohort’s sense of

themselves, their employees, and the organization appear to be relatively consistent, at

least in terms of level of spirituality.

For the CC EMPL cohort, differences between the PD-SCS for spirituality of the

opposite cohort and all other topics, except the spirituality of the organization at its best,

were significant (p < .05). As measured by effect size, every topic was perceived as more

spiritual than the opposite cohort at the low-moderate to moderate level (|d| = 0.3088 to

0.5424). None of the other PD-SCS comparisons was either significant or meaningful

(see Table O2). Other than their perceptions of the senior management team, this cohort’s

perceptions of the spirituality of themselves and their organization were at roughly the

same level.

Table 11 shows the comparisons between the two cohorts’ PD-SCSs, providing a

sense of just how different their views of the spirituality of the topics were.

136

Table 11

Between Cohort Differences in PD-SCSs ~ Co-Op Credit Cohorts

Statistics

Topic Differencea db Uc p

Attitude towards Spirituality -11.29 -0.5214 79.500 .2880

Identification with Spirituality 1.64 0.0855 101.000 .6627

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -5.09 -0.2279 102.000 .6853

Spirituality ~ Org. Best -3.97 -0.1909 104.500 .7378

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort -10.34 -0.4857 88.500 .4254

Note. Executive Cohort (N = 4). Employee Cohort (N = 58). Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived

spirituality of the organization as it actually is; Spirituality ~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the

organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort = the perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e.,

for the executive respondents, the opposite cohort is the employee cohort).

aDifferences are derived by subtracting the EXEC PD-SCS values from the EMPL PD-SCS values.

Negative differences indicate that the EXEC cohort scored the item higher than the EMPL cohort. bCohen’s d values are based on the pooled std. dev. – negative values are indicative of the EXEC cohort scoring the

item higher than the EMPL cohort. cMann-Whitney U statistic.

There were no statistically significant differences between the CC cohorts’ PD-SCSs

for any topic; however, based on effect size calculations, the CC EXEC cohort scored

moderately higher on both their attitude towards spirituality and the perceived spirituality

of the opposite cohort (|d| = 0.5214 and .4857 respectively), suggesting that even though

these two cohorts viewed the topics quite differently (based on epitomizing image

results), they were much more alike in their perceptions of the spirituality of the topics.

INcongruence. The differences between the Semantic Differential Same Choice

Scores (SD-SCS) and the Projective Differential Same Choice Scores (PD-SCS) of the

two CC cohorts, indicating levels of INcongruence between their explicit, verbal

expressions and their implicit nonverbal perceptions, are presented in Table 12.

137

Table 12

INcongruence ~ Co-Op Credit Cohorts

Difference Between SD-SCS & PD-SCS

Topic INcongruenceb dc Zd p

CC EXEC

Attitude towards Spirituality 11.43 0.7120 -.730a .4652

Identification with Spirituality 20.02 0.8800 -1.461a .1441

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 12.89 0.5754 -1.095a .2733

Spirituality ~ Org. Best 16.33 0.9486 -1.461a .1441

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 14.24 0.5859 -1.095a .2733

CC EMPL

Attitude towards Spirituality 19.43 1.0636 -4.430a 9.431E-06

Identification with Spirituality 7.62 0.5220 -2.838a 4.546E-03

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 10.95 0.6418 -3.256a 1.131E-03

Spirituality ~ Org. Best 11.92 0.7275 -3.604a 3.133E-04

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 16.90 1.0455 -4.827a 1.383E-06

Note. CC EXEC = Co-Op Credit Executive Cohort (N = 4). CC EMPL = Co-Op Credit Employee Cohort (N = 58). Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is;

Spirituality ~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp.

Cohort = the perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite

cohort is the employee cohort and vice versa).

aBased on negative ranks. bINcongruence values are the difference between the Same Choice Scores based

on the Semantic Differential (SD-SCS) and the Same Choice Scores based on the Projective Differential

(PD-SCS). Positive INcongruence indicates that the SD-SCSs were higher than the PD-SCSs. cCohen’s d is

based on the pooled standard deviations of the SD-SCSs and PD-SCSs and is bias corrected. dZ values

based on negative ranks as determined by a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

No statistically significant differences were found between the CC EXEC’s semantic

and projective assessments of the spirituality of any of the topics; effect sizes were a

different matter. Effect sizes of the INcongruence levels were in at least the moderate

range for every topic. The greatest level of INcongruence in terms of raw differences was

on the cohort’s identification with spirituality, with their verbal assessment 20.02

percentage points higher than their nonverbal assessment. The highest level of

INcongruence based on effect size was for the spirituality of the organization at its best,

138

with a raw difference of 16.33 and d = 0.9486. Even the INcongruence on their attitude

towards spirituality, which had the highest of their PD-SCSs, was in the high moderate

range (d = 0.7120). These levels of INcongruence indicate that this cohort felt some

pressure to evaluate these topics as more spiritual than they perhaps really felt they were,

even for those topics where their nonverbal assessment was relatively positive already.

INcongruence levels of the CC EMPL cohort were all statistically significant (p < .01 or

better). The effect size measure of the difference between PD-SCSs and SD-SCSs

indicate the INcongruence between nonverbal and verbal reporting of their perceptions

ranged from moderate to very high, from d = 0.5220 on their identification with

spirituality to d = 1.0636 on their attitude towards spirituality. Although pressure to

perceive or describe oneself as spiritual seems to have been moderate, the high effect size

(d > 1.0) of the INcongruence on both attitude towards spirituality and the spirituality of

the opposite cohort suggests there was somewhat more pressure to view spirituality in

general favourably and to perceive the management team as spiritual in particular.

A Friedman Test of the CC EXEC data revealed no significant differences among

their INcongruence levels ( 2 = .600, p[df4] = .9631). The same test on the CC EMPL

cohort INcongruence data revealed that differences among CC EMPL INcongruence

levels were significant ( 2 = 17.442, p[df4] = 1.586E-03). Wilcoxon matched-pairs

signed-ranks tests performed between each topic pair revealed no significant differences

between CC EXEC INcongruence scores, and effect sizes ranged from |d| = 0.2458 to

0.3212, indicating only modest meaningful differences, suggesting that whatever

pressures to appear “more spiritual” that the CC EXEC cohort felt, they were felt

relatively equally across the board (see Table O3). The same tests on the CC EMPL

139

cohort INcongruence data revealed somewhat different results (see Table O4).

Differences between INcongruence levels on their identification with spirituality and both

their attitude towards spirituality and the spirituality of the opposite cohort were

significant (p < .01). In both cases, the effect size was in the moderate range (|d| = 0.5066

and 0.4557 respectively). The difference between the INcongruence on their attitude

towards spirituality and that of the spirituality of the organization both as it is and at its

best was significant (p < .05) with a low-moderate effect size (|d| = 0.3389 and 0.3033,

respectively). These results appear to confirm that the pressure to perceive spirituality

favourably, and to perceive the opposite cohort as spiritual, was somewhat stronger than

the pressure to either identify with spirituality or perceive the organization as spiritual.

Comparisons between the two cohorts’ INcongruence data, indicating on which

topics the differences in their degree of verbal/nonverbal disconnect was meaningful, are

presented in Table 13.

Table 13

Between Cohort Differences in INcongruence ~ Co-Op Credit Cohorts

Statistics

Topic Differencea db Uc p

Attitude towards Spirituality 8.00 0.2971 92.500 .5005

Identification with Spirituality -12.40 -0.6403 79.000 .2891

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -1.94 -0.0836 110.000 .8635

Spirituality ~ Org. Best -4.39 -0.1959 103.500 .7202

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 2.66 0.1204 104.500 .7417

Note. Executive Cohort (N = 4). Employee Cohort (N = 58). Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived

spirituality of the organization as it actually is; Spirituality ~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the

organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort = the perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e.,

for the executive respondents, the opposite cohort is the employee cohort).

aDifferences are derived by subtracting the EXEC INcongruence values from the EMPL INcongruence

values. Negative differences indicate that the EXEC cohort had a higher level of INcongruence on the topic

than did the EMPL cohort. bCohen’s d values are based on the pooled std. dev. – negative values are

indicative of the EXEC cohort scoring the item higher than the EMPL cohort. cMann-Whitney U statistic.

140

There were no statistically significant differences between CC EXEC and CC EMPL

INcongruence levels on any of the topics. Only the INcongruence on their identification

with spirituality was even meaningful, at the moderate level (d = -0.6043). Overall, these

two cohorts appear to experience similar amounts of pressure to perceive the topics

assessed as similar to spirituality; however, the CC EXEC cohort seems to feel somewhat

more pressure to perceive themselves as spiritual than does the CC EMPL cohort.

Expressions of Spirituality Inventory. The CC EXEC’s results on the ESI-R indicate

that this cohort’s expression of spirituality is strongest in the Cognitive Orientation

(COS) subscale (M = 21.75), followed closely by the Religiousness (REL) subscale (M =

20.25). On the rest of the subscales, the CC EXEC cohort’s mean scores were between

14.50 and 16.75. (See Table O5.) The CC EMPL cohort scored highest on the COS

subscale also (M = 17.40), followed by Existential Well-Being (EWB) (M = 16.47). The

REL subscale was third, with Paranormal Beliefs (PAR) and Experiential-

Phenomenological (EPD) subscales scored fourth and fifth. (See Table O6.)

For both CC cohorts, the PAR and EPD subscales had the lowest mean scores, but in

different order. Both also had the EWB and REL subscales in the second and third place,

but again, in different order. These results suggest that although spirituality was

functionally relevant to both cohorts, for the EXEC cohort religion was a larger part of

what was relevant, for the EMPL cohort, spirituality was more about a sense of meaning

and purpose, and the confidence to deal with life.

To determine whether differences among the subscales were enough to suggest a

particular orientation to spirituality over any other orientation measured for either cohort,

I performed a Friedman Test on the ESI-R data for each cohort. The CC EXEC results

141

showed that there were significant differences among their subscale means ( 2 = 11.595,

p[df4] = .0206); likewise for the CC EMPL ESI-R subscale means ( 2 = 54.697, p[df4] =

3.761E-11). Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks tests between each pair of subscale

means for the CC EXEC cohort found no statistically significant differences (see Table

O7). Measured by effect size, however, this cohort’s mean score on the COS subscale

was markedly higher (|d| = 1.613 to 2.4343) than every other subscale except REL,

compared to which it was moderately higher (|d| = 0.5078). The REL subscale mean was

also meaningfully higher than the EPD, EWB, and PAR subscale means (d = 1.4193,

0.9495, and 1.9910, respectively). These results indicate that this cohort tended towards

both the more non-theistic aspects of spiritual belief and the perspective that spirituality

is functionally relevant, as well as religious expressions of spirituality over the other

types of expression measured. Of the remaining three subscales, EWB was highest; the

difference between it and the PAR subscale was in the high moderate range (|d| =

0.7409), and it scored only slightly higher then EPD (d = 0.3024).

Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks tests revealed that the CC EMPL cohort

scored significantly lower on both the EPD and the PAR subscales than any of the other

three subscales (p < .001) with high-moderate to very high effect sizes (|d| = 0.7427 to

1.1103) (see Table O8). The cohort’s mean score on the EWB subscale was not

significantly different than either COS or REL, and even though the difference between

COS and REL was significant (p < .05), the effect size of the difference was relatively

low (|d| = 0.2565). These results suggest that this cohort’s expressions of spirituality

tended towards the non-theistic aspects of spirituality and perceptions of its functional

142

relevance, religious expression, and well-being aspects of spirituality, with notably less

tendency towards personal spiritual experiences and belief in the paranormal.

To determine whether the differences in the cohorts’ ESI-R subscale mean scores is

meaningful, I performed comparisons between the cohorts’ mean scores for each

subscale. Results of those comparisons are presented in Table 14.

Table 14

Between Cohort Differences ESI-R Subscale Means ~ Co-Op Credit Cohorts

Statistics

Subscale MEMPL - MEXECa d

b Uc p

ESI-R Total -15.26 -1.0148 39.000 .0272

COS -4.35 -0.9570 52.000 .0657

EPD -4.20 -0.7304 58.500 .0987

EWB -.28 -0.0669 115.500 .9885

PAR -2.34 -0.4073 83.000 .3428

REL -4.08 -0.8368 56.000 .0846

Note. Executive Cohort (N = 4). Employee Cohort (N = 58). ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality

Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation towards Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-

Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR = Paranormal Beliefs; REL = Religiousness.

aDifferences are derived by subtracting the EXEC ESI-R values from the EMPL ESI-R values. Negative

differences indicate that the EXEC cohort scored the item higher than the EMPL cohort. bCohen’s d values

are based on the pooled std. dev. – negative values are indicative of the EXEC cohort scoring the item

higher than the EMPL cohort. cMann-Whitney U statistic.

The differences between the two CC cohorts in mean total score on the ESI-R was

significant (p < .05), and meaningful (|d| = 1.0148); however, none of the differences

between cohorts at the subscale level was significant. Effect sizes of the differences in

subscale means show that the CC EXEC cohort’s mean scores on COS and REL were

markedly higher than those of the CC EMPL cohort (|d| = 0.9570 and 0.8368

respectively). The CC EXEC cohort’s mean score on the EPD subscale was higher in the

high-moderate range (|d| = 0.7304). The two cohorts scored very close to one another on

143

the EWB subscale. Overall, spiritual expression appeared to be more present in the lives

of the CC EXEC cohort than the CC EMPL cohort, yet they had similar mean scores on

the aspects of spirituality such as purpose and meaning as captured by the EWB subscale.

Additional context for appreciating the overall spirituality profile of CC (N = 62) is

provided by comparing the CC ESI-R subscale means to those of MacDonald’s (2000)

Norms (N = 938) and a sample from ITP (N = 60). Those comparisons are shown in

Table 15.

Table 15

ESI-R ~ Differences in Means Between Co-Op Credit (CC) & Norms and CC & ITP

ESI-R Subscale MCC MNorms (dCC-Normsa) MITP (dCC-ITP

b)

COS 17.68 14.39 (0.6657) 21.27 (-0.9143)

EPD 11.82 9.89 (0.4004) 20.27 (-1.6657)

EWB 16.48 14.94 (0.3420) 16.88 (-0.1012)

PAR 12.31 12.47 (-0.0309) 17.67 (-1.0865)

REL 16.44 13.61 (0.4911) 15.68 (0.1671)

Note. ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation towards

Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR = Paranormal

Beliefs; REL = Religiousness.

aCohen’s d calculated on difference between CC and Norm means using pooled standard deviation

corrected for bias. bCohen’s d calculated on difference between CC and ITP means using pooled standard

deviation corrected for bias.

CC mean scores were higher than the Norms on every subscale except for PAR,

which was slightly lower, but with a negligible effect size (d = -0.0309). On all other

subscales the effect size of the differences from the Norms were in the low-moderate to

moderate range (d between 0.3420 and 0.6657). CC scored much lower than ITP on the

COS, EPD, and PAR subscales of the ESI-R (d between -0.9143 and -1.6657). The

difference between these two groups on the EWB and REL subscales was not large

144

enough to be meaningful in either case; however it is interesting to note that CC scored

slightly higher than ITP on REL, the only subscale for which they did so.

Ergo Spaces

Ergo Spaces (ES) is a Canadian company in the business of helping other companies

design and build office spaces. Services include initial layout design, supply and

installation of floors and movable walls with electrical conduits, office furniture, and

equipment such as copiers. Ergo Spaces was started by three of the current partners, and

at the time of my visit had been in business for over 12 years. Over the course of their

history, ES had grown steadily, and employed 125 people when I was there. (See

Appendix P for financial ratios.)

Initial Impressions

My initial contact was made through the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), a

professional colleague/acquaintance of a family member. In our first meeting to discuss

the possibility of their participation, he indicated that ES did not typically use the term

“spirituality” when talking about the company or its culture. He did feel that the culture

of the organization, which he described as very caring, was consistent with a spiritual

approach even though it was not framed that way within the company.

Once we had agreed that ES would participate, the Human Resources Manager was

put in charge of helping organize my visit in terms of space and equipment, and

scheduling the group assessment sessions and interviews. Upon my arrival, the HR

Manager showed me to where I would be conducting the group sessions, helped me

become familiar with the equipment, and provided the schedule he had arranged. He also

145

gave me a quick tour of the building, and introduced me to the members of the senior

management team as we passed their offices.

Although there were many session times available in the schedule I was given, very

few people signed up to participate. The HR Manager said that he had sent out a couple

of emails and would send out another reminder in case anyone wanted to sign up at the

last minute or just show up to a session. As ES was the last organization I visited, I could

not help but take notice of the differences in the “feel” of the organization. Everyone with

whom I interacted was certainly pleasant, but my sense was that people were there to get

their work done, and there seemed to be less room for non-work related interactions than

in either of the other two organizations. Having said that, a couple of employees did take

the time to sit and chat with me about spirituality, business, or the Projective Differential

after participating in a group session; and all senior executives at the location did

participate fully. My impression was that, as an organization, ES was happy to participate

because the research was consistent with their Core Values, as was the willingness to be

of assistance and make a contribution; however, they seemed less inclined to go out of

their way than the other two organizations.

Management Team Interviews, Company Materials, Personal Observations

Interviews were conducted with 5 of the 6 members of the Ergo Spaces management

team. The sixth member worked from a remote office, and an interview was not arranged.

The Mission Statement supplied by the HR Manager via email was: "Our Purpose

and Vision is to be the most comprehensive supplier of products and services for building

workplace environments in Canada. Our Mission is to be the number one market supplier

146

in [our region] for our industries." (See Appendix Q for the Ergo Spaces Statement of

Core Values.)

The measures of success. All members of the ES management team indicated that

there were multiple aspects to what constitutes success. Profitability was clearly an

important measure, although it was not generally seen as important in and of itself, but as

a means to do the other things they want to do.

Chief Executive Officer (CEO): We have to be profitable—hopefully if you ask every person you interview is it important that we’re profitable, hopefully they’ll—they may not necessarily agree with it but they will at least articulate that—I’ve made that pretty clear to everybody. We do have to be profitable to continue to grow and succeed but not at all expense.

CFO: We also care about being profitable especially as owners in the business. That’s very important to us. We have a lot at stake, a lot at risk, so we want a return on our money. . . . Revenues and profits—those are very important to us to be able to continue to grow our business and that we be profitable in doing so. Otherwise, what’s the point? If you can’t do that, then you can’t do a lot of the other things you might want to do. . . provide bonuses. . . things in the community. . . take care of your people. If you don’t have the resources behind you, you can’t do any of that stuff.

Vice-President of Operations (VP-Ops): Obviously in business you want to be successful and profitable. . . . So without that it’s hard to do anything else if you can’t be successful.

Senior Vice-President of Sales (SVP-Sales): From a business success—obviously it’s not just the bottom line. The bottom line is a byproduct of a successful business.

Another important measure of success was the ability to contribute to the

community. The CEO mentioned that even though the past year had not been as good

financially as previous years, they had still managed the same level of financial

contribution to local charitable institutions. He said, “If we’re recognized as a community

minded, good corporate citizen, a company that cares—I think that’s success. For me

that’s success.” The CFO echoed:

147

Another [measure of success] would be the amount of things that we are able to do in the community. I consider that to be one of our or one of my success factors for the business. There’s a lot that we’re able to do and I want to be able to continue to do that.

Whereas the CEO focused on the fact that ES maintained its level of giving despite

the economic downturn, the Senior Vice-President of Operations (SVP-Ops) felt they had

let down the staff because profit-sharing took a hit. Other employee-related measures of

success were mentioned, such as knowing that they (management) had done their best to

help people, creating an environment where people wanted to come to work, and seeing

people grow and reach new personal bests.

CEO: I love to see people do a personal best every year and that’s what I encourage them to do so it gets right down to the individual. If we have a high percent of individuals every year who have personal bests, however they define that –if they’re in sales maybe it’s their best year in sales and maybe they’ve done some other development things along the way. . . . If it’s a CSR [Customer Service Representative] person and they’ve come through a particularly ugly divorce and we help support them and they feel personally better at the end of the year than they did when some idiot was beating them. . . . I feel pretty good about that.

SVP-Ops: Knowing that the people around me are taken care of—whether it’s at home or people here, when I know we’ve done the best we can do that’s really when I’m happy. That’s really all there is to it I think for me. It’s not money. That’s all fine to have a little bit of money but really at the end of the day you can’t take it with you. It’s really what you can do for the people.

Vice-President of Operations (VP-Ops): The satisfaction is having employees who want to be there and that you know that you’re providing an environment that they work in that they value, and they like showing up, that they’re proud of and that they work for you but are also friends with you.

Employee performance. Ergo Spaces adopted a formal, outcomes based, employee

assessment program about 4 years prior to my visit. According to the CEO, the intent is

to ensure that employees understand their contribution and what’s expected of them, and

to give everyone clear guidelines for measuring success against plan:

148

I think it has worked pretty well. What it does is it clears away a lot of the clutter in terms of helping an employee to understand what their personal contribution is to the organization. Because they’re things that are hopefully meaningful to them—measurable—there’s a timeline on it.

As described by the CFO, the Personal Employee Performance Plan (PEPP)

includes:

A section that deals with more subjective things or performance traits, and we have 10 of them, things like job knowledge, team work, work ethic. . . Those get rated 1 through 5. Another section lays out objectives or outcomes for the upcoming year. Every employee in the company has a minimum of three outcomes. . . What we’re trying to do is let everybody know where they’re supposed to be going so we can meet our overall plan as a company. And what that does too is it helps people grow and learn. They’re just not left kind of floundering, “Okay, what’s my job? What am I doing here?”. . . There’s also a section for personal and professional growth.

The CFO also pointed out that seeing their employees as their most important asset,

ES expects all supervisors to sit down with each of their employees every quarter to

review their PEPP. A formal renewal of the PEPP is done annually. ES encourages

employees to identify areas where job specific training is needed, as well as areas of

personal interest that might include areas for development. These growth plans are then

formalized in the PEPP document itself. In addition, according to the SVP-Sales, ES

encourages employees to volunteer for some kind of community service as part of their

performance plan. It does not matter what the employee chooses to do in terms of

volunteerism, but it is strongly encouraged that they be involved in their community in

some way.

In dealing with underperforming employees, both the VP-Ops and SVP-Ops

mentioned the importance of working with people and trying to really understand what is

causing them to underperform.

VP-Ops: If they aren’t performing then I will bring them aside and say, “Look, this is where you need to be. You’ve done really well here and haven’t done it

149

here. I need you in the next block to do this. Is there anything I can do to help you to do this? Do you need anything? Do you need any training?” Try to get to why they can’t do it. Maybe they just can’t do that. Maybe they don’t have the skills to do it. Maybe they need training to do it or maybe they’re having a personal issue and that’s why they can’t do it. So try to get to the bottom of it and then move forward.

SVP-Ops: I try to make every effort to work with them, to understand why we’re doing what we’re doing. That would be the big thing. And everybody is not going to see it the way we see it obviously but you just have to work with people. One of our main reasons that we’re here is because of our people. And if we forget that and if we don’t work with them then we’re going to be no different than anyone else and we just can’t have that. You got to give people the time.

ES also commits resources to job-specific or -related training, which they consider

an important component of ensuring the success of their employees, as well as their

overall growth.

CFO: One of the initiatives [the HR Manager] has taken is the increased amount of training offered. Right now we have about 15 different internal training programs people can take. And our target this year was to increase our training hours by 50% over the previous year. . . to get it up to 800 hours now. . . . There would be things from telephone skills, paperwork skills for service technicians, customer service skills, how do you use Lotus notes properly. . . . Time management would be another one.

The CFO said that ES has approximately $30,000 available each year for external

courses and training; however, just as with the support for personal development

programs, employees did not take advantage of job skills training the way the CFO would

like. He felt they needed to get better at dealing with the things he called “mandatory

training.”

CFO: You’ve got a certain layer that are go-getters. Those are the ones that tend to want the training, maybe that’s 20% of your employees. . . . I’m a firm believer as well that as a business, we need to push people. We need to force people to take certain types of training. . . . That’s something that we could do a much better job in. I’ll call it mandatory training. We’re learning in that area. . . all these courses that we have in place and the increase in the training hours. Those are pretty big steps from where we were. . . . If it’s related to performing their job, then I do not have an issue with saying, “That training needs to occur, it’s going to help you do your job better. That’s critical to the business,” period. I

150

would have an issue with forcing people to do training that’s outside of their job or not really related to it.

Flexibility in work style. The primary way in which flexibility in work style

manifests at Ergo Spaces is through recognizing that employees have lives outside of

work that may occasionally require attention during the normal work day.

SVP-Sales: If they need to duck out at 3 o’clock because they’ve got something on or if my assistant says I have to leave at 4 today because I have to pick my son up from daycare or whatever, you obviously need to support your people in doing that; otherwise there’s going to be more stress on them from the home life and they’re not going to be happy, productive employees. So we’re fairly flexible.

I was also told that ES is more progressive than most companies when it comes to

various types of leave, such as bereavement and maternity leave.

SVP-Sales: We were one of the leaders on that. For example, if there’s a death in the family, most businesses give you a day off or a day or maybe 2 days to attend the funeral. We give a week. We give an extended time if it’s been a very close family member. Maternity leave. . . if you want to take the full year, take the full year. Then if they want to come back and work part-time, they can come back and work part-time. If they want to do job sharing, they can do job sharing.

Flexibility can also manifest at Ergo Spaces through commitment to employee well-

being.

SVP-Sales: We had someone who had a little health scare last year and they really wanted to do something and wanted to take basically a month off to go away and try to get in shape and we did that. We gave that person that time. Paid the person while they were off and they’ve made a significant turnaround in their health. In 1 year this person lost over 100 pounds.

Commitment to personal growth, well-being and wholeness. The encouragement of

personal and professional growth is included under the first of ES’ Core Values, “Our

People.” According to the CEO, ES has always encouraged wellness in a broad sense,

and has tended to support employees’ wellness informally. Although the SVP-Ops

indicated that with the growth of the company they had lost some of the “personal touch,”

151

the CEO said that their growing head count has allowed them to formalize some

programs.

Last year we launched officially our wellness program. It’s more difficult to do that if you only have 30 or 40 people so on a slightly larger scale it seems like it’s helped in some ways. . . . We did some benchmarking and looked around and came up with a program that had five elements to it. One is health. One is just fitness. . . . We’ve got a quit smoking element. . . . The third element will be seminars on nutrition. . . . The fourth element will be stress management seminars. . . . And then the fifth element will be a more formalized EAP program.

To help with fitness, ES has created a small gym area in the back of the building for

employees. Ergo Spaces has an employee, who happens to be a certified trainer, offering

fitness training to other employees as part of his paid work hours. For employees at ES’

other location, ES will pay for local gym memberships.

Employees who voice an interest in undertaking some kind of coursework or training

not directly work-related are supported. According to the CEO, “If they really want to do

something we’ll see if we can find a way to help support them.” Both the CFO and the

SVP-Ops said it is up to employees themselves to take advantage of the support ES

makes available, but that “people get wrapped up in their day-to-day lives and what

they’re doing and what’s going on and they don’t really take advantage of it.”

ES has also begun a resource library. According to the CEO, the library has been

more successful than expected as employees were contributing books they particularly

liked and wanted to share. There is no subject area requirement, and some covered so far

include business, community, and personal health.

CFO: We also have a resource library available to people so if they want to sign out books to read them and learn from that. And we’re really trying to encourage and I almost want to say force people to use it. . . . [We are] setting up a contest where everybody reads a book and can be eligible to win some prizes.

152

Growing through reading is encouraged by the CEO, who includes it in the

performance assessments for his direct reports.

I make them read a book every year. . . . and they have to give me a half-page book report. Some of them found that a bit odd but once they did it once then they liked it. So I just say find a book. I don’t care what it is really.

When discussing success, the CEO mentioned experiencing “personal bests,” and in

performance reviews he said he liked asking people what was the “highlight” of their

year, which did not necessarily have to do with work-related accomplishments. One

example he gave was of an employee who said her highlight was succeeding at

organizing and implementing a community service project:

She had taken this endeavor on and it took her about 6 months to pull it all together and she didn’t think she could do it. . . . It really struck me that we’re doing things that had nothing to do with her job. And that was her personal highlight and I think it was a real growth point for her and certainly for us as well by extension.

Volunteerism included in the performance plans is seen as an area important not

only to the overall values of the organization, but to supporting what is meaningful to

employees.

CEO: We do a lot of the community. . . in the last couple of years we’re at the point where we’re really trying to encourage employees to find something that is meaningful to them and we carve out time for them to do it and try to help them financially to do those kinds of things.

Having happy, productive employees is one of the benefits of supporting their

personal growth and wellness, but the VP-Ops made it clear that the motivation behind

the programs and support is also important:

In terms of programs that you implement, if the motivation is strictly [return on investment], if it’s missing the caring part of it. . . really showing interest in people and their well being it’s not going to pay off. . . . You’ve got to be cautious of those other things but it’s not your motivation.

153

Workplace community. The SVP-Ops indicated that from the beginning, the ES

culture was centered around family. When speaking of employees who had been with ES

for a while, the SVP-Sales said, “They’re like family. I know the names of all their kids. I

know their spouses.” As ES has grown, however, it has become more difficult to really

know everyone.

ES does some specific things in order to support community in the workplace. Each

quarter the company as a whole gets together for a meeting where the CEO provides a

quick update on the business and introduces people who are new to the organization. The

meeting is usually followed by an opportunity to socialize, with food and drink provided.

ES does some additional things to support community and to recognize the

importance of family.

SVP-Sales: We do kids’ Christmas parties, for example. This year we had 75 kids. Children of our employees. So we, as a business, pay for that. We bring Santa Claus in. We have clowns. We pay for gifts for them. It’s an important part of what we do. We had an employee who just started working for us and she couldn’t believe it. Her daughter was 8 years old and the first time in any place she’d ever worked that a company had done something like that. . . . It’s just a little thing but it’s an important thing. . . . We had a big pool party at the local Sports Complex for the kids. We have an internal social committee that does stuff like that—part of our culture. We do a two-dollar deduction per pay for the social fund, and plus we as a business do a lot more than top it up. It costs us a lot of money but we do three, four major functions a year.

In addition to activities for employees and their families, ES encourages “outside”

community involvement also. Although they have not had the entire company participate

together in large charity events, they often have two to five teams enter various

fundraising events such as a war canoe race for charity. Groups of employees also work

together at the local food bank.

Community service. The third Core Value to which Ergo Spaces commits is related

directly to community service. “Our Communities. Upon which we commit to being

154

leaders through our corporate citizenship, voluntary efforts of our people, and

commitment of our resources to not-for-profit organizations.”

Every member of the ES management team mentioned the importance of community

service to who they are as individuals and as an organization. The CEO said that service

was something he grew up with, and the SVP-Sales said part of the reason it is so

important is their awareness of the privileged position they have:

The reason we are committed to the community the way we are is that we understand that we live a very privileged lifestyle and a very privileged society and there a lot of people that are a lot less fortunate than we are. And we take out of our communities through businesses millions of dollars every year. So it’s really important for us to give back.

Most of the senior people commented on ways in which they, as individuals,

contributed to the community, including serving on the boards of non-profit

organizations, and giving time and money to fundraisers and other charitable

organizations. As an organization, ES supports several non-profit organizations through

donations of money and time in addition to encouraging employees to spend time

volunteering for something that holds meaning for them.

SVP-Sales: We encourage our people to volunteer. Every person as part of the performance plan, volunteer. It doesn’t matter if you’re coaching your kid playing soccer, if you’re spending an hour a week at the food bank or whatever it is. We really encourage people to give back and that’s really where our culture is. We are a giving company and we’re recognized for it.

The CEO acknowledged that the importance the senior management team places on

contribution to the community can be taken as pressure:

We have been accused occasionally of pushing a bit too hard on community stuff especially. . . there is a fine line. You don’t want to be too much of an ogre on the one hand, but on the other hand if you believe in it, sometimes people do need to be forced a little bit on it.

155

An example came up in a casual conversation I had with an employee following one

of the group assessment sessions. ES is recognized for their support for the United Way

Campaign, and the very high level of employee participation in making contributions.

The employee said that although a payroll deduction for United Way contributions was

technically voluntary, “everyone knows you have to do it,” and that ES “must be getting

paid back in some way.” This topic came up during my interviewing of the CFO, and he

responded that it was disappointing, but not really surprising. He suggested it could be

due, in part, to lack of communication of the company values, or that some people don’t

share the same values or don’t like feeling forced to do something

We push it down their throats because it’s something that we believe in. And some employees don’t like that. So it doesn’t surprise me that you’d hear a comment like that. And it’s something that we’ve struggled with over the past couple of years and do we force people or don’t we? We want people to participate or we don’t want them working with us because if they don’t share the same values, if they don’t want to be part of what we want to be part of, then they should be somewhere else. . . . it’s not the dollar amount that matters to us [it’s the participation]. . . . It’s the core values, a belief in supporting a community.

Although some employees question the motivation behind the level of community

service undertaken at Ergo Spaces, the senior management team made it clear that their

motivation was not business driven.

VP-Ops: You don’t get involved in the community because you’re going to get stuff back out of it. That’s a nice comeback, but if that was your focus. . . it wouldn’t come across the same way. People would read through that in about two seconds. And there are businesses—I’ve seen it in the past, where they do exactly that. All they’re looking for is the return. And it shows through.

CEO: It used to surprise me the number of times that business associates would say, “Well, there must be a business reason that you’re making that kind of a volunteer effort.” And that is totally the wrong way to look at it and the wrong reason to do it because you will get so disappointed if the only reason you’re doing those things is because you think there’s a direct immediate payback. But over a period of time it’s been phenomenal the kind of the return that you get for doing that. Just in terms of how you feel about what you do.

156

SVP-Ops: If I was to ask my customers if we helped the United Way like we did or we didn’t would that make a difference, they’re not going to say yes or no. Really that plays no role in why we do it. That we’re able to do it is just marvelous. But does it affect business? I would hope not. We’ve asked ourselves this question a lot of times. When we’re at functions, why don’t we see our competitors there? It could be a simple answer that there are so many [non-profits] out there that it’s spread around. But we contribute to probably over 100. . . I feel sad that they [competitors] are not. And maybe because we’re so [visible] they don’t want to be seen around us. Whatever the thing is I feel bad that they’re not out there as much as we are, because so many people out there do need help.

Spirituality/values as part of the company’s culture. The senior management team

generally did not talk about their culture in terms of spirituality. When asked whether his

personal spiritual beliefs influenced how he runs the business, the CEO’s answer

suggested that he didn’t usually think of it in those terms, but that ultimately did feel the

spiritual element was an important part of the whole.

CEO: How you operate in your life is always a reflection of your whole life. Certainly to that degree I would have to say yes. Even though—I don’t consider myself a deeply devoted religious person. Although I do feel like I’m—you know, spirituality—that whole element—is very important to me so I would say the answer is yes.

Additional questioning for clarification indicated that he did not separate who he is

at work from who he is anywhere else. Similarly, most of the rest of the senior

management team tended not to think in terms of spirituality, and although they had

varying degrees of religion in their backgrounds, what they really drew from it was the

need to treat people well and with respect.

SVP-Ops: I have not really thought of it that way. Again, it’s back to treating people like you like to be treated yourself. I think my comment earlier about just thinking you’re a lucky person. I think may you could connect that to that.

SVP-Sales: My philosophy has always been do unto others as you would like to be done to you. And that’s always served me well.

VP-Ops: I think the fundamental in most religions is that most of them are based on treating people well. Respect. They all sort of seem to be in the same vein in terms of being positive. Even though I may not be as involved as I was, that basis

157

is still underneath. I genuinely like to try to treat people well and respect them and respect what they’re doing and not take advantage of situations or people. So I think that philosophy probably comes through.

The other value expressed about their business philosophy, or how their beliefs

influence how they do business, was the importance of honesty and integrity.

CFO: Honesty and integrity in doing the right thing. That’s always been important to me and that’s something that I got from my parents and so I bring that to work every day.

SVP-Sales: Integrity is everything to us. And there’s an old saying that it’s very easy to remember the truth but very difficult to remember a lie. So we instill that in our people that regardless of the situation integrity is the most important factor and always tell the truth.

According to the CEO, the values system has been present from the start of the

company and was formalized in their Core Values statement a few years into the

company’s existence:

We’ve always had a pretty strong value system. We didn’t articulate it particularly well the first 4 or 5 years. . . and then we went through a planning exercise at one stage and we came up with our core values. There is absolutely no question that we could have made lots of decisions that would’ve made us more money but that’s not the point.

The SVP-Sales made very clear the importance of the Core Values and remaining

true to them, especially when facing difficult decisions.

It’s not a perfect system but you can usually break down everything is what are your core values as a business and what impact—you never compromise your core values. If you do compromise your core values, they are not your core values. All they are is a fancy marketing statement to try to solicit business. You really need to believe in your core values.

When asked about how they deal with conflicts that may arise between the values of

the organization with the business reality of needing to make money, he said that if the

core values make sense, such conflicts should not arise.

You shouldn't have to balance the values of your business versus making money because part of your value system is being a profitable organization which can

158

invest in people and training and growing the market and being on the leading edge of either technology or market, emerging markets, whatever it is. So there really shouldn’t be a lot of conflict between having to make decisions saying we’re going to lose money if we make this decision. Then we’ve got a poor set of values and a poor vision for your business.

According to the ES Core Values, the first value is their people, the second is their

customers, third is the broader community, and fourth is the environment. The underlying

value that permeates all of the stated Core Values is “caring.” When asked specifically

about the culture of ES, the CEO said, “I think it is one of caring. I think we care as an

organization.” This view was echoed by the senior management team.

SVP-Ops: So far as the culture goes, I think we all have our values. . . . We were all caring people and I think that’s how the company grew, just by our caring not only for our people but for other people.

VP-Ops: I would say caring is one of the ways to describe it. We’re very business-minded just like every business but the difference is that we make an effort consistently to try and implement some of these things that make a difference.

CFO: The best way that I would describe it to somebody is that we’re a company that cares, so we are a company that cares about our customers and taking care of them. . . We care about our employees, so we want to make sure that all our employees are given the tools and things they need to do their jobs to the best manner possible. And, you know, on a personal level, if anybody needs—we try and help them out, take care of them. We care about our communities, so we spend a lot of time and effort and money in terms of supporting different groups within our community, both on a professional level and on a charitable level.

Employee Surveys

Of the 125 employees working at Ergo Spaces, only 10 (8%) completed the

employee survey making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the employees’

perceptions of ES from these data. In addition, not every respondent answered every

survey question fully.

When commenting on the culture, most respondents indicated that it had a “family

feel” or was “close and open.” Two people said community involvement was a positive

159

aspect of the culture and one of those also said the reward for performance was an

important part of the culture. One respondent who indicated ES had a family-style culture

suggested that people with religious beliefs other than Christianity were not adequately

accommodated, in particular, non-Christians were expected to work some of the Christian

holiday periods so that Christians could have their holiday, but had to take vacation days

in order to get their religious holidays off.

Regarding ES’ community and charitable involvement, 8 felt quite positive that Ergo

Spaces does so much. However, of those, 3 expressed strong displeasure that they were

“practically forced” to make contributions to the charity of ES’ choosing (the United

Way) through payroll deductions. One said that it was understood that senior

management wanted 100% participation, and another thought ES was only involved with

community service when they thought there might be some potential for business.

Six people felt supported in their personal, professional, psychological, and spiritual

growth. One of those felt that although generally supportive, ES was not particularly

supportive of “spiritual” growth, although that was not important to him personally.

Another indicated that even though she felt supported, she had to prove herself first, and

2 others said that ES was “somewhat” supportive of their growth. One respondent who

felt ES was supportive of her professional growth, but not particularly supportive of her

from a psychological and physical standpoint, related that when she was having personal

problems and tried to get support, her boss told her to “leave it at home,” and that she was

given a had a hard time at work during the period when she was struggling personally.

Five indicated dissatisfaction with the pay scale, 2 suggesting that the pay scale did

not make sense. One of those said the lack of respect for the “worker bees” had led to ES

160

losing some good people, which would continue as a result of the poor salaries. Of the 5,

4 felt ES was very demanding and/or had very high expectations.

Quantitative Data

Of the 6 members of the senior management team at Ergo Spaces (ES EXEC), 5

submitted complete and valid data sets (N = 5 for all ES EXEC data). The sixth member

of the senior management team worked at a different location, which I did not visit. Of

the 119 employees at Ergo Spaces, 18 participated in the study, and all 18 submitted

complete and valid data sets (N = 18 for all ES EMPL data).

Epitomizing images. Table 16 displays each ES cohort’s epitomizing image choices,

and their corresponding rate of choice for each topic. (Descriptions given for each of the

images by individuals from ES are in Appendix R.)

Table 16

Epitomizing Images ~ Ergo Spaces Cohorts

Topic Epitomizing Imagea (% chosenbc)

ES EXEC ES EMPL

Organization ~ Actual B (70.0) E (63.9)

Organization ~ Best A (65.0) A (54.2)

Opposite Cohort B & C (70.0) B (59.7)

Myself ~ Actual B (65.0) E (59.7)

Prefer A (70.0) E (58.3)

Spirituality A (75.0) A (69.4)

Note: ES EXEC = Ergo Spaces Executive Cohort (N = 5). ES EMPL = Ergo Spaces Employee Cohort (N =

18). Organization ~ Actual = the organization as it actually is; Organization ~ Best = the organization at its

best; Opposite Cohort = the opposite cohort of the respondent (i.e., for employees, the opposite cohort is

the executives, and vice versa); Myself ~ Actual = myself as I actually am; Prefer = the preferred image.

aMultiple epitomizing images indicates a tie; (i.e., each image was chosen the same number of times). bPercentages are based on the number of times an image was chosen as a percentage of the total number of

times the image was presented. cAs the epitomizing image’s percentage chosen increases, the fewer images

are “close” to being chosen with the same incidence, thus the epitomizing image more fully represents the

topic.

161

Image “A” was the ES EXEC’s epitomizing image for three of the six topics, and

image “B” was the epitomizing picture for the other three (opposite cohort also had

image “C”). In all cases, epitomizing images were chosen at least 65% of the time they

were presented as options, with none being chosen more than 75% of the time it was

presented. These results suggest that the epitomizing images were at least relatively good

representations of the topics, with the opposite cohort appearing to have been perceived

to be of a dual nature. It also appears that the organization at its best, their preferred

image, and spirituality were all perceived in relatively similar ways, and the organization

as it was, their opposite cohort, and themselves as they were, were all perceived in at

least somewhat similar ways. For the ES EMPL cohort, with only moderate rates of being

chosen, between 54.2% and 69.4%, none of the epitomizing images can be said to be

strongly representative of the topics for this cohort as a whole, although at 69.4%, image

“A” was at least relatively representative of spirituality. The cohort appears to have

perceived similarities between spirituality and the organization at its best, and between

the organization as it is, themselves, and what they prefer. Their perceptions of their

opposite cohort appear to have been somewhat different than the rest, as it was the only

topic with “B” for its epitomizing image.

Epitomizing image data for the two ES cohorts suggest that although they were not

completely in agreement with one another, there was some overlap in perceptions. Both

cohorts chose image “A” more than any other as similar to both the organization at its

best and spirituality. They also both had image “B” as epitomizing the opposite cohort

(although for the ES EXEC it was one of two epitomizing images). The two cohorts’

epitomizing images for each of the other three topics were not the same. So, even though

162

there were definitely differences between the perceptions of the two cohorts, there was

some degree of agreement on their perceptions of both the organization at its best and

spirituality, and they may have seen each other in similar ways.

Consensus levels. Table 17 shows the levels of agreement between the participants

in each cohort on the individual choices (df = 10) and the images (df = 5).

Table 17

Topic Consensus Levels ~ Ergo Spaces Cohorts

Topic Sum 2a p(df10) Sum 2b p(df5)

ES EXEC

Organization ~ Actual 8.400 .5898 6.667 .2466

Organization ~ Best 6.800 .7442 5.200 .3920

Opposite Cohort 11.600 .3127 12.800 .0253

Myself ~ Actual 3.600 .9636 3.200 .6692

Prefer 8.400 .5898 7.200 .2062

Spirituality 22.800 .0115 25.600 1.07E-04

ES EMPL

Organization ~ Actual 9.778 .4602 9.371 .0951

Organization ~ Best 6.444 .7766 2.556 .7681

Opposite Cohort 9.333 .5008 7.444 .1896

Myself ~ Actual 13.778 .1834 13.889 .0163

Prefer 9.556 .4803 9.333 .0965

Spirituality 48.000 6.21E-07 55.000 1.31E-10

Note. ES EXEC = Ergo Spaces Executive Cohort (N = 5). ES EMPL = Ergo Spaces Employee Cohort (N =

18). Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is; Spirituality ~

Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort = the

perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite cohort is the

employee cohort).

aSum of Chi-squares for the 10 choices. bSum of Chi-squares for the 5 images.

For the most part, consensus levels exhibited by the ES EXEC cohort were relatively

low. The most notable exception was spirituality, for which consensus was significant

163

using either the choice level or image level measures (p[df5] < .05 and p[df5] < .001,

respectively). Using the image level measure, the consensus regarding their opposite

cohort was also significant at (p[df5] < .05). The ES EMPL cohort’s consensus on

spirituality was very high by both measures (p < .001). Image level consensus on the

topic “Myself ~ Actual” was high, and significant (p[df5] < .05).

Projective Differential same choice scores. Table 18 shows PD-SCSs for each topic,

providing a sense of each cohort’s attitude towards spirituality, identification with

spirituality, and the perceived spirituality of the organization as it is, at its best, and of

their opposite cohort.

Table 18

Projective Differential Same Choice Scores (PD-SCS) ~ Ergo Spaces Cohorts

Same Choice Scores and Effect Size

Topic PD-SCS da Qualitative Assessmentb

ES EXEC

Attitude towards Spirituality 58.00 0.2517 neutral/positive

Identification with Spirituality 48.00 -0.0629 neutral

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 48.00 -0.0629 neutral

Spirituality ~ Org. Best 76.00 0.8180 spiritual

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 32.00 -0.5663 moderately non-spiritual

ES EMPL

Attitude towards Spirituality 57.22 0.2272 neutral/positive

Identification with Spirituality 58.89 0.2797 neutral/spiritual

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 55.56 0.1748 neutral

Spirituality ~ Org. Best 55.00 0.1573 neutral

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 52.22 0.0699 neutral

Note. ES EXEC = Ergo Spaces Executive Cohort (N = 5). ES EMPL = Ergo Spaces Employee Cohort (N =

18). Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is; Spirituality ~

Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort = the

perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite cohort is the

employee cohort).

164

aCohen’s d is based on comparing the organization’s PD-SCS with a hypothetical “perfectly neutral”

condition where the same choice score is 50 and the distribution is flat (standard deviation = 31.8). bThe

“Qualitative Assessment” is based on the value of Cohen’s d and is intended to indicate the degree to which

the association between the two topics is considered negative, neutral or positive.

None of the topics was perceived by the ES EXEC cohort as particularly spiritual,

except the organization at its best, which had a same choice score of 76.00 and a large

effect size (d = 0.8180) compared to neutral. The cohort’s attitude towards spirituality

was in the positive range, but with an effect size of only .2517, the strength of that

positive attitude was not particularly meaningful. Both their identification with

spirituality and their perceived spirituality of the organization as it is were in the neutral

range, just slightly to the negative side of neutral. The only result that was in the

moderate range of effect size when compared to neutral was their perception of the

spirituality of their employees (Opposite Cohort), which the ES EXEC cohort perceived

as moderately dissimilar to spirituality (d = -0.5663). These results suggest that the ES

EXEC cohort perceived the organization as having potential to be spiritual, but currently

was not; and although their attitude towards spirituality was modestly positive, they did

not identify with spirituality at all. If not for the slightly positive attitude and the

moderately negative perception of the spirituality of the employees, one possible

interpretation is that this cohort does not consider spirituality to be particularly relevant.

Although all PD-SCSs for the ES EMPL cohort were on the positive side of neutral,

they were also all not particularly strongly positive. The spirituality of the organization

as it is, the organization at its best, and the opposite cohort were all weak enough not to

be meaningfully positive. Both this cohort’s attitude towards and identification with

spirituality were only modestly positive (d = 0.2272 and 0.2797 respectively, compared

165

to neutral). As with the ES EXEC cohort, it appears that spirituality may not have been

particularly relevant to this cohort.

If spirituality really was not relevant to the either of the ES cohorts, we might expect

to see that the within cohort differences between PD-SCSs would be relatively low. A

Friedman Test indicated that there were significant differences among the ES EXEC’s

perceptions of the spirituality of the topics ( 2 = 9.582, p[df4] = .048); there were no

significant differences among the ES EMPL’s PD-SCSs ( 2 = 3.429, p[df4] = .489).

Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks tests between PD-SCSs of the ES EXEC cohort

(see Table S1) showed that the spirituality of the organization at its best was significantly

higher than both their attitude towards spirituality and the spirituality of their opposite

cohort (p < .05). The difference between the spirituality of the organization at its best

and that of the opposite cohort was very large (|d| = 1.3623), whereas the difference with

their attitude towards spirituality was moderate (|d| = 0.5272). None of the other

differences between ES EXEC PD-SCSs were statistically significant; however, the

difference between the spirituality of the organization at its best and spirituality of the

organization as it is, was large (|d| = 0.9387). The difference between the spirituality of

their opposite cohort and their own attitude towards spirituality was also large (|d| =

0.7957). There was no difference at all between their level of identification with

spirituality and their perception of the spirituality of the organization as it is. The

difference between their identification with and attitude towards spirituality was small

(|d| = 0.2396). The rest of the differences were in the moderate effect size range. The fact

that some differences between the various levels of perceived spirituality were

significant, and that most were in the moderate to large effect size range, suggests that

166

spirituality probably was relevant to the ES EXEC cohort at some level, despite the

generally low PD-SCSs. For the ES EMPL cohort PD-SCSs, comparisons showed no

significant differences (see Table S2). Similarly, effect size calculations on the

differences between the pairs of topics’ yielded no particularly meaningful results. The

differences between the spirituality of their opposite cohort and both their attitude

towards and identification with spirituality were in the low range (|d| = 0.2075 and

0.2655 respectively). Effect sizes of all other differences between PD-SCSs suggest that

the differences were too small to be meaningful, suggesting that even though this cohorts’

attitude towards and identification with spirituality were modestly positive, they weren’t

appreciably more positively spiritual than any of the other topics. Overall, the PD-SCS

results seem to indicate that for this cohort, spirituality was not a particularly relevant

topic.

Table 19 shows the results of comparisons between the two ES cohorts’ PD-SCSs

indicating the degree of similarity or difference between the two cohorts’ assessments of

spirituality.

Table 19

Between Cohort Differences in PD-SCSs ~ Ergo Spaces Cohorts

Statistics

Topic Differencea db Uc p

Attitude towards Spirituality -0.78 -0.0292 41.500 .7921

Identification with Spirituality 10.89 0.3484 39.000 .6515

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 7.56 0.3797 42.000 .8196

Spirituality ~ Org. Best -21.00 -0.8937 25.500 .1423

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 20.22 0.8156 25.500 .1430

Note. Executive Cohort (N = 5). Employee Cohort (N = 18). Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived

spirituality of the organization as it actually is; Spirituality ~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the

organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort = the perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e.,

for the executive respondents, the opposite cohort is the employee cohort).

167

aDifferences are derived by subtracting the EXEC PD-SCS values from the EMPL PD-SCS values.

Negative differences indicate that the EXEC cohort scored the item higher than the EMPL cohort. bCohen’s

d values are based on the pooled std. dev. – negative values are indicative of the EXEC cohort scoring the

item higher than the EMPL cohort. cMann-Whitney U statistic.

Comparing PD-SCSs of the two cohorts using Mann-Whitney U-Test yielded no

significant results; however, effect size calculations did reveal that some of the

differences were worth noting. The ES EMPL cohort’s perception of the spirituality of

the management team was much higher than the ES EXEC cohort’s perception of the

spirituality of the employees (d = 0.8156). The ES EXEC cohort was markedly more

positive in their assessment of the spirituality of the organization at its best than was the

ES EMPL cohort (|d| = -0.8937). Interestingly, the ES EMPL cohort’s score indicating

their perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is, was higher than the ES

EXEC cohort’s score at a low-moderate d = 0.3797. Also interesting is the fact that there

was very little difference in their attitudes towards spirituality, but that the employees

were modestly more identified with spirituality than was the management team.

INcongruence. The differences between the Semantic Differential Same Choice

Scores (SD-SCS) and the Projective Differential Same Choice Scores (PD-SCS) of the

two ES cohorts, indicating levels of INcongruence between their explicit, verbal

expressions and their implicit nonverbal perceptions, are presented in Table 20.

168

Table 20

INcongruence ~ Ergo Spaces Cohorts

Difference Between SD-SCS & PD-SCS

Topic INcongruencec dd Ze p

ES EXEC

Attitude towards Spirituality 22.86 0.7784 -1.084a .2875

Identification with Spirituality 29.39f 0.8226 -1.483a .1380

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 26.78f 1.2057 -2.023a .0431

Spirituality ~ Org. Best -4.41 -0.1642 -.405b .6858

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 43.50f 1.7657 -2.023a .0431

ES EMPL

Attitude towards Spirituality 26.67 1.3400 -2.897a 3.770E-03

Identification with Spirituality 18.77 0.9214 -2.722a 6.491E-03

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 20.94 1.4676 -3.332a 8.623E-04

Spirituality ~ Org. Best 21.27 1.2693 -2.896a 3.778E-03

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 24.10 1.3111 -2.896a 3.778E-03

Note. ES EXEC = Ergo Spaces Executive Cohort (N = 5). ES EMPL = Ergo Spaces Employee Cohort (N =

18). Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is; Spirituality ~

Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort = the

perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite cohort is the

employee cohort).

aBased on negative ranks. bBased on positive ranks. cINcongruence values are the difference between the

Same Choice Scores based on the Semantic Differential (SD-SCS) and the Same Choice Scores based on

the Projective Differential (PD-SCS). Positive INcongruence indicates that the SD-SCSs were higher than

the PD-SCSs. dCohen’s d is based on the pooled standard deviations of the SD-SCSs and PD-SCSs and is

bias corrected. eZ score of Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test. fPD-SCS was in “negative” range

(below 50) and SD-SCS was in positive range (above 50).

The greatest difference between the ES EXEC’s nonverbal assessment and verbal

expression of the spirituality of a topic was regarding the opposite cohort, with a raw

difference of 43.50, which was both statistically significant (p < .05) and had a very large

effect size (d = 1.7657). The only other difference that was both significant and had a

very large effect size, was their perception of the spirituality of the organization as it

actually is (d = 1.2057). Both their attitude towards and identification with spirituality

169

had INcongruence levels in the high effect size range (d = 0.7784 and 0.8226,

respectively). Interestingly, their INcongruence on the spirituality of the organization at

its best was very small, and in fact, their nonverbal assessment was slightly more positive

than their verbal expression. These results further suggest that spirituality is relevant to

this cohort. They appear to feel pressure, or a strong impulse to present themselves and

their organization as spiritual, but at the nonverbal level, their assessment of that

spirituality does not measure up to their verbal expression, except when considering the

organization at its best. The INcongruence levels exhibited by the ES EMPL cohort were

high for every topic, with differences between the projective and semantic assessments

being statistically significant (p < .01). Effect sizes were also very high for every topic’s

INcongruence (d between 0.9214 and 1.3400). This high level of INcongruence indicates

that there was a meaningful disconnect between what this cohort felt and what they were

willing to express, and suggests the presence of some significant pressure to present a

positive assessment of the similarity between the topics and spirituality.

I also compared INcongruence levels among topics for each cohort to determine the

whether the degree of pressure to perceive topics as spiritual differed from topic to topic.

A Friedman Test showed that the differences among the ES EXEC cohort’s

INcongruence scores were not significant ( 2 = 9.120, p[df4] = .0582); nor were the

differences among INcongruence scores of the ES EMPL cohort ( 2 of .756, p[df4] =

.9443). Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks tests between topics’ INcongruence within

the ES EXEC cohort results showed that INcongruence on their attitude towards

spirituality and the spirituality of the opposite cohort were both significantly greater than

the INcongruence on the spirituality of the organization at its best (p < .05). No other

170

differences between INcongruence levels of any two topics were statistically significant.

(See Table S3.) Not surprisingly, the topic with the lowest INcongruence (and the only

one with a higher PD-SCS than the SD-SCS), the spirituality of the organization at its

best, was notably lower on INcongruence than any other topic (|d| = 0.5786 to 1.3678).

Also notable was the difference in INcongruence levels of the perceived spirituality of

the opposite cohort and that of the organization as it is (|d| = 0.8885). These results

suggest that although differences between the level of pressure, or desire, to present each

topic as spiritual were mostly not statistically significant, there were some meaningful

differences. The disparity between the cohort’s verbal and nonverbal assessments of the

spirituality of the organization at its best was clearly much less than that of any of the

other topics, and that of the spirituality of their opposite cohort was clearly much greater

than any of the other topics. Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks tests and effect size

calculations between each topic pair showed no significant or particularly meaningful

differences between any of the ES EMPL cohort’s INcongruence levels (see Table S4).

The largest effect size of the differences was found between the INcongruence levels for

identification with and attitude towards spirituality (|d| = 0.2768); the INcongruence on

their attitude towards spirituality was modestly higher than it was on their identification

with spirituality, indicating that the level of pressure to present the topics as spiritual was

more general than topic specific for this cohort.

To determine whether either cohort experienced more pressure to appear positive in

their assessment of the spirituality of the topics, the two cohorts’ levels of INcongruence

were compared. Table 21 shows the differences in INcongruence between the two

cohorts for each topic.

171

Table 21

Between Cohort Differences in INcongruence ~ Ergo Spaces Cohorts

Statistics

Topic Differencea db Uc p

Attitude towards Spirituality 3.81 0.1136 43.500 .9109

Identification with Spirituality -10.62 -0.3503 34.000 .4123

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -5.84 -0.3117 36.000 .5022

Spirituality ~ Org. Best 25.68 0.9125 23.000 .1011

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort -19.40 -0.7124 26.000 .1567

Note. Executive Cohort (N = 5). Employee Cohort (N = 18). Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived

spirituality of the organization as it actually is; Spirituality ~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the

organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort = the perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e.,

for the executive respondents, the opposite cohort is the employee cohort).

aDifferences are derived by subtracting the EXEC INcongruence values from the EMPL INcongruence

values. Negative differences indicate that the EXEC cohort had a higher level of INcongruence on the topic than did the EMPL cohort. bCohen’s d values are based on the pooled std. dev. – negative values are

indicative of the EXEC cohort scoring the item higher than the EMPL cohort. cMann-Whitney U statistic.

None of the differences in these cohorts’ INcongruence levels was statistically

significant; however, effect size calculations suggest that their INcongruence on two

topics was different enough to be worth noting. The ES EMPL cohort’s INcongruence on

the spirituality of the organization at its best was meaningfully higher than the ES

EXEC’s INcongruence on that topic (d = 0.9125). The ES EXEC cohort’s INcongruence

on spirituality of the employees (Opposite Cohort) was meaningfully higher than the ES

EMPL cohort’s INcongruence on the spirituality of the management team (Opposite

Cohort). These differences between INcongruence levels suggest that whereas the ES

EMPL cohort experienced more pressure to perceive the organization as spiritual than did

the ES EXEC cohort, the ES EXEC cohort experienced more pressure to perceive the

employees as spiritual than the ES EMPL felt about perceiving the management team as

172

spiritual. Given the ES EXEC cohort’s very low perception of the spirituality of the

employees (PD-SCS = 32), this is not surprising.

Expressions of Spirituality Inventory. On the ESI-R, the ES EXEC cohort scored

highest on the Existential Well-Being (EWB) subscale, with a mean score of 20.60,

followed very closely by the Cognitive Orientation (COS) subscale with a mean score of

20.00. The other three subscales all scored somewhat lower, ranging from M = 11.20 to

M = 13.40 (see Table S5). The ES EMPL cohort’s mean scores on the ESI-R subscales

indicate that their expressions of spirituality were represented mostly by the COS and

EWB subscales (M = 17.67 and M = 16.06, respectively). These were followed by

Religiousness (REL), Paranormal Beliefs (PAR), and Experiential-Phenomenological

(EPD) subscales (see Table S6).

Within-cohort, between-subscale comparisons indicate whether differences among

the subscales were significant and might suggest that either cohort favored a particular

orientation to spirituality. Friedman Tests showed that there were significant differences

among the ESI-R subscale scores for the ES EXEC cohort ( 2 = 15.071, p[df4] = 4.56E-

03); likewise among the ESI-R subscales for the ES EMPL cohort ( 2 = 14.384, p[df4] =

6.17E-03).

For the ES EXEC cohort, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks tests and effect size

calculations between each pair of subscale means found that the difference between the

EWB and the COS subscale means was neither significant nor meaningful, and that both

of those subscale mean scores were significantly higher than either the EPD or the PAR

subscales (p < .05) with very large effect sizes of the differences (|d| = 2.0276 to 2.9502).

The cohort’s COS mean score was also significantly and meaningfully higher than their

173

REL mean score (p < .05, |d| = 1.3440). Although the difference between their EWB

mean score and their REL mean score was not statistically significant, it was meaningful

(|d| = 1.4606). The ES EXEC cohort’s mean scores on the EPD and the PAR subscales

were lowest, and neither significantly nor meaningfully different from one another. Their

mean score on REL was modestly higher than both EPD and PAR subscales. These

results suggest that this cohort’s expression of spirituality is focused primarily, and

relatively equally, on well-being aspects of spirituality (EWB) and a sense of the

functional relevance of spirituality, from a non-theistic perspective (COS). (see Table

S7.)

The ES EMPL cohort’s mean score on the COS subscale was significantly higher

than their mean scores on both the EPD and the PAR subscales (p < .01), and effect sizes

of the differences were in the high to very high range (|d| = 1.1227 and 0.8952

respectively). COS was also significantly higher than the REL subscale (p < .05), with an

effect size of the difference in the moderate range (|d| = 0.5861). Although COS also

scored higher than EWB, the difference was not significant, and was moderately

meaningful (|d| = 0.3741). Other notable results include that the EWB mean was

significantly higher than the EPD mean (p < .05) with a high effect size (|d| = 0.8275).

Although not significant, the EWB mean was moderately higher than the PAR mean (|d|

= 0.6035). These results suggest that the ES EMPL cohort tended to relate to spirituality

through primarily an orientation that includes non-theistic aspects of spiritual belief and a

perception of spirituality as relevant (COS). They may also tend to relate to the well-

being aspects of spirituality (EWB), and with more of a religious approach (REL) than

one of personal spiritual experience (EPD). (See Table S8.)

174

To determine whether the differences in the cohorts’ ESI-R subscale mean scores is

meaningful, I performed comparisons between the cohorts’ mean scores for each

subscale, presented in Table 22.

Table 22

Between Cohort Differences ESI-R Subscale Means ~ Ergo Spaces Cohorts

Statistics

Subscale MEMPL - MEXECa d

b Uc p

ESI-R Total -4.72 -0.2732 33.500 .3898

COS -2.33 -0.5690 32.500 .3435

EPD 0.24 0.0383 43.500 .9106

EWB -4.54 -1.0883 16.000 .0298

PAR 0.87 0.1404 33.500 .3902

REL 1.04 0.1619 39.500 .6799

Note. Executive Cohort (N = 5). Employee Cohort (N = 18).ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-

Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation towards Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB

= Existential Well-Being; PAR = Paranormal Beliefs; REL = Religiousness.

aDifferences are derived by subtracting the EXEC ESI-R values from the EMPL ESI-R values. Negative

differences indicate that the EXEC cohort scored the item higher than the EMPL cohort. bCohen’s d values

are based on the pooled std. dev. – negative values are indicative of the EXEC cohort scoring the item

higher than the EMPL cohort. cMann-Whitney U statistic.

The ES EXEC cohort’s mean score on the EWB subscale of the ESI-R was

significantly (p < .05), and meaningfully (|d| = 1.0883) higher than the ES EMPL

cohort’s EWB mean. No other significant differences were found, but the ES EXEC

cohort scored moderately higher than the ES EMPL cohort on the COS subscale (|d| =

0.5690). Overall, the ES EXEC cohort’s mean ESI-R total was only modestly higher than

the ES EMPL cohort’s total (|d| = 0.2732).

Additional context for appreciating the overall spirituality profile of ES (N = 23) is

provided by comparing the ES ESI-R subscale means to those of MacDonald’s (2000)

175

Norms (N = 938) and a sample from ITP (N = 60). Those comparisons are shown in

Table 23.

Table 23

ESI-R ~ Differences in Means Between Ergo Spaces (ES) & Norms and ES & ITP

ESI-R Subscale MCC MNorms (dOS-Normsa) MITP (dOS-ITP

b)

COS 18.17 14.39 (0.7653) 21.27 (-0.9237)

EPD 11.39 9.89 (0.3133) 20.27 (-1.8443)

EWB 17.04 14.94 (0.4653) 16.88 (0.0405)

PAR 12.48 12.47 (0.0016) 17.67 (-1.1329)

REL 14.22 13.61 (0.1043) 15.68 (-0.3085)

Note. ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation towards

Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR = Paranormal

Beliefs; REL = Religiousness.

aCohen’s d calculated using pooled standard deviation corrected for bias.

ES had higher mean scores than the Norms on every subscale of the ESI-R, however

on both the PAR and REL subscales, the ES means were not meaningfully higher (d =

0.0016 and 0.1043, respectively). On the COS subscale, the ES mean score was

meaningfully higher in the high-moderate range (d = 0.7653), and on both EPD and EWB

subscales, ES’ scores were somewhat higher than the Norms with effect sizes of the

differences in the low-moderate to moderate range. Compared to the ITP sample, ES

scored lower on every subscale except EWB, for which their mean score was marginally

higher than ITP’s (d = 0.0405). On the REL subscale, the ITP sample had a somewhat

higher mean score than ES, and on all other subscales, the ITP sample’s mean scores

were markedly higher (|d| = .9237 to . 1.8443).

176

Between Organization Comparisons

EXEC Cohorts

To get a sense of the differences between the three EXEC cohorts, I compared PD-

SCSs, INcongruence levels, and ESI-R scores. In each case, I used Kruskal-Wallis Tests

among groups for each topic or subscale, followed by Mann-Whitney U-Tests and effect

size calculations between each pair of cohorts.

Projective Differential same choice scores. On the PD-SCSs, results of Kruskal-

Wallis Tests showed that there were no significant differences among the EXEC cohorts

on any topics’ PD-SCSs (see Table T1). Mann-Whitney U-Tests and effect size

calculations performed on the differences between PD-SCSs for each pair of EXEC

cohorts indicated that there were some potentially meaningful differences between the

EXEC cohorts of each organization. Table 24 shows those results.

Table 24

PD-SCS ~ Differences Between EXEC Cohorts from Each Organization

Topic Differencea db Uc p

WW EXEC vs. CC EXEC

Attitude towards Spirituality 5.83 0.3574 5.000 .7137

Identification with Spirituality 17.50 0.6136 3.000 .2801

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 12.50 0.4544 4.000 .4715

Spirituality ~ Org. Best 18.33 0.8201 2.500 .2118

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 1.67 0.0619 5.500 .8530

177

Topic Differencea db Uc p

WW EXEC vs. ES EXEC

Attitude towards Spirituality 25.33 0.8175 3.500 .2302

Identification with Spirituality 32.00 0.7482 4.00 .2909

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 32.00 1.3152 1.00 .0457

Spirituality ~ Org. Best 7.33 0.2411 7.00 .8786

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 34.67 1.3149 2.00 .0909

CC EXEC vs. ES EXEC

Attitude towards Spirituality 19.50 0.6944 6.00 .3148

Identification with Spirituality 14.50 0.3486 8.00 .6213

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 19.50 0.7109 7.00 .4529

Spirituality ~ Org. Best -11.00 -0.3648 7.00 .4568

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 33.00 1.0381 3.500 .1084

Note. Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is; Spirituality

~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort = the

perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite cohort is the

employee cohort). WW EXEC = Executive cohort from Wisdom Works (N = 3). CC EXEC = Executive cohort from Co-Op Credit (N = 4). ES EXEC = Executive cohort from Ergo Spaces (N = 5).

aDifferences are derived by subtracting the PD-SCSs of the second EXEC cohort listed from the PD-SCSs

of the first EXEC cohort listed. Negative differences indicate that the second EXEC cohort had a higher

PD-SCS for the topic. bCohen’s d values are based on the pooled std. dev. cMann-Whitney U statistic.

The only significant difference found was between WW EXEC and ES EXEC on the

spirituality of their organizations as they actually are (p < .05); based on effect sizes,

however, there were several potentially meaningful differences between these cohorts.

The WW EXEC cohort’s PD-SCSs were higher than both other EXEC cohorts, mostly in

the moderate to very large range of effect size; although, they were only marginally more

positive in their perception of the spirituality of their employees than the CC EXEC’s

were in theirs (d = 0.0619), and modestly more positive regarding the spirituality of their

organization at its best than the ES EXEC’s perceived spirituality of their organization at

its best (d = 0.2411). The greatest differences were between the WW EXEC and ES

178

EXEC cohorts on the spirituality of their organizations as they actually are and the

spirituality of their employees (d = 1.3152 and 1.3149 respectively). The CC EXEC

cohort was also much more positive in their perceptions of the spirituality of their

employees than was the ES EXEC cohort (d = 1.0381). The only topic on which the ES

EXEC was more positive in their perceptions than either of the other two EXEC cohorts

was the spirituality of their organization at its best, on which they were modestly more

positive than the CC EXEC cohort (|d| = 0.3648).

Overall, the WW EXEC cohort was notably, if not significantly, the most positive in

their perceptions of the spirituality of the topics, whereas with the exception of their

opposite cohort, the ES EXEC appears to be the least positive, except on their perceived

spirituality of their organization at its best.

INcongruence. Differences among the EXEC cohorts’ INcongruence levels on each

topic provides an indication of the differences in degrees of inconsistency between

nonverbal and verbal responses, and may indicate differences in the level of pressure

experienced by each EXEC cohort to present a positive perception of the spirituality of

each topic. Kruskal-Wallis Tests among the INcongruence scores the EXEC cohorts for

each topic showed no significant differences between these cohorts (see Table T2).

Mann-Whitney U-Tests and effect size calculations performed on the differences

between INcongruence levels for each pair of EXEC cohorts showed that there were

some potentially meaningful differences between the EXEC cohorts of each organization.

Table 25 shows those results.

179

Table 25

INcongruence ~ Differences Between EXEC Cohorts from Each Organization

Topic Differencea db Uc p

WW EXEC vs. CC EXEC

Attitude towards Spirituality -5.71 -0.2791 5.000 .7237

Identification with Spirituality -22.85 -0.8622 3.000 .2888

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -18.94 -0.6939 4.000 .4795

Spirituality ~ Org. Best -22.61 -1.0828 2.000 .1573

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort -11.75 -0.4778 4.000 .4795

WW EXEC vs. ES EXEC

Attitude towards Spirituality -17.14 -0.3950 3.500 .2302

Identification with Spirituality -32.22 -0.9142 3.000 .1797

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -32.83 -2.2381 .000 .0253

Spirituality ~ Org. Best -1.89 -0.0514 7.000 .8815

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort -41.01 -1.9322 .000 .0253

CC EXEC vs. ES EXEC

Attitude towards Spirituality -11.43 -0.2702 6.000 .3272

Identification with Spirituality -9.37 -0.2674 9.000 .8065

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -13.89 -0.6781 7.000 .4624

Spirituality ~ Org. Best 20.72 0.5626 7.000 .4624

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort -29.26 -1.0793 4.000 .1416

Note. Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is; Spirituality

~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort = the

perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite cohort is the

employee cohort). WW EXEC = Executive cohort from Wisdom Works (N = 3). CC EXEC = Executive

cohort from Co-Op Credit (N = 4). ES EXEC = Executive cohort from Ergo Spaces (N = 5).

aDifferences are derived by subtracting the INcongruence scores of the second EXEC cohort listed from the

INcongruence scores of the first EXEC cohort listed. Negative differences indicate that the second EXEC

cohort had a higher a level of INcongruence for the topic. bCohen’s d values are based on the pooled std.

dev. cMann-Whitney U statistic.

Differences between the WW EXEC and ES EXEC cohort’s levels of INcongruence

on both the spirituality of their organizations as they are and the spirituality of their

employees, were both significant (p < .05). The effect sizes were also very high, with

180

WW EXEC INcongruence markedly lower than ES EXEC INcongruence on these topics

(d = -2.2381 and -1.9322 respectively). Although no other differences in INcongruence

levels were statistically significant, some were worth noting. WW EXEC INcongruence

was lower than either of the other EXEC cohorts on all topics, mostly in the moderate to

very high effect size; the only exceptions being that the INcongruence in their attitude

towards spirituality was only modestly higher than CC EXEC’s (|d| = 0.2701), and the

INcongruence in their perception of the spirituality of their organization at its best was

only marginally higher than ES EXEC’s (|d| = 0.0514). Although the CC EXEC cohort

exhibited more INcongruence than the WW EXEC cohort on all topics, they showed

somewhat less INcongruence than ES EXEC on most topics. Their INcongruence level

on both attitude towards and identification with spirituality was modestly lower than ES

EXEC’s (d = -0.2702 and -0.2674 respectively), and the INcongruence on their perceived

spirituality of both their organization as it is and their employees were both moderately

lower than ES EXEC’s (d = -0.6781 and -1.0793 respectively). The one exception to the

direction of INcongruence differences between CC EXEC and ES EXEC was on the

perceived spirituality of their organizations at their best, on which the CC EXEC cohort

exhibited moderately higher INcongruence than did the ES EXEC cohort (d = 0.5626).

Overall, of the three EXEC cohorts, WW EXEC appeared to experience the least

amount of pressure to appear more positive towards spirituality than they actually were,

whereas ES EXEC appeared to have experience the most, with the one exception being

the spirituality of their organization at its best.

Expressions of Spirituality Inventory. Differences between the three EXEC cohorts

on the ESI-R provide an indication of the differences in the meaning and context of

181

spirituality expressed by these cohorts. Kruskal-Wallis Tests between the mean ESI-R

scores of each EXEC cohort for the total and each subscale indicated no significant

differences between these cohorts (see Table T3).

Mann-Whitney U-Tests comparing the differences in mean ESI-R scores on a pair-

by-pair basis likewise indicated no significant differences between these cohorts on any

of the ESI-R subscales. However, effect size calculations on the differences suggest that

there are some that are worthy of note. Table 26 displays the differences in mean ESI-R

scores, along with results from the Mann-Whitney U-Tests and effect sizes.

Table 26

ESI-R ~ Differences Between EXEC Cohorts from Each Organization

Subscale M1 - M2a d

b Uc p

WW EXEC vs. CC EXEC

Total ESI-R -7.6667 -0.3838 5.500 .8584

COS -2.0833 -0.5944 4.500 .5892

EPD 3.5833 0.5549 4.000 .4715

EWB .5833 0.1793 5.500 .8584

PAR -1.8333 -0.3768 6.000 1.0000

REL -7.9167 -1.3186 1.000 .0771

WW EXEC vs. ES EXEC

Total ESI-R 4.3333 0.2286 6.000 .6547

COS -.3333 -0.0882 7.500 1.0000

EPD 8.1333 1.1628 3.000 .1771

EWB -3.2667 -1.1295 2.000 .0970

PAR .8667 0.1849 6.000 .6468

REL -1.0667 -0.1517 7.000 .8815

182

Subscale M1 - M2a d

b Uc p

CC EXEC vs. ES EXEC

Total ESI-R 12.0000 1.3148 2.000 .0500

COS 1.7500 0.6290 4.500 .1575

EPD 4.5500 1.0310 3.500 .1039

EWB -3.8500 -1.1141 4.000 .1383

PAR 2.7000 1.0914 4.000 .1366

REL 6.8500 1.2973 3.000 .0864

Note. ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation towards

Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR = Paranormal

Beliefs; REL = Religiousness. WW EXEC = Executive cohort from Wisdom Works (N = 3). CC EXEC =

Executive cohort from Co-Op Credit (N = 4). ES EXEC = Executive cohort from Ergo Spaces (N = 5).

aDifferences are derived by subtracting the ESI-R means for the second EXEC cohort listed from the ESI-R

means of the first EXEC cohort listed. Negative differences indicate that the second EXEC cohort’s mean

was higher. bCohen’s d values are based on the pooled std. dev. cMann-Whitney U statistic.

CC EXEC scored highest overall on the ESI-R, with a mean score higher than WW

EXEC’s by a low-moderate margin (d = 0.3838) and higher than ES EXEC’s by a large

margin (d = 1.3148). The CC EXEC cohort had mean scores that were moderately to

markedly higher than the ES EXEC cohort on every subscale except Existential Well-

Being (EWB), for which their mean was markedly lower than ES EXEC’s (d = -1.1141).

Differences between CC EXEC and WW EXEC on ESI-R subscales were a little more

variable; CC EXEC’s mean scores were higher on Cognitive Orientation (COS),

Paranormal Beliefs (PAR), Religiousness (REL), ranging from |d| = 0.3768 to 1.3186,

whereas the WW EXEC cohort scored higher on Existential Well-Being (EWB) and

Experiential-Phenomenological (EPD) subscales (|d| = 0.1793 and 0.5549 respectively).

Although the WW EXEC’s EPD mean was only moderately higher than CC EXEC’s, it

was markedly higher than ES EXEC’s EPD mean (d = 1.1628), but the ES EXEC cohort

scored markedly higher than WW EXEC on the EWB subscale (|d| = 1.1295) and the rest

183

of the differences between WW and ES EXEC cohorts’ ESI-R subscales were not large

enough to be meaningful.

From these results it is clear that the WW EXEC cohort had a notably greater

tendency towards the Experiential-Phenomenological aspects of spirituality than did the

other two EXEC cohorts. The CC EXEC cohort tended towards much greater

religiousness and somewhat more of the non-theistic, functional relevance of spirituality

than either of the other two EXEC cohorts. ES EXEC had a markedly stronger positive

response to the existential and well-being aspects of spirituality than either of the other

two cohorts.

EMPL Cohorts

Comparisons of the data obtained from each EMPL cohort provides a sense of some

of the differences between the employee groups of each organization. To compare PD-

SCSs, INcongruence levels, and ESI-R scores I used Kruskal-Wallis Tests between

groups for each topic or subscale, followed by Mann-Whitney U-Tests and effect size

calculations between each pair of cohorts.

Projective Differential same choice scores. Kruskal-Wallis Tests performed on the

EMPL cohorts’ PD-SCS data showed that significant differences existed between cohorts

on their attitude towards spirituality and the spirituality of their respective organizations

at their best (p < .05 and p < .01, respectively). Table 27 shows the full results of the

Kruskal-Wallis tests on the PD-SCS data for these cohorts.

184

Table 27

PD-SCS ~ Kruskal-Wallis Among EMPL Cohorts

Statistics

Topic K-W 2 p(df=2)

Attitude towards Spirituality 6.879 .0321

Identification with Spirituality 3.711 .1564

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 3.782 .1509

Spirituality ~ Org. Best 9.434 .0089

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 4.189 .1231

Note. Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is; Spirituality

~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort = the

perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite cohort is the

employee cohort).

Mann-Whitney U-Tests on each cohort pair for each topic revealed no significant

differences between the CC EMPL and ES EMPL cohorts on their PD-SCSs. Significant

differences were found between the WW EMPL cohort and each of the other two EMPL

cohorts. Effect size calculations also indicated some areas of potentially meaningful

difference. Table 28 shows the full results of the PD-SCS between EMPL cohorts testing.

Table 28

PD-SCS ~ Differences Between EMPL Cohorts from Each Organization

Topic Differencea db Uc p

WW EMPL vs. CC EMPL

Attitude towards Spirituality 8.79 0.4371 770.000 .0763

Identification with Spirituality 6.45 0.3321 781.000 .0933

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -5.94 -0.2978 789.500 .1070

Spirituality ~ Org. Best 9.55 0.4968 692.500 .0159

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort -9.66 -0.4559 737.000 .0418

185

Topic Differencea db Uc p

WW EMPL vs. ES EMPL

Attitude towards Spirituality 17.78 0.9027 174.000 .0101

Identification with Spirituality 11.70 0.5096 223.000 .1067

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual .92 0.0542 278.500 .5890

Spirituality ~ Org. Best 15.59 0.8626 165.500 .0060

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort -7.22 -0.3209 248.000 .2596

CC EMPL vs. ES EMPL

Attitude towards Spirituality 8.98 0.3981 420.000 .2071

Identification with Spirituality 5.25 0.2539 489.000 .6831

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 6.86 0.3229 403.000 .1417

Spirituality ~ Org. Best 6.03 0.2919 425.000 .2298

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 2.43 0.1141 489.000 .6836

Note. Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is; Spirituality

~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort = the

perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the employee respondents, the opposite cohort is the

executive cohort). WW EMPL = Employee cohort from Wisdom Works (N = 34). CC EMPL = Employee cohort from Co-Op Credit (N = 58). ES EMPL = Employee cohort from Ergo Spaces (N = 18).

aDifferences are derived by subtracting the PD-SCSs of the second EMPL cohort listed from the PD-SCSs

of the first EMPL cohort listed. Negative differences indicate that the second EMPL cohort had a higher

PD-SCS for the topic. bCohen’s d values are based on the pooled std. dev. cMann-Whitney U statistic.

The WW EMPL cohort’s perception of the spirituality of their organization at its

best was significantly more positive than that of either the CC EMPL or the ES EMPL

cohorts (p < .05 and p < .01, respectively). In the case of the comparison with CC EMPL,

the difference was moderate (d = 0.4968), and with ES EMPL the difference was large (d

= 0.8626). WW EMPL also had a significantly and meaningfully more positive attitude

towards spirituality than did ES EMPL (p = .0101, d = 0.9027). No other differences

between the cohorts’ PD-SCSs were statistically significant. WW EMPL’s attitude

toward spirituality and perception of the spirituality of their organization at its best were

both moderately more positive than CC EMPL’s (d = 0.4371 and 0.4968, respectively)

186

and much more positive than ES EMPL’s (d = 0.9027 and 0.8626, respectively).

Interestingly, their perception of the spirituality of their opposite cohort was less than

both CC EMPL’s and ES EMPL’s (d = -0.4559 and -0.3209, respectively). The CC

EMPL cohort’s PD-SCSs were all higher than those of the ES EMPL cohort, but only on

attitude towards spirituality were they even close to moderately more positive (d =

0.3981).

INcongruence. Differences among the EMPL cohorts’ levels of INcongruence on

each topic provide an indication of the differences in degrees of disparity between

nonverbal and verbal responses; which may suggest differences in the contextual

elements and levels of pressure experienced by each EMPL cohort to present a positive

perception of the spirituality of each topic. Kruskal-Wallis Tests between the

INcongruence scores of each EMPL cohort for each topic indicated no significant

differences among these cohorts (see Table T4).

Table 29 displays the differences in INcongruence between each pair of EMPL

cohorts for each topic, along with Mann-Whitney U-Test results and effect size values of

those differences.

Table 29

INcongruence ~ Differences Between EMPL Cohorts from Each Organization

Topic Differencea db Uc p

WW EMPL vs. CC EMPL

Attitude towards Spirituality -9.18 -0.3740 792.500 .1173

Identification with Spirituality -5.32 -0.2611 825.500 .1942

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 5.35 0.2619 848.500 .2660

Spirituality ~ Org. Best -5.67 -0.2675 842.500 .2457

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 6.77 0.3225 793.500 .1194

187

Topic Differencea db Uc p

WW EMPL vs. ES EMPL

Attitude towards Spirituality -16.41 -0.7121 213.000 .0734

Identification with Spirituality -16.47 -0.6672 195.000 .0328

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -4.64 -0.2728 252.500 .3034

Spirituality ~ Org. Best -15.01 -0.7174 196.000 .0344

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort -.43 -0.0190 306.000 1.000

CC EMPL vs. ES EMPL

Attitude towards Spirituality -7.23 -0.2637 463.000 .4708

Identification with Spirituality -11.15 -0.5220 437.000 .2990

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -9.99 -0.4489 376.000 .0744

Spirituality ~ Org. Best -9.35 -0.4120 418.500 .2060

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort -7.20 -0.3103 433.000 .2768

Note. Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is; Spirituality

~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort = the

perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite cohort is the

employee cohort). WW EMPL = Employee cohort from Wisdom Works (N = 34). CC EMPL = Employee cohort from Co-Op Credit (N = 58). ES EMPL = Employee cohort from Ergo Spaces (N = 18).

aDifferences are derived by subtracting the INcongruence score of the second EMPL cohort listed from the

INcongruence score of the first EMPL cohort listed. Negative differences indicate that the second EMPL

cohort had a higher level of INcongruence for the topic. bCohen’s d values are based on the pooled std. dev. cMann-Whitney U statistic.

The WW EMPL cohort had significantly less INcongruence than the ES EMPL

cohort on both their identification with spirituality and the spirituality of their

organization at its best (p < .05). No other significant differences between the cohorts’

INcongruence values were found; however, effect sizes of the differences suggest that

there were some areas of meaningful difference. INcongruence differences between the

WW EMPL and CC EMPL cohorts were all relatively modest (|d| ranging from 0.2611 to

0.3740). Compared to the ES EMPL cohort, the WW EMPL cohort had lower

INcongruence levels on every topic, with differences in their INcongruence levels in the

188

high-moderate range on attitude towards and identification with spirituality, and the

spirituality of their organizations at their best (d = -0.7121, -0.6672, and -0.7174,

respectively). The CC EMPL cohort also had lower INcongruence levels than the ES

EMPL cohort on every topic, with differences in identification with spirituality and

spirituality of their organizations both as they are and at their best in the moderate range

(d = -.5220, -.4489, and -.4120 respectively).

The ES EMPL cohort exhibited more INcongruence between their nonverbal and

verbal responses than did either of the other two EMPL cohorts on every topic, and for

the most part, those differences appear to have been meaningful at a moderate level or

higher. Differences in INcongruence levels between those exhibited by the WW EMPL

cohort and the CC EMPL cohort were relatively modest, and were not all in one

direction, suggesting that the WW EMPL and CC EMPL cohorts’ levels of INcongruence

are more related to the topic; WW EMPL exhibited somewhat less INcongruence in their

assessments involving themselves and spirituality (attitude and identification) as well as

their organization at its best. On the other hand, WW EMPL exhibited modestly more

INcongruence than CC EMPL on the topics that were other than themselves and current

(i.e., not projecting out to an imagined future), namely their organization as it actually is,

and their opposite cohort.

Expressions of Spirituality Inventory. Differences between the three EMPL cohorts

on the ESI-R provide an indication of the differences in the meaning and context of

spirituality expressed by these cohorts. Kruskal-Wallis Tests between the mean ESI-R

scores of each EMPL cohort for the total and each subscale indicate several areas of

significant differences between cohorts. Table 30 shows the full results of those tests.

189

Table 30

ESI-R ~ Kruskal-Wallis Among EMPL Cohorts

Statistics

Subscale K-W 2(df=2) p

Total ESI-R 11.346 .0034

COS 5.838 .0540

EPD 27.645 9.930E-07

EWB .146 .9295

PAR 8.592 .0136

REL 3.543 .1701

Note. ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation towards Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR = Paranormal

Beliefs; REL = Religiousness.

Differences between the EMPL cohorts on the mean ESI-R Total score and on the

Experiential-Phenomenological (EPD) subscale were both significant (p < .01), as were

differences on the Paranormal Beliefs (PAR), though at the higher threshold (p < .05).

The least difference was found on the Existential Well-Being (EWB) subscale. Mann-

Whitney U-Test and effect size calculations on the differences between each cohort pair

are displayed in Table 31.

Table 31

ESI-R ~ Differences Between EMPL Cohorts From Each Organization

Subscale M1 - M2a d

b Uc p

WW EMPL vs. CC EMPL

Total ESI-R 11.6416 0.7487 597.500 .0017

COS 2.1634 0.4953 706.500 .0233

EPD 7.2083 1.2557 363.000 4.455E-07

EWB .0345 0.0078 953.500 .7919

PAR 3.6048 0.6656 625.000 .0034

REL -1.4124 -0.3034 761.000 .0680

190

Subscale M1 - M2a d

b Uc p

WW EMPL vs. ES EMPL

Total ESI-R 13.1052 0.7774 177.000 .0130

COS 1.8933 0.4708 213.500 .0732

EPD 7.3156 1.2348 117.500 2.717E-04

EWB .4444 0.0980 285.000 .6852

PAR 3.0933 0.5790 223.500 .1115

REL .3156 0.0623 288.500 .7356

CC EMPL vs. ES EMPL

Total ESI-R 1.4636 0.0914 485.500 .6554

COS -.2701 -0.0595 506.500 .8493

EPD .1073 0.0179 521.500 .9951

EWB .4100 0.0956 511.500 .8974

PAR -.5115 -0.0846 477.000 .5815

REL 1.7280 0.3253 440.000 .3147

Note. ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation towards

Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR = Paranormal

Beliefs; REL = Religiousness. WW EMPL = Employee cohort from Wisdom Works (N = 34). CC EMPL =

Employee cohort from Co-Op Credit (N = 58). ES EMPL = Employee cohort from Ergo Spaces (N = 18).

aDifferences are derived by subtracting the ESI-R means for the second EMPL cohort listed from the ESI-R

means of the first EMPL cohort listed. Negative differences indicate that the second EMPL cohort’s mean

was higher. bCohen’s d values are based on the pooled std. dev. cMann-Whitney U statistic.

The WW EMPL cohort scored significantly higher than both of the other two EMPL

cohorts on the EPD subscale (p < .001) and in both cases, the effect size of the difference

was also very high (d > 1.2). The WW EMPL cohort also scored significantly higher than

the CC EMPL cohort on the total ESI-R and the PAR subscale (p < .01), as well as the

Cognitive Orientation (COS) subscale (p < .05). Effect sizes of these differences ranged

from a moderate d = 0.4953 to a high-moderate d = 0.7487. The only subscale on which

WW EMPL scored lower than either of the other cohorts was the Religiousness (REL)

subscale, for which their mean was modestly lower than CC EMPL’s (d = -0.3034).

191

Other than on the EPD subscale, compared to the ES EMPL cohort, only WW EMPL’s

mean ESI-R Total score was significantly higher (p < .05), and with a large effect size (d

= 0.7774). Their mean scores on both the COS and PAR subscales were moderately

higher than those of the ES EMPL cohort (d = 0.4708 and 0.5790 respectively).

Differences between WW EMPL and the other two EMPL cohorts on the EWB subscale

were too small to be meaningful. None of the differences in mean ESI-R scores between

CC EMPL and ES EMPL were statistically significant, and only the difference between

their mean scores on the REL subscale appeared to be even modestly meaningful, with

CC EMPL scoring higher (d = 0.3253).

Other than on the EWB and REL subscales, the WW EMPL cohort’s mean scores

indicated higher levels of spiritual expression at an at least moderately meaningful level.

Their greater tendency to express spirituality through the modes captured by the EPD

subscale appears to be particularly meaningful. Also of interest is the fact that the

differences between all three cohorts on the EWB subscale were too small to be

meaningful at all.

Organizations as a Whole

Comparing data using each organization as a whole is not particularly meaningful

for the organization-related data collected, particularly given the context of this study.

Combining EXEC cohort data with EMPL cohort data to generate organization level data

is subject to problems, including: the ratio of employee participants to management

participants is different for each organization; and, simply combining the data does not

take into account the power differential between employee and management cohorts.

However, as each organization’s spirituality “profile” as measured by the ESI-R has been

192

compared with two known populations in order to provide context, it seems appropriate

to present the ESI-R comparisons among these organizations as well. Also, since the ESI-

R data are not organization-related, the power differentials and ratios of employees to

management are not so relevant.

Expressions of Spirituality Inventory. Table 32 shows the results of Kruskal-Wallis

Tests showing that there are areas of significant difference among these organizations in

their mean ESI-R scores.

Table 32

ESI-R ~ Kruskal-Wallis Among Organizations

Statistics

Subscale K-W 2 p(df=2)

Total ESI-R 10.308 .0058

COS 4.546 .1030

EPD 29.991 3.070E-07

EWB .610 .7370

PAR 8.542 .0140

REL 5.849 .0537

Note. ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised. COS = Cognitive Orientation towards Spirituality. EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological. EWB = Existential Well-Being. PAR = Paranormal

Beliefs. REL = Religiousness.

The difference in the organizations’ mean total scores is significant (p < .01). On the

subscales, the most significant difference is among the organizations’ Experiential-

Phenomenological (EPD) subscale means (p < .001). Differences in mean scores on the

Paranormal Beliefs (PAR) subscale are significant (p < .05), and on Religiousness (REL),

differences are very close to significant at that same level (p = .0537).

193

Table 33 displays the differences between each pair of organizations on the mean

ESI-R Total score and each subscale, as well as results of Mann-Whitney U-Tests and

effect size calculations for those differences.

Table 33

ESI-R ~ Differences Between Organization Pairs

Subscale M1 - M2a d

b Uc p

Wisdom Works vs. Co-Op Credit

Total ESI-R 10.3012 .6535 743.000 .0035

COS 1.8900 .4349 869.000 .0435

EPD 6.9900 1.2206 436.500 2.620E-07

EWB .0900 .0210 1101.000 .7384

PAR 3.2000 .5988 758.500 .0049

REL -1.8700 -.3964 834.500 .0235

Wisdom Works vs. Ergo Spaces

Total ESI-R 11.7227 .7068 259.000 .0113

COS 1.4000 .3567 324.000 .1200

EPD 7.4200 1.2711 155.000 3.624E-05

EWB -.4700 -.1057 396.000 .6525

PAR 3.0300 .5855 292.000 .0419

REL .3500 .0682 415.500 .8788

Co-Op Credit vs. Ergo Spaces

Total ESI-R 1.4215 .0907 660.000 .5998

COS -.4900 -.1095 684.500 .7772

EPD .4300 .0734 690.000 .82197

EWB -.5600 -.1313 635.000 .4384

PAR -.1700 -.0295 687.500 .8003

REL 2.2200 .4207 557.000 .1216

Note. Wisdom Works (N = 37). Co-Op Credit (N = 62). Ergo Spaces (N = 23). ESI-R = Expressions of

Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation towards Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-

Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR = Paranormal Beliefs; REL = Religiousness.

aDifferences are derived by subtracting the ESI-R means for the second organization listed from the ESI-R

means of the first organization listed. Negative differences indicate that the second organization’s mean

was higher. bCohen’s d values are based on the pooled std. dev. cMann-Whitney U statistic.

194

These results indicate that WW scored significantly higher than CC, at the p < .05

level or better, on the total ESI-R and every subscale except Existential Well-Being

(EWB), on which the three organizations were neither significantly nor meaningfully

different (ES’ EWB mean was marginally higher than the other two). On the EPD

subscale, WW’s mean score was much higher than both CC’s and ES’ (p < .001, d > 1.2).

WW also scored significantly higher than ES on the total ESI-R, and on the PAR

subscale (p < .05).

CC and ES ESI-R mean scores showed no significant differences on either the total

or any of the subscales. The difference between CC and ES on the REL subscale did have

a moderate effect size (d = 0.4207), as did the difference between CC and WW (|d| =

0.3964), with CC scoring somewhat higher in both cases.

Overall, these results indicate that WW’s ESI-R scores were meaningfully higher

than either of the other organizations, except on EWB and REL; of particular note is that

WW scored so much higher than either CC or ES on the EPD subscale. Although not as

marked a difference, the fact that CC scored somewhat higher then either WW or ES on

the REL subscale is interesting, as is the fact that all three organization’s mean scores on

EWB were very close.

195

Chapter 5: Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore the operationalization of spirituality in the

day-to-day business practices of three for-profit business organizations. The methods

employed were chosen specifically to provide data that would allow for the creation of a

multi-dimensional profile of each organization studied, with the intention of gaining an

understanding of some of the different ways in which organizations may approach

spirituality, including specific policies or practices, and impact on the overall

organizational culture. After interpreting the data from each of the organizations,

followed by some comparisons between the organizations at both the management team

and employee levels to help put the three profiles in perspective, I explore the

organizations within the contexts of two conceptual frameworks to provide additional

ways to understand the organizations and some of the differences among them.

Organization Summaries and Interpretations

Wisdom Works

Of the three organizations studied, Wisdom Works (WW) was the most explicitly

spiritual in their approach to business. The business of the company, to disseminate

spiritual wisdom, was a spiritually related mission, and the company began as a part of

the personal spiritual mission of the Founder/CEO. Both the company, and the CEO

personally, had passed up opportunities to make a lot more money on the basis that it

would compromise the mission.

The “flavor” of spirituality found in this organization tended to be somewhat Eastern

in nature; discussions of spirituality often included words such as “meditation” and

“sangha.” While community was an important part of the culture, as was the sense of the

196

service orientation of the mission, the approach to being on a spiritual path was very

much an individual concern—each person was on his/her own “spiritual trip,” which may

or may not coincide with anyone else’s. The data obtained through the Expressions of

Spirituality Inventory-Revised support the view that spirituality was functionally relevant

(COS subscale) to WW, and that it tended to be understood through individual, personal

spiritual experience (EPD subscale), for both the management team and employees. The

support available to people to pursue their personal interests and spiritual growth, while

certainly evident, appeared to be somewhat passive. No formal programs were

implemented by management specifically to encourage spiritual growth, and the CEO

even suggested she did not think policies and procedures were the most effective

approach; it was generally left to individuals to take the initiative. Many of the specific

things that contributed to the culture were initiated by employees: in-house instruction in

meditation was available because an employee was qualified and offered to teach; the

meditation room and gym were both created at the request of employees; and the lunch

club was an invention of the employees. All of this is very consistent with the CEO’s

stated management style preference—she did not want to have to spend a lot of time

guiding, giving feedback, or micromanaging; even in the performance review process,

one of the most important aspects was the employees’ self-review. It appears this

approach to management was probably also her approach to the spiritual growth of her

employees: Give them the resources they need, and be supportive of their path, but

generally let them find their own way.

The Projective Differential epitomizing image data suggest that the management

team did not differentiate much among themselves, the organization, and spirituality.

197

Only their view of the employees was somewhat less, but that too was in the moderately

spiritual range. The employees were not nearly as positive in their assessment of the

spirituality of the organization and their opposite cohort. While they did have a positive

attitude towards spirituality, it was moderately less positive than that of the management

team and they did not identify with spirituality as strongly as management. This is not

particularly surprising as the Founder, who commented that she did not know where WW

ended and she began, and the Associate Publisher, who is very spiritual in his approach to

life in general, account for two-thirds of the management team. It would have been more

surprising had management not viewed themselves and WW as more spiritual than the

employees did, given the certainty of greater diversity among the employees simply

because of their numbers.

What is somewhat surprising is that the employees viewed the management team in

the neutral range on their similarity to spirituality, and even modestly dissimilar. Their

view of management was also interesting in that the opposite cohort was the only topic

with a different epitomizing image chosen. On the surface, this seems puzzling given

how explicitly spiritual the management team was in their talk, their views of themselves

and the company, and the fact that the employees were not markedly different from the

management team in their ESI-R results; however, there are a couple of possible

explanations. It may be that having an explicitly spiritual mission, and attracting

employees for whom that would be important, leads to very high expectations. If

employees come to WW expecting a spiritual approach to mean something specific, they

may be “disappointed” to discover an approach that is different than what they had hoped

to find. They may also hold their leaders to a higher standard of spiritually congruent

198

behavior than they would in another organization. It is also possible that in going to work

for a spiritually-oriented organization, employees are looking for spiritual guidance in

addition to spiritual acceptance. If this is the case, one might expect some disappointment

regarding the supportive but relatively “hands-off” approach taken by WW management.

Another possible explanation has to do with what the CEO called the “WW plane crash”

when WW’s attempt to grow led to their first ever loss, and ultimately resulted in layoffs.

It is certainly possible that the repercussions were still being felt, and that the actions by

management to “tighten” the operation were felt as more traditionally business-like than

spiritual. While the employees’ view of the spirituality of WW as it is was also not very

positive, there was a sense of optimism about WW’s being more positively associated

with spirituality when at its best, suggesting that their view of management as dissimilar

to spirituality had not caused them to give up on WW as a spiritually-oriented

organization.

High expectations for the spirituality of WW would also help to explain the

employees’ INcongruence levels; high expectations in this context also imply a high level

of importance placed on the topic. Given that I did not perceive management to be

actively applying any pressure on employees to see them, or the company as spiritual, the

fact that they had high levels of INcongruence between their implicit and explicit

perceptions of the spirituality of management and WW as it is can be better explained by

how important it appears to be to the employees. Since high levels of INcongruence can

be indicative of high levels of importance and emotional involvement—as the words in

the verbal assessment are invested with meaning and emotion—their INcongruence

results are consistent with what one would expect from a self-selected group (as

199

employees generally are), for whom spirituality is highly relevant and important. The

employees might have tended to believe, or at least want to believe, in the highly spiritual

image of WW, and may have had very little awareness of the disparity between that

image and their deeper feelings.

Co-Op Credit

While Co-Op Credit (CC) was not as explicit in their use of the term “spirituality” as

WW, their approach to creating and maintaining their culture was certainly explicit and

active, and there was a readiness to speak of it in terms of spirituality. Management was

very clear that they did not want to be a financially driven organization; financial analysis

would not be allowed to kill a decision that was otherwise “right” for the company.

The most important aspect of the culture was an overall commitment to the well-

being of employees, based on the underlying principle of unconditional love and servant-

leadership (Greenleaf, 1977); it appeared that all of the programs, the approach to

community, taking care of each other, and commitment to the principles of servant-

leadership all grew out of the President’s desire to have a culture built around

unconditional love and respect for who employees are more than what they do. While it

was clear that the management team had a strong sense of their values and what they

wanted CC to be, instead of telling people what the company values were, the President

and VP-ED created an environment where employees could discover the values already

within themselves. One would expect this approach would engender a lot more

“ownership” of the values, and a sense of partnership with the organization than being

told the values to which employees were expected to conform. The same approach was

apparent in some of their charitable activities, where it was only non-management

200

employees who were on the board of their “foundation.” Another indication of the

commitment to employees was evident in the management team’s approach to helping

employees during times of crisis; they actively looked for ways to help employees in

need, rather than waiting to be asked for help, and were even in the process of developing

a means to ensure that senior management would be aware of employees in need.

Interestingly, there was very little consensus among the management team on the

epitomizing images for the topics assessed, suggesting that the management team were

not all on the same page; however, in the interviews, a couple of the senior managers

mentioned that in order to be truly successful at CC, one had to be relatively comfortable

with ambiguity. It was also clear that this management team did not perceive themselves

as having come to any “final” conclusions about how to operationalize their values within

the organization; they were continuing to question and explore. Given the apparent

comfort with shades of grey among the management team, and the sense that the details

of their approach are always open to revision, I suspect the reality behind the low

consensus is a combination of ambiguity and difference. CC management’s Projective

Differential data did show that they viewed all the topics as at least moderately spiritual,

although their perception of their own identification with spirituality was somewhat less

than might have been expected. This could be the result of their tendency to question

extending to their perceptions of themselves, or it may be indicative of a genuine

humility.

The employees of CC were a somewhat different story; their levels of consensus

were very high on all topics except for the management team, and all topics had the same

epitomizing image except spirituality. Their lower consensus on the management team is

201

relatively easy to understand; with a portion of the participants working in branch offices,

their experiences and familiarity with senior management will vary among branches, and

will certainly be different than employees working at head office. It is also possible that

some branch employees might have thought of their branch managers when assessing for

the management team, despite my intention to be clear that I was referring to senior

management. Their perceptions of the spirituality of the topics were all in the low-

moderate to moderate range (except for that of the management team), suggesting that

while there was a perceived positive spirituality, it was not a particularly strong

connection. This might be partly explained by their overall orientation towards

spirituality; with an orientation that was primarily focused on functional relevance and

religiousness, the concept of spirituality might have been somewhat bound by traditional

contexts. Employees may not easily associate spirituality with a secular organization and

secular leaders. The fact that they exhibited a relatively weak experiential orientation to

spirituality might also contribute to maintaining a more traditional concept of spirituality,

or could possibly indicate a lack of direct, personal relevance of spirituality. This seems

consistent with the CFO’s suggestion that many of the younger employees (generally

branch staff) have more limited life experience, and therefore less direct, personal

experience of spirituality, which may also lead them to understand it somewhat more

narrowly than would be intended by management. Despite the differences between

management’s and employees’ perceptions of the spirituality of each of the topics, only

management’s attitude towards spirituality and their perception of their opposite cohort

were meaningfully more positive. They also did not differ greatly in their INcongruence

levels; although management’s INcongruence in their presentation of their identification

202

with spirituality was higher than that of the employees. Apparently both cohorts

experienced pressure of some kind to present themselves, each other, and the

organization as spiritual. I did not sense that there was any overt pressure to perceive

spirituality in general or the spirituality of the organization in a positive light; however, it

is possible that with such an explicit focus on spiritually relevant aspects of the culture,

and with the President being so open about how important these principles were to him,

an unspoken pressure existed. The nature of events such as the Values Session would

likely make it clear what the desired culture was, even in the midst of a session designed

to foster a sense of co-ownership, or even co-creation. The relatively high levels of

INcongruence may also be indicative of the level of importance bestowed upon

spirituality; likely more so for the management team than the employees, given their

much higher ESI-R means overall and on the functional relevance, religiousness and

experiential subscales.

Ergo Spaces

Of the three organizations, Ergo Spaces (ES) was the least explicitly spiritual; in

fact, it was clear that they did not generally think or speak of their organization in terms

of spirituality. The way in which ES viewed themselves was as “a company that cares”

for their internal community, providing support to employees and their personal growth,

and for the external community, providing financial and other support to a variety of

local nonprofit organizations.

Although the management team all said that financial measures of success were

secondary to being a caring organization, the financial bottom line seemed more

important to them than it did to the other organizations’ management teams. The Return

203

on Equity (ROE) figures provided clearly show that they are making a high return,

though without details such as return on capital invested, how inventory is financed, and

other financial information, it is difficult to know the full meaning of such a high ROE. It

is interesting to note that while the CEO was proud that they had managed the same level

of charitable contributions despite a less successful year (ROE = 41%, down from 141%

the prior year), the SVP-Ops was disappointed that their profit-sharing program had been

adversely affected. I do not know the details of the profit-sharing program, or how it is

calculated, but this does seem to suggest that contributing to external causes was a higher

priority than sharing with the employees. However, it may be that charitable

contributions were a direct commitment, more akin to salary expenses than after-profit

decisions such as dividend payouts or profit-sharing. If this was the case, placing

charitable contributions in that position would certainly be a clear indication of the high

level of commitment this organization makes to their external community.

Several of the senior management said that it was important that the community

involvement came from the “right” intentions, and cannot be done in order to benefit the

business; yet, they also valued being seen to do good. I did get the impression that their

commitment to community service was indeed well-intentioned, and they also took great

pride in being known as a good corporate citizen. The ES management team also stated

that being a caring organization meant caring for their employees as well. It was clear

that they were committing resources to the overall well-being and development of their

employees, both professional and personal. The care they had for their employees seemed

genuine, yet the operationalization was rather paternalistic, and even authoritarian in

some areas. On the one hand, it was left to employees to choose to take advantage of the

204

resources available for outside training; on the other hand, they were “strongly

encouraged” to find some personally meaningful way to get involved volunteering, or do

a book report, as part of their annual review, for their own good. This seems consistent

with their overall approach to their Core Values; as stated by the CFO, management had

decided what was important to them in terms of their culture, and if employees did not

value the things they did, perhaps they did not belong. Whether employees adequately

shared the same values as management appeared to be determined by how well their

behaviors conformed to how management expected the values to be embodied. Coupled

with the PD data, which showed that they perceived the employees as somewhat

dissimilar to spirituality, this may indicate a broader distrust of the employees’ ability to

self-motivate, and probably even of their judgment regarding how the values should be

lived.

In considering the quantitative data, comparisons between the ES management team

and their employees are somewhat tentative, given the relatively low participation rate of

ES employees (less than 15%, as compared to over 80% for WW and over 30% for CC).

However, the fact that a smaller portion of the ES workforce took part than either of the

other organizations is itself worth considering. It is unclear whether a study on the topic

of spirituality in business just did not hold much interest (one interpretation of the data is

that spirituality was not very relevant to this group), or that employees did not feel they

had the time to participate. It did seem that the ES work environment was more staid than

either of the other organizations with less “room” for non-work-related activities on the

job. The employee survey data suggest that ES employees felt they worked very hard and

had to meet high expectations. This interpretation would also be consistent with the more

205

abbreviated style of the ES senior managers, who were far more likely to answer

questions directly, without a lot of elaboration or tangential information than the other

two management teams.

Despite the apparent consensus among the management team regarding the culture,

there was relatively little consensus evident in their epitomizing images. Interestingly, the

only topic on which there was a high level of consensus was spirituality. The same was

true of the employees. Furthermore, both cohorts had the same epitomizing image for

spirituality, suggesting that even though spirituality did not appear to be a centrally

important concept in their understanding of their culture, there was a notable degree of

shared understanding of what spirituality was. Although consensus levels on the

organization at its best were low for both cohorts, it is interesting to note that it had the

same epitomizing image as spirituality.

Given the way in which they understand and describe their culture, it is not

surprising that the PD-SCSs for both cohorts were mostly low, indicating generally low

perceived spirituality of the topics. While this could indicate that spirituality was not very

relevant to either cohort, there is evidence this was not the case. Management perceived

the organization at its best to be very similar to spirituality, and the employees to be quite

dissimilar to spirituality. Neither result would be expected unless they felt spirituality was

at least somewhat relevant. It is also rather telling that these two particular topics were

the only ones not in the neutral range, and in opposite directions, suggesting that

management felt the organization could be much more spiritual than it was, but did not

have much faith in their employees to get them there. As indicated above, this is

consistent with the paternalistic, even controlling feel of the culture. However, spirituality

206

appeared not to be an integral part of their self-perceptions either. The employee PD-SCS

data suggest that even though they had very high consensus on their perceptions of

spirituality, it was not a highly relevant topic for them, at least in this context.

At another level, however, the relevance of spirituality was evident in the

INcongruence levels of both cohorts. Management had high to very high levels of

INcongruence for every topic except the spirituality of the organization at its best. It is

difficult to be sure whether they were presenting themselves and their organization as

spiritual because of the explicit use of the word “spirituality” in the topic of this research,

or because they wanted to believe they, and their organization, were more spiritual than

they felt they were. It is very interesting that their INcongruence on the spirituality of the

organization at its best was not only very low, they were actually less positive about it in

their explicit, verbal expression than in their implicit perceptions possibly indicating that

at some deeper level they had a much more spiritually congruent vision of their

organization than they even realized. For the employees, however, INcongruence levels

were all very high, suggesting substantial pressure to present a positive image of the

spirituality of the topics. It may be that my presence contributed to that pressure, but it

seems reasonable that at least some pressure was internal to the organization and what the

employees believed was expected of them.

Interestingly, as a whole, this organization scored at least moderately higher than the

norms on both the functional relevance of spirituality (COS) and existential well-being

(EWB) related subscales, with management’s means notably higher than the employees’,

although those were the two highest scored subscales for both cohorts. This may also

help to explain some of the INcongruence; since the EWB subscale was found by

207

MacDonald to produce strong correlations with measures of social desirability and

response bias (2000), it is consistent that they might respond on the verbal assessment to

present a positive impression. The high EWB means are also consistent with an approach

to caring, wellness, and growth that is competency based.

It is a little puzzling that spirituality appeared to be irrelevant for this organization in

some ways and quite relevant in others. One way to understand these data is to consider

the possibility that this organization was in mid-paradigm shift. Although it would be

difficult to place these managers firmly in any one of Giacalone and Eylon’s new

paradigm quadrants (2000), they were probably most like the New Paradigm

Missionaries with very good intentions, while remaining quite concerned about business

realities and profit, and mindful of the costs to improve the quality of work-life (p. 1223).

Their commitment to the broader community suggests some elements of the New

Paradigm Humanitarians (p. 1224), but probably not to the extent that it would outweigh

the more traditional business concerns. (This framework is explored in more detail

below.) The way in which management spoke of their culture, and their rather positive

implicit perception of the spirituality of the organization at its best both suggest this

management team was wanting the organization to be different, more caring than

“traditional” businesses; new paradigm ways of envisioning their organization were

influencing the things they were choosing to do, but their means of operationalizing these

intentions seemed mostly to conform to old paradigm assumptions. Put another way, this

management team did have a genuine desire to create an organizational culture that is

caring, and consistent with their view of spirituality, yet they were operating from a

mindset still at least partially bound by McGregor’s Theory X assumptions (Maslow,

208

1993; 1998). (Among the assumptions of Theory X is the belief that there is natural

tendency for people to avoid work and responsibility, and therefore management will

tend to adopt a classic command-and-control or authoritarian management style. Other

characteristics of Theory X grounded management include a focus on extrinsic

punishments and rewards rather than intrinsic motivation, forced compliance rather than

earned commitment, and job training rather than personal development.) Under this

interpretation, neither management’s views of themselves, their organization, nor, in

particular, their employees had yet caught up to the new paradigm visions of what their

organization could become—yet at a deeper level, the seed seemed to have been planted.

Among Cohort Comparisons

Management Teams

WW was clearly more explicit in their use of the word spirituality in the context of

their culture than either of the other two organizations studied; however in some ways,

they were also the least directly engaged in the creation and maintenance of their

organization’s culture. Both CC and ES management teams were actively implementing

programs and policies designed specifically to support and enhance the organizations’

commitments to the well-being of their employees and their broader communities,

whereas the WW management approach to their organization’s culture seemed to be

more focused on creating an environment where people could be allowed, encouraged,

and supported to flourish, in whatever way worked for them.

Using the interview data and ESI-R results as a guide, one way to look at the

differences between the management teams is through the lens of different approaches to

spirituality in community in a much broader sense. WW management takes a somewhat

209

Buddhist-style approach to spirituality; while they maintain a supportive community

environment, individuals must investigate for themselves and discover the “truth”

through their own experience. The tools and support are made available and both

progress and choice of path are left pretty much to the individual. The value of being on a

spiritual path is understood through both the mission and the example set by senior

management, but generally, specific operationalization of those underlying beliefs is not

mandated. This approach to the spiritual growth of the people at WW spills over into the

creation and maintenance of the culture, the work environment, and business processes as

well. Management maintains an openness to requests and suggestions from employees,

with a willingness to match their initiative with support and resources, at least to the

extent that is reasonable within the context of running a for-profit business. One of the

results is that many of the specific things done at WW that support the culture are

employee initiated. Management also carries this approach over into business related

issues, such as how work and teams are organized, remaining open to suggestions from

employees, even though they know it doesn’t always work out well—eventually

management may have to require things be done a certain way, but they appear to be

willing to allow the employees to experiment and “figure it out.” This approach has

resulted in a culture that I expect requires a great deal of trust to maintain, and a

willingness on management’s part to remain very open to the suggestions and requests of

the employees—both in terms of the work environment and the degree of self-

determination they are afforded—even when they fail to produce the desired results. The

CEO’s own sense of the importance of the mission over the desire to create personal

wealth is also consistent with a Buddhist approach to right-livelihood.

210

If the WW management team can be seen as taking a Buddhist-style approach, then

the CC management team was certainly more pastoral in their approach. The CC culture,

while not explicitly religious, certainly had the feel of a shepherd (or team of shepherds)

caring for his flock. Clearly one of the management team’s more important duties was the

care for the employees in whatever way was needed. The unconditional love and respect

translated into a genuine sense of responsibility to ensure their employees were treated

well and fairly, and provided an environment that, at worst, would not be a burden, and at

best, would help them to be healthy, happy, and growing. The values, while clearly

embodied and expressed strongly by management, did not feel either imposed or

oppressive, and efforts were made to help employees feel directly involved in the creation

of the culture. Although management strongly believed in the underlying values, they

were also constantly questioning and exploring how those values could best be

operationalized; they did not feel that they had “figured it out,” but were just doing their

best to explore how they could do more. That said, it is difficult to imagine a new

employee who did not share the values feeling entirely comfortable for very long. I do

not think there would be overt attempts or pressure to “convert” such a person, but I do

believe management would hope that he or she would “come around” once the person got

a real feel for it and felt involved. If such an employee did not ever become comfortable,

I expect that person would choose to leave, and that management would feel more sad

than anything else. CC management spoke explicitly of servant-leadership and

stewardship, both of which involve a sense of being responsible for those put in one’s

charge, and a relatively holistic, long-term view. They also spoke of creating

opportunities for fellowship, suggesting that community and connection were in part how

211

the responsibility to care for one another gets activated, and shared among all—it was not

simply management’s duty to care for employees, but to create an environment where

everyone cared for everyone. The underlying values upon which the culture was based

were clear, and well-communicated, and like WW, CC management was open to

exploring a variety of ways in which those values might be operationalized. One of the

primary differences was that CC management took it to be primarily their responsibility

to do that exploration in order to provide the tools and services to employees.

Given the fact that the ES management team’s overall orientation was decidedly less

explicitly spiritual than either of the other management teams, it is a little more difficult

to conceptualize their approach in terms of a broader spiritually related construct.

However, they did appear to have taken what could be thought of as a secular-

fundamentalist approach, with a materialistic (in the sense of both scientific materialism

and financial materialism) underpinning. While the values to which they were committed

are unarguably worthwhile and benevolent, the ways in which they approached creating

and maintaining their culture were somewhat more authoritarian and controlling than one

might expect, given those values. There did not appear to be a great deal of openness to

exploring the meaning, interpretation, and operationalization of the Core Values with the

employees. Management had determined how the values translated into policies,

programs, and behaviors in their organization, and lack of adherence to the expected

behaviors was discouraged. Conformity to the values was required, and was measured

primarily by conformity to the behaviors that management had determined embodied

those values. Given that having a sense of purpose, meaning, and competence was an

important aspect of their spiritual orientation, if their sense of purpose and meaning was

212

closely enough tied to the recognition they receive for being a caring organization, it is

consistent that they would want to maintain close control over the behaviors that would

contribute to, or detract from, their ability to gain the recognition. I do believe that

management was genuine in their concern for their employees, and the larger community,

and their desire to be a “caring” organization, but their apparent lack of trust in their

employees led to those values being operationalized in a very much “top-down” manner.

The competency aspect of their orientation to spirituality is also consistent with how they

approached managing performance. Management stated that their move to management

by objectives and very clearly spelled out expectations with measurable results was

motivated by a desire to help reduce employees’ stress by reducing ambiguity; yet,

coupled with the other aspects of the culture that appear to demand conformity, those

moves may feel more controlling than freeing.

WW management’s apparently high level of trust in their employees, coupled with

their individual, personal experience orientation to spirituality lead them to allow the

employees to have significant influence over the culture of the organization, and to

encourage and support them in finding their own spiritual paths. Their orientation to

spirituality also contributed to their willingness to experiment, and provided a sense that

there may not be any “right” or “wrong” way to do something that is not at least partially

context-bound. The fact that they already perceived their organization as highly

congruent with their sense of spirituality likely further solidified their sense of trust in the

process. The CC management team took a much more active approach, looking for things

they could do, programs they could implement, and trainings they could offer to help

improve the lives of their employees; there was a greater sense of responsibility for their

213

employees. Their orientation towards spirituality was more rooted in religiousness, which

reflects a generally Western approach to spirituality, including both belief and behavior,

and consistent with the shepherd/flock feel of their culture. While their acceptance of

multiple worldviews and willingness to openly question and explore values and meaning

led to comfort with ambiguity, they also seemed to perceive a more absolute “rightness”

in the underlying principles to which they subscribed. The operationalization of those

principles, however, did seem very open to exploration and even input from employees;

and it may be their awareness of ambiguity, and sense of humility that lead them to be the

least positive in their view of the spirituality of their organization at its best. Like CC, ES

management took primary responsibility for operationalizing their values and instilling

them in the culture, and like WW management they appeared to do a lot less active

questioning of the values and their implications, although for very different reasons.

Unlike either WW or CC management, the ES management team appeared to have much

less trust in the process of the unfolding of their culture. Whether a particular program or

policy was consistent with the values appeared to be more a matter of rational analysis

than intuitive reflection. How (and perhaps whether) a values-consistent program or

policy would be implemented depended more upon an a priori cost/benefit analysis than a

willingness to experiment, reflect, and adjust (which was far more likely in both WW and

CC). That said, ES management did have a positive perception of the potential for their

organization to be spiritual at its best, which seems to confirm that their approach was

less about a lack of vision than it was about a lack of trust or sense of competence within

the realm of creating a spiritually congruent organizational culture.

214

Employees

Despite the differences among the cultures, and those among the management teams,

the differences among the three employee cohorts were less pronounced. It is interesting

that while the WW employees were clearly the most positive in their attitude towards

spirituality, and were most strongly identified with spirituality, they did not have as

positive a perception of the spirituality of their organization or their management. This is

likely due to them having higher expectations for those things than either CC or ES

employees. With such an explicit focus on spirituality in the mission of the business, the

products they produce and sell, and the culture, one would expect that a large portion of

the employees choosing to work there would place a high level of importance on

spiritually relevant issues. Also, given that the WW employees’ orientation to spirituality

is much more heavily based on direct personal experience, it is reasonable to expect them

to translate that into a need to experience the spirituality of the organization more than

just hear about it or believe it. On both counts we would expect meeting those criteria to

be more difficult. Despite this, the WW employees also had the most positive perception

of the spirituality of their organization at its best, indicating that despite not fully meeting

expectations today, they still have a greater belief in the potential. Given the culture, it is

also likely that they feel a greater degree of influence over their environment, and greater

freedom and self-determination.

On most measures, the differences between the CC and ES employees were

relatively small. The CC employees were modestly more positive about spirituality on all

of the PD measures, and their ESI means showed almost no difference, except in

religiousness, on which CC did score modestly higher. Given the obvious qualitative

215

differences between their two organizations, it is interesting that there is so little

difference on these measures. That said, it should also be noted that while the differences

between them on the PD measures were not very large, the ES scores were all in the

neutral range, and the CC scores were mostly in the modestly to moderately positive

range. If the almost indistinguishable ESI results suggest similar degrees of relevance of

spirituality in the lives of the two cohorts, then we can conclude that the ES employees’

higher INcongruence on all topics was more the result of higher levels of organizational

pressure than an indication of greater importance placed on spirituality. It is also possible

that with lower overall ESI-R means than the WW employees, and much weaker

experiential orientations to spirituality in particular, these cohorts may not have made the

same connections between their spirituality and the “secular” parts of their lives. For both

of CC and ES employees, spirituality may not have had the same direct personal

relevance as it did for the WW employees. Also, while the CC employees appeared to

have more opportunity to be included in the process of culture creation and values

exploration than the ES employees, both employee cohorts appeared to have much less

direct influence over their organizations’ cultures—and the policies and programs to

support those cultures—than did the WW employees.

Theoretical Frameworks

New Paradigm Rationales

Giacalone and Eylon’s (2000) four-quadrant model of the rationales behind business

leaders’ embrace of new-paradigm thought is one useful way to conceptualize the

differences among the three organizations. In this model, leaders are divided into four

categories: New Paradigm Darwinists (NPD), New Paradigm Pragmatists (NPP), New

216

Paradigm Missionaries (NPM), and New Paradigm Humanitarians (NPH) (p. 1222). The

NPD leaders remain most concerned with profit and efficiency, and will reluctantly

change, primarily to remain competitive. NPP leaders are also concerned with profit and

efficiency, but have a broader focus and recognize that to remain successful they must

take the global whole into account. NPM leaders embrace new-paradigm thought because

of a deeper, more genuine commitment to benevolence and harmonious relationships.

While they are also still concerned about business realities, being productive, and making

money, they are more likely to implement measures to improve the quality of worklife

and the well-being of their employees, paying attention to the costs of doing so. Like the

NPM leaders, the NPH leaders are motivated by a moral desire, but with much broader

scope. The NPH leaders are more interested in building a better world than building a

bigger or better business. For these leaders, profit is secondary to the larger mission, and

the business may be seen as a means to fulfill the mission.

While it was difficult to place any of the three organizations fully in any of the four

quadrants, it is a useful framework for considering some of the differences among these

organizations. WW’s mission, to disseminate spiritual wisdom, and their relative lack of

interest in maximizing financial return places them most clearly in the realm of NPH.

Interestingly, their move to tighten up the operational side of the business after the “plane

crash” could be perceived as pulling them back a bit into the NPM quadrant, with a little

more explicit attention being paid to balance sheet than had been the case; still their

renewed financial focus was more about remaining viable than a fundamental shift in

interest toward controlling expenditures on programs or maximizing profit. CC also has

elements that would suggest they could fit in the NPH quadrant, particularly their

217

apparent lack of concern regarding the cost or measurement of success of the programs

they implement for the benefit of employees, and their strong desire not to be run by

financial analysis in those types of decisions. However, the fact that their primary focus is

somewhat more on their internal community suggests that there are strong elements of

NPM rationale involved for CC management. While ES management also appeared to be

driven more by a moral imperative than competitive pressures, financial implications of

their decisions did appear to enjoy greater influence than in either of the other

organizations. As such, despite the fact that a significant characteristic was their genuine

concern for the external community, I would place ES more squarely in the NPM

quadrant than the NPH quadrant.

Enabling—Partnering—Directing

Ashforth and Pratt (2003) discuss a framework for understanding different

approaches to approximating spirituality in the business organizational context based on

the idea of a continuum from enabling at one end of the spectrum to directing at the other

end, with partnering in the middle. An enabling approach to spirituality will allow for

high levels of individual control, and an acknowledgement of the individual nature of the

spiritual journey. The environment created through this kind of approach will tend to be

passive, with a management style that is very allowing of each individual’s spiritual

strivings and will avoid imposing any particular world view, and as a result much of the

culture will grow out of a bottom-up approach (p. 96). This explanation fits very well

with the data on WW. Interestingly, they also suggest that this approach may cause

people to question the organization more than other approaches (p. 97), consistent with

my suggestion that one way to understand the employee PD-SCS and INcongruence data

218

was that the employees had high expectations of the spirituality of both the organization

and management.

Partnering organizations focus on shared control of the environment where there are

both bottom-up and top-down influences. Ashforth and Pratt suggest that in partnering

organizations, it is the spiritual strivings that are important, “and the resulting spiritual

practices and ‘outcomes’ (e.g., beliefs) are likely to be emergent and open-ended” (p.

101). They also suggest that this type of organization generally requires a certain type of

leadership, specifically servant-leadership and other analogous styles. These

organizations emphasize holistic work environments, fostering personal development,

actively working towards a shared vision and inspiring trust, and encouraging the

exploration of spiritual meaning within the context of the organization’s mission (p. 101).

They also value community and a sense of unity while, at their best, not imposing

particular beliefs. CC seemed to fit into this explanation very well; clearly the Values

Session demonstrated both a valuing of community and partnership in creating the culture

of the organization. As partnering organizations are in the center of the range, they may

exhibit both high individual and high organizational control, but they can also lean

towards a more directing or more enabling style of partnership (p. 101). My sense is that

the CC style of partnership tended towards directing in terms of the overall commitment

to their underlying principles of unconditional love, respect, and caring, but was more

enabling in terms of the operationalization of those values. Although the policies and

programs designed to support the employees and the culture were generally implemented

in a top-down fashion, it was much more out of a paternalistic sense of responsibility than

a desire to control. Also, some of the specific programs implemented were based on

219

suggestions or observations made by non-senior-management employees, indicating

some bottom-up influence.

Directing organizations are those that tend to exhibit a high degree of organizational

control. These organizations (or management) will tend to impose their worldview and

values on individuals within the organization. Their approach to the culture is primarily

top-down and may value homogeneity more than diversity. While Ashforth and Pratt

discuss directing organizations in terms of explicit spirituality, and therefore

organizations that tend to hold relatively narrow, religiously defined belief systems (p.

98), ES may be understood as a more secular variety of directing organization, and

therefore without some of the typical cosmology reinforcing behaviors. I do not know if

their Core Values were developed in consultation with nonmanagement employees, but

the ES culture appeared to be maintained through a directing approach, where senior

management’s values were expected to be shared by everyone, and to be embodied in

particular ways. Even so, there was some evidence of partnering, particularly in

management’s support, in time and money, of employees finding and pursuing whatever

community service activities hold particular meaning for them. ES management’s

intentions, and possibly self-perception, were more consistent with an approach that

would be less directing and more partnering than was actually the case; they did seem

genuinely concerned about the well-being of their employees and wanted to support their

personal as well as professional development, suggesting intentions that were more

partnering in nature, yet their operationalization certainly appeared to be more directing.

220

Summary Discussion

The two key areas in which all three organizations made meaningful, spiritually

relevant commitments were to the development and well-being of their employees, and

making a contribution to the world that was beyond the running of the business. The

ways in which these commitments were implemented differed, as did the apparent

relative importance of each, but they were both present in all three.

WW’s approach clearly requires a great deal of trust between management and

employees. Management must trust that employees will not take unfair advantage of the

flexibility, and will be reasonable in their requests, taking the realities of needing to run a

business into account. Employees must trust that their requests and suggestions will be

taken seriously, and that promises made will not be arbitrarily revoked. Management’s

commitment to enabling employees to follow their spiritual path, even if it means hiring

temporary staff to cover leaves of absence, is a significant commitment, and one that is

not without both operational headaches and financial costs. It is likely that the degree of

transparency (financial and operational) enacted by WW management, and the fact that

the mission and products are explicitly related to spirituality certainly both contribute to

this approach working for them as well as it does. If the majority of people come to work

at WW, in part because of that, then they may be predisposed to making it work; even so,

management needs to pay attention to managing the expectations of employees, as they

have set the bar pretty high.

While the enabling approach seems to be working well for WW, how well would

this sort of approach work in a larger organization? Or in an organization that was not so

explicitly spiritual? Or in a publicly traded organization, where management performance

221

is measured by quarterly results? Although I would like to believe this approach could

scale to larger organizations reasonably well, I suspect that part of why this works for

WW is that the owner of the organization is the person in whom the values and the

approach originate, and that the organization is still small enough that she can remain as

aware of what is going on in the company as she chooses. Even though department heads

have decision making power on some of these issues, in such an organization they can

ask themselves, “What would the CEO do?” In a larger organization, where management

authority and decision making is more decentralized, and the ability for any one or two

people to really know everything that is going on is diminished, it seems likely that the

trust, flexibility and openness would, paradoxically, require at least some more

formalized guidelines or policies. On a smaller, less comprehensive scale, enabling might

work in larger organizations; space and time could be made available for employees to

engage in spiritual practices, resources made available for training or retreats, and so on.

The challenge would be in how to deal with increasingly diverse requests, and knowing

where to draw the line, and then dealing with the potential for charges of favoritism or

prejudice. It is possible that the increase in the number of requests and suggestions could

also lead to a higher percentage of denied requests, leading to disappointment and even

the possibility of reduced productivity on the part of employees whose requests are not

granted. While a form of enabling that is more narrowly focused may be quite possible

within larger organizations, it would not be without its challenges, some of which are not

faced by smaller organizations.

The approach taken by CC clearly involves more control by management. There are

also fewer operational implications with their approach, but probably a greater financial

222

cost. Some programs may initially be suggested by employees, but management takes

responsibility for deciding if, when, where, and how they will be implemented. While

resources for personal growth are made available, there is less overall flexibility. The

partnering approach, with its blend of bottom-up and top-down influences would likely

be somewhat easier to manage in a larger organization than the more open and flexible

enabling approach. However, having a vice-president level position responsible solely for

the growth and well-being of employees is a major commitment, even aside from the

costs involved in offering the seminars and services that are developed. This sort of

commitment must require that management believes all employees genuinely want, and

have the potential, to grow and develop. While CC is not closely held, as a co-op credit

union it is owned by its membership, people in the community in which it operates,

people who experience the culture first hand. It seems likely that in publicly traded

organizations, even if such an approach were undertaken, there would be a much closer

watch on the costs and benefits.

ES management does have their eye on evaluating the costs and benefits more than

either WW or CC management. They seem more “typical” in their belief that employees

need to be pushed, yet are less “typical” in their belief that employees should grow and

develop for their own sake, and that as an organization they should provide some avenues

(and push) for that growth. The approach taken by ES management seems more likely the

type that would be taken by larger organizations, as it ensures management maintains

more control over both the financial costs and operational implications of supporting

employee development. Certainly one of the challenges of this approach is to find the

balance between controlling for the purpose of making it all feasible and ensuring the

223

efficacy of the programs, and being perceived as trying to control behavior. One of the

dangers of this kind of approach for larger, and in particular publicly traded

organizations, is that if the values or programs are even remotely either sectarian or

exclusionary, they may open themselves to charges of religious persecution and even to

litigation.

Overall it seems that as organization size increases, the operational costs (i.e., the

need to manage workflows, schedules, etc.) of the open, flexible approach taken by WW

would grow and eventually reach a point where it could become exceedingly difficult to

manage. Most organizations would likely choose to trade those operational costs for the

financial costs of adopting more formalized policies and programs to better ensure

consistency, provide the ability to predict and control the financial costs, and control the

impact on the business as their ability to meet their own ideals in the more complex

environment is challenged.

Regardless of whether management decides to attempt to manage an open, enabling

culture, or maintain greater control through more formalized guidelines and programs,

when creating a culture predicated on spirituality, or more generally humanistic values, it

is important to pay attention to congruence between the values and their

operationalization. Well-intentioned efforts to support a values-based culture that are

themselves even modestly inconsistent with those values can lead to distrust and

cynicism (Brytting & Trollestad, 2000; Hultman, 2005; Pruzan, 1998).

As the example of WW shows, specific, formalized programs and policies are not

necessarily the best way to support the personal and spiritual growth of employees. In an

environment that is very explicit about their interest in, and support of the individual

224

spiritual paths of all involved, it may be enough to trust that people can, and will figure

out what they need. But the trust and transparency required may be more than most

organizations could manage.

For organizations that choose a path that is more formalized, specific programs,

policies and procedures may indeed be worthwhile to support the spiritual and personal

growth and well-being of employees; however, thought needs to be given not just to

whether the programs themselves are consistent with and supportive of those values, but

also to whether the means of implementation are consistent. In fact, it appears that

employees connect to the “message” of the culture more through an approach that is

congruent with the values, even absent specific supporting programs, than through

programs designed to operationalize the values where there is some incongruence

between values and implementation. Even when the approach is consistent with the

espoused values, and particularly if that approach is highly enabling, it behooves

management to remain aware of the need to manage expectations in order to ensure that

what may begin as high hopes and expectations for the culture does not descend into

disappointment and frustration. Regardless of the specifics of implementation, it is

advisable that at a minimum management create an opportunity for feedback to ensure

that practice and perception match intent.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

This study included management and employees from three organizations, all of

which had fewer than 200 employees and were either owned by management or their

membership (in the case of CC). As such, it is unclear the degree to which the findings

can be generalized to larger organizations, or to those that are publicly traded. As I have

225

already suggested, the degree of trust and transparency required to make an approach

such as that taken by WW management would likely be too difficult for much larger

organizations. Additional studies might be done to determine whether there is a specific

point at which such an approach would begin to break down; or perhaps whether there

are ways to extend the feasibility of such an approach to larger organizations while

maintaining some kind of protection against a descent into chaos. Although such a fully

enabling approach may not be feasible, there is clearly an interest in some large, and even

publicly traded companies, to find ways to manage a support for spirituality. It is

particularly interesting to note that large, publicly traded banks (e.g., the Bank of

Montreal), have been among the organizations including spiritually relevant materials in

their leadership training (Brandt, 1996), and sponsoring conferences on spirituality in

business (e.g., the Royal Bank of Canada has sponsored a couple of such conferences in

Canada).

As stated earlier, the PD data were analyzed only for those aspects that were directly

related to spirituality. Additional insight into the dynamics of these three organizations

would be available through an analysis of all PD-SCS and INcongruence data. For

example, comparing the responses on the topic “Prefer” to each of the other topics would

result in a PD-SCS indicating a cohort’s attitude towards the organization as it is, at its

best, and their opposite cohort as well as a measure of self-esteem. Comparing responses

on the topic “Myself” with other topics would provide a sense of how identified the

cohort is with the organization, and so on. Comparisons between topics, such as between

the opposite cohort and the organization as it is would provide an indication of their

perceived alignment. A detailed analysis of the names and descriptions given to the

226

abstract images would provide additional qualitative information about the cohorts and

their perceptions of the topics. These additional analyses would provide a lot of

additional texture to the understanding of the organizations and their cultures.

The use of effect size calculations for determining the meaningfulness of PD-SCSs,

INcongruence, and differences among cohorts on those measures is new with this study,

and therefore relatively untested. Initial explorations suggested that effect size

calculations resulted in interpretations that were consistent with the quasi-subjective,

qualitative assessments of a highly experienced administrator (Raynolds, personal

communications, Fall, 2005); however, additional review and discussion may be

necessary to further refine the process of interpretation using effect size calculations.

The fact that the management cohorts were all very small should be noted in

connection with the statistical analysis; and combined with the fact that there is a power

differential between management cohorts and their employees, qualitative judgments are

required when comparing management and employee data. The qualitative data collected

should shield against inaccurate interpretations of the quantitative data.

Furthermore, the fact that the employee participation rate was much lower for ES

than either of the other two organizations should be considered a limitation. Conclusions

drawn about the employee perceptions of the ES culture and its similarity to spirituality

cannot be as definitive as those about the other organizations. More extrapolation from

the data collected was required to develop a sense of the organization, and therefore there

is a greater chance of misinterpretation. However, given the range of data that was

collected, any misinterpretation is likely to be more in degree than in kind.

227

There may be some difference between epitomizing image levels of consensus, and

PD-SCS levels of consensus. The consensus reported does provide a sense of the degree

to which a cohort has a shared understanding or perception of each of the basic topics. It

is also relatively safe to assume that in cases where consensus is very high on all topics,

consensus will be high on all PD-SCSs. However, it will not be a direct, one-to-one

relationship unless topic-level consensus was perfect on all the topics being compared to

produce the PD-SCSs. Also, in cases such as this research, where the topic-level

consensus is not all high, the situation is further complicated. So, while the PD-SCSs

presented do provide a good sense of the overall perceptions held by the cohorts

regarding the spirituality of their organizations, the managerial implications may differ

depending on how cohesive an employee cohort is in those perceptions—is it a single

group who all feel the same way? Or is it more like two groups with somewhat different

perceptions? Three ways to deal with this limitation would be to: divide the PD-SCS data

into departmental or other groups to compare the smaller data sets; develop and test a

PD-SCS level measure of consensus; and expand the interview protocol to include

employees from every department.

Because no in-depth financial analysis was done, comparison based on the levels of

financial commitment to culture supporting activities was not possible, and therefore the

relative costs of the organizations’ approaches is not known. Although not intended as a

concern for this project, with no traditional “business effectiveness” measures such as

turnover rates, absenteeism, productivity, and so forth, no indicators of the impact of the

approaches on the business operations are available. Also, as this study was not designed

to attempt to provide justification or a rationale for embracing a spiritual approach, no

228

data were collected nor analyses done to show whether these organizations were any

better (in any way) than “traditional” organizations. My intention was to explore some

ways in which organizations were operationalizing spirituality, and to see what some of

the implications were in terms of the overall culture, alignment, and dynamics within the

organizations. Additional studies should be done to determine how the different

approaches to operationalizing spirituality influence things such as employee health,

happiness, satisfaction, fulfillment, and sense of purpose.

Following the general protocol of the current study might also be useful in future

explorations of spirituality in business specifically, and organizational culture more

generally.

1. A similar study that includes follow-up interviews after the initial analysis of

the quantitative data would provide an opportunity for an “investigative”

interview protocol. This would allow for clarification, and confirmation of

data interpretation.

2. Additional research should also be done into the correlations between both

intention and operationalization of organizational culture and the spiritual

orientation or understanding of senior management.

3. The same methods as the current study could be used in a pre- post-

intervention/change-effort study. For example, it would be interesting to see

if and how results differed 1, 2, or 3 years after the initial implementation of

a Wellness Program.

4. A similar study with the addition of culture specific and leadership specific

assessments would provide additional data that would aid in providing a

229

bridge between a transpersonal approach to organization culture research and

more traditional ways of researching organizations.

Conclusion

To date, the majority of academic writing on spirituality in business has been

theoretical (e.g., Ashforth & Pratt, 2003; King & Nicol, 1999; Kurth, 2003; Primeaux &

Vega, 2002), exploring issues of definition (e.g., Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Butts, 1999;

Freshman, 1999; Kinjerski & Skrypnek, 2004), reasons for the field’s rapid growth (e.g.,

Dehler & Welsh, 2003; Tischler, 1999), relationship to other fields (e.g., Adams, et. al.,

2003; Furnham, 2003; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003b; Klenke, 2003; Lee, Sirgy, Efraty

& Siegel, 2003; Parboteeah & Cullen, 2003; Rhodes, 2003), and methods to study

spirituality in business (e.g., Benefiel, 2003; Heaton, Schmidt-Wilk & Travis, 2004; Lund

Dean, Fornaciari, & McGee, 2003). Most of the empirical research that has been done has

focused either on development of assessment tools for spirituality in business (e.g.,

Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Barrett, 2003; Beazley, 1997; Rojas, 2002), or data gathered

from senior management and/or Human Resources professionals (e.g., Ashar & Lane-

Maher, 2004; Duerr, 2004; Kotchian, 2000; Levin, 1997; Hill, 1999; Mitroff & Denton,

1999; Quatro, 2002; Swift, 2003) or graduate students (e.g., Marques, 2006). A few

studies have also been done exploring the impact of spirituality on other issues that can

impact organizational performance, such as stressors and strain (Frew, 2000), employee

job attitudinal variables (Milliman, Czaplewski & Ferguson, 2003), and employee health

incidents (Bennett, Patterson & Wiitala, 2004). Studies exploring styles and impact of

leadership that include some aspects of spirituality have also been done (e.g., Field, 2003;

Fleming, 2004; Paulison, 2002).

230

To my knowledge, there have been no other studies yet completed that gather both

qualitative and quantitative data from all levels of secular, for-profit organizations,

designed specifically to explore the operationalization of spirituality within the

organizational context. Although the current study is not exhaustive in its exploration of

the operationalization of spirituality within organizations, it does provide some valuable

insights into three very different ways in which spirituality and values are being put into

practice. The data offer confirmation of Ashforth and Pratt’s (2003) model of the

continuum from enabling, through partnership, to directing styles of managing a

spiritually grounded culture as a useful construct. By collecting data from employees as

well as management, and by using the Projective Differential, this study also provides a

view into some of the issues of organization-cohort alignment at a level that is deeper

than could be captured by pencil and paper assessments or interviews alone.

By using the Projective Differential as a primary tool for data collection, the current

study also takes steps to address some of the issues brought up by others in the field

regarding the methods used to study spirituality in the workplace. Benefiel (2003)

discusses the importance of acknowledging and using alternative ways of knowing. Lund

Dean, Fornaciari, and McGee, (2003) call for exploring new methods that encompass

both the inner and outer domains, while not sacrificing academic rigor. Mitroff (as cited

in Lund Dean, 2004) calls for trans-disciplinary methods to be employed in the study of

spirituality in business. The Projective Differential, gathering data from the implicit,

nonverbal realm of knowing, addresses all of these issues. Exploring the issue of

definitions of spirituality, Freshman (1999), concludes that there are not one, two or even

three things that can be said about spirituality in the workplace that would include the full

231

dimension of explanations, and suggests that when doing exploratory research it is best to

allow the definitions to come from the participants themselves. Use of the Projective

Differential obviates the need to pre-define spirituality for participants, as it assesses

spirituality and its relationship to other topics as understood by participants at an implicit,

nonverbal level, bypassing the need to come up with definitions that by their nature limit

the concept.

Furthermore, issues of alignment between organizations and individuals becomes

increasingly important as individuals look to their workplace to provide meaning,

purpose, and fulfillment (Dehler & Welsh, 1994, p.22). The Projective Differential is

unique in its ability to guide us to an understanding of the dynamics of alignment

between organizations and the individuals (or cohorts) studied. The PD and

INcongruence data clearly show that what people are willing, or able, to express from a

rational, explicit, verbal level can be very different than what they express at an intuitive,

implicit, nonverbal level. In order to accurately assess how truly functional any given

approach to spirituality in the workplace actually is, I believe we must explore not just

what people will tell us, but what is going on “under the surface.” The Projective

Differential provides a means to do just that; and while it does not give us definitive

answers regarding why there are areas of misalignment within an organization, it does

provide and excellent map of the terrain to assist with focusing further investigations in

areas that will produce the most relevant and meaningful information.

The current study, and the analysis of the data performed for this dissertation

scratches the surface of what is below the surface. Additional analysis of the data

collected for this study will help to refine our understanding of the organizations studied,

232

and the degrees of alignment between each cohort and their organization. The field would

benefit from additional studies that make use of the Projective Differential, or other

methods that tap into a level of information and knowing that is beyond the reach of more

traditional means of assessment.

233

References

Adams, John D. (Ed.). (1984). Transforming work: A collection of organizational

transformation readings. Alexandria, VA: Miles River Press.

Adams III, Virgil H., Snyder, C. R., Rand, Kevin L., King, Elisa A., Sigmon, David R., & Pulvers, Kim M. (2003). Hope in the workplace. In Robert A. Giacalone & Carole L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational

performance (pp. 367-377). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Ashar, Hanna, & Lane-Maher, Maureen. (2004). Success and spirituality in the new business paradigm. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(3), 249-260.

Ashforth, Blake E., & Pratt, Michael G. (2003). Institutionalized spirituality: An oxymoron? In Robert A. Giacalone & Carole L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of

workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 93-107). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Ashmos, Donde P., & Duchon, Dennis. (2000). Spirituality at work: A conceptualization and measure. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(2), 134-145.

Barrett, Richard. (2003). Culture and consciousness: Measuring spirituality in the workplace by mapping values. In Robert A. Giacalone & Carole L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 345-366). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Beazley, Hamilton. (1997), Meaning and measurement of spirituality in organizational

settings: Development of a spirituality assessment scale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, Washington, DC.

Beeman, Thomas E., & Glenn, Richard. (2005). Leading from within: Twelve concepts

for leaders who seek a spiritual frame of reference. Franklin, TN: Providence House.

Benefiel, Margaret. (2003). Mapping the terrain of spirituality in organizations research. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(4), 367-377.

Bennett, Joel B., Patterson, Camille R., & Wiitala, Wyndy L. (2004, August). Leader

spiritual orientation and employee health: A quantitative study. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.

Biberman, Jerry, & Whitty, Michael D. (Guest Eds). (1999a). Spirituality in organizations: Part I [Special issue]. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 12(3).

234

Biberman, Jerry, & Whitty, Michael D. (Guest Eds). (1999b). Spirituality in organizations: Part II [Special issue]. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 12(4).

Block, Peter. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Bradley, Jaqui, & King Kauanui, Sandra. (2003). Comparing spirituality on three southern California college campuses. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 16(4), 448-462.

Braham, Jim. (1999). The spiritual side: Many executives embrace religion in their businesses. Industry Week, 248(3), 48.

Brandt, Ellen. (1996). Corporate pioneers explore spirituality: Peace. HRMagazine,

41(4), 82-88. Retrieved September 30, 1999, from http://infotrac.com

Briskin, Alan. (1998). The stirring of soul in the workplace. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Brytting, Tomas, & Trollestad, Claes. (2000). Managerial thinking on value-based management. International Journal of Value-Based Management, 13(1), 55-77.

Buchholz, Rogene A., & Rosenthal, Sandra B. (2003) Spirituality, consumption, and business: A pragmatic perspective. In Robert A. Giacalone & Carole L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational

performance (pp. 152-163). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Burack, Elmer H. (1999). Spirituality in the workplace. Journal of Organizational

Change Management, 12(4), 280-291.

Butts, Dan. (1999). Spirituality at work: An overview. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 12(4), 328-331.

Canfield, Jack, & Miller, Jacqueline (Eds.). (1996). Heart at work: Stories and strategies

for building self-esteem and reawakening the soul at work. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Carroll, Michael. (2004). Awake at work: 35 practical Buddhist principles for

discovering clarity and balance in the midst of work’s chaos. Boston: Shambhala.

CEM Center. (2005). EffectSizeCalculator.xls [Computer software]. Retrieved October 15, 2005, from http://www.cemcentre.org/renderpage.asp?linkID=30325017

Conger, Jay A. (Ed.). (1994). Spirit at work: Discovering the spirituality in leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

235

Conlin, Michelle. (1999, November 1). Religion in the workplace: The growing presence of spirituality in corporate America. Business Week, 151-156.

Covey, Steven R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people: Restoring the

character ethic. New York: Fireside.

Covey, Steven R. (1990). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster.

De Pree, Max. (1989). Leadership is an art. New York: Dell.

De Pree, Max. (1992). Leadership jazz. New York: Dell.

Dehler, Gordon E., & Welsh, M. Ann. (1994). Spirituality and organizational transformation. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 9(6), 17-26.

Dehler, Gordon E., & Welsh, M. Ann. (2003). The experience of work: Spirituality and the new workplace. In Robert A. Giacalone & Carole L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 108-122). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Duerr, Maia (2004). The contemplative organization. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 17(1), 43-61.

Elm, Dawn R. (2003). Honesty, spirituality, and performance at work. In Robert A. Giacalone & Carole L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and

organizational performance (pp. 277-288). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Field, Darryl. (2003). The relationship between transformational leadership and

spirituality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.

Flemming, Kathleen Yvonne. (2004). Soulful leadership: Leadership characteristics of

spiritual leaders contributing to increased meaning in life and work. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ.

Freshman, Brenda. (1999). An exploratory analysis of definitions and applications of spirituality in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Change Management,

12(4), 318-327.

Frew, Erin J. (2000). Stressors, strain, and spirituality at work. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM.

Furnham, Adrian. (2003). Ethics at work: Money, spirituality, and happiness. In Robert A. Giacalone & Carole L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality

and organizational performance (pp. 257-276). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Garcia-Zamor, Jean-Claude. (2003). Workplace spirituality and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 63(3), 355-364.

236

Garfield, Charles (Ed.). (1997). The soul of business. Carlsbad, CA: Hay House.

Giacalone, Robert A., & Eylon, Dafna. (2000). The development of new paradigm values, thinkers, and business. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(8), 1217-1230.

Giacalone, Robert A., & Jurkiewicz, Carole L. (Eds.). (2003a). Handbook of Workplace

Spirituality and Organizational Performance. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Giacalone, Robert A., & Jurkiewicz, Carole L. (2003b). Right from wrong: The influence of spirituality on perceptions of unethical business activities. Journal of Business

Ethics, 46(1), 85-97.

Giacalone, Robert A., & Jurkiewicz, Carole L. (2003c). Toward a science of workplace spirituality. In Robert A. Giacalone & Carole L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of

workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 3-28). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Gozdz, Kazimierz. (Ed.). (1995). Community building: Renewing spirit and learning in

business. San Francisco: New Leaders Press.

Graves, Stephen R., & Addington, Thomas G. (2003). Behind the bottom line: Powering

business life with spiritual wisdom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Greenleaf, Robert K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate

power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Guillory, William A. (2000). The living organization: Spirituality in the workplace. Salt Lake City, UT: Innovations International.

Gunther, Marc. (2001, July 9). God and business. Fortune, 144(1), 59-80.

Hahn d'Errico, Katja. (1998). The impact of spirituality on the work of organization

development consulting practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

Harman, Willis W. (1998). Global mind change: The promise of the twenty-first century. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Hawley, Jack. (1993). Reawakening the spirit in work. New York: Fireside.

Heaton, Dennis P., Schmidt-Wilk, Jane, & Travis, Frederick. (2004). Constructs, methods and measures for researching spirituality in organizations. Journal of

Organizational Change Management, 17(1), 62-82.

Heider, John. (1985). The Tao of leadership: Leadership strategies for a new age. New York: Bantam Books.

237

Herman, Stanley M. (1994). The Tao at work: On leading and following. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hill, Lillian H. L. (1999). The global consciousness of human resource practitioners: A

phenomenological study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

Hoffman, Andrew J. (2003). Reconciling professional and personal value systems: The spiritually motivated manager as organizational entrepreneur. In Robert A. Giacalone & Carole L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and

organizational performance (pp. 193-208). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Howell, David C. (1997). Statistical methods for psychology. Belmont, CA: Duxbury.

Hultman, Ken. (2005). Evaluating organizational values. Organization Development

Journal, 23(4), 32-44.

Ingersoll, R. Elliot. (2003). Spiritual wellness in the workplace. In Robert A. Giacalone & Carole L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and

organizational performance (pp. 289-299). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Jaworski, Joseph. (1996). Synchronicity: The inner path of leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Jones, Laurie Beth. (1995). Jesus CEO: Using ancient wisdom for visionary leadership. New York: Hyperion.

King, Sandra, & Nicol, Dave M. (1999). Organizational enhancement through recognition of individual spirituality: Reflections on Jaques and Jung. Journal of

Organizational Change Management, 12(3), 234-242.

Kinjerski, Val M., & Skrypnek, Berna J. (2004). Defining spirit at work: Finding common ground. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(1), 26-42.

Klein, Eric & Izzo, John, B. (1998). Awakening the corporate soul: Four paths to

unleash the power of people at work. Vancouver, BC: Fair Winds Press.

Klenke, Karin. (2003). The "S" factor in leadership education, practice, and research. Journal of Education for Business, 79(1), 56.

Kolodinsky, Robert W., Bowen, Michael G., & Ferris, Gerald R. (2003). Embracing workplace spirituality and managing organizational politics. In Robert A. Giacalone & Carole L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and

organizational performance (pp. 164-180). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Korac-Kakabadse, N., Kouzmin, A., & Kakabadse, A. (2002). Spirituality and leadership praxis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(3), 165-184.

238

Kotchian, Sarah Bruff. (2000). Converting to spiritual profits: CEO faith and corporate

environmental performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.

Krishnakumar, Sukumarakurup, & Neck, Christopher. (2002). The “what”, “why” and “how” of spirituality in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(3), 153-164.

Kurth, Krista. (2003). Spiritually renewing ourselves at work: Finding meaning through serving. In Robert A. Giacalone & Carole L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of

workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 447-460). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Lee, Dong-Jin, Sirgy, Joseph, Efraty, David, & Siegel, Phillip. (2003). A study of quality of work life, spiritual well-being, and life satisfaction. In Robert A. Giacalone & Carole L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and

organizational performance (pp. 209-230). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Levin, Ellen S. (1997). The impact of inner work on professional effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The California School of Professional Psychology at Alameda, CA.

Lund Dean, Kathy, Fornaciari, Charles J., & McGee, James J. (2003). Research in spirituality, religion, and work: Walking the line between relevance and legitimacy. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(4), 378-395.

Lund Dean, Kathy. (2004). Systems thinking’s challenge to research in spirituality and religion at work: An interview with Ian Mitroff. Journal of Organizational

Change Management, 17(1), 11-25.

MacDonald, Douglas A. (2000). Spirituality: Description, measurement and relation to the Five Factor Model of personality. Journal of Personality, 68(1), 153-197.

Marques, Joan, Dhiman, Satinder, & King, Richard. (2005). Spirituality in the workplace: Developing an integral model and a comprehensive definition. The Journal of

American Academy of Business, 7(1), 81-91.

Marques, Joan. (2006). Removing the blinders: A phenomenological study of U.S. based MBA students’ perceptions of spirituality in the workplace. The Journal of

American Academy of Business, 8(1), 55-61.

Maslow, Abraham, H. (1993). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Penguin.

Maslow, Abraham H. (1998). Maslow on management. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

McMichael, James, F. (1996). The spiritual style of management: Who is running this

show anyway? Havana, FL: Spirit Filled Press.

239

Metcalf, Franz, & Hateley, B. J. Gallagher. (2001). What would Buddha do at work? San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Milliman, John, Czaplewski, Andrew J. & Ferguson, Jeffrey. (2003). Workplace spirituality and employee work attitudes: An exploratory empirical assessment. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(4), 426-447.

Miranda, Carolina A. (2006). B-school buddhism. TIME. 167(15), A6.

Mitroff, Ian I. & Denton, Elizabeth A. (1999). A spiritual audit of corporate America: A

hard look at spirituality, religion, and values in the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

NCUA. (2003). 2003 Yearend statistics for federally insured credit unions. Alexandria, VA: National Credit Union Administration. Retrieved from http://www.ncua.gov/ReportsAndPlans/statistics/statistics.html.

Neal, Judith A. (1997). Spirituality in management education: A guide to resources. Journal of Management Education, 21(1), 121-140.

Neal, Judith A. (2000). Work as service to the divine: Giving our gifts selflessly and with joy. The American Behavioral Scientist, 43(8), 1316-1324.

Neal, Judith A., Bergmann Lichtenstein, Benyamin M., & Banner, David. (1999). Spiritual perspectives on individual, organizational and societal transformation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(3), 175-185.

Neal, Judith A., & Bennett, Joel. (2000). Examining multi-level or holistic spiritual phenomena in the workplace. Academy of Management: MSR Newsletter, Winter 2000.

Neal, Judi, & Biberman, Jerry. (Guest Eds). (2003a). The leading edge in research on spirituality in organizations. [Special issue]. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 16(4).

Neal, Judi, & Biberman, Jerry. (2003b). Introduction: The leading edge in research on spirituality in organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management,

16(4), 363-366.

Neal, Judi, & Biberman, Jerry. (Guest Eds). (2004a). Research that matters: Helping organizations integrate spiritual values and practices. Journal of Organizational

Change Management, 17(1).

Neal, Judi, & Biberman, Jerry. (2004b). Introduction: Research that matters: Helping organizations integrate spiritual values and practices. Journal of Organizational

Change Management, 17(1), 7-10.

240

Osgood, Charles E., Suci, G. J. & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of

meaning. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Palmer, Helen & Brown, Paul B. (1997). The enneagram advantage: Putting the 9

personality types to work in the office. New York: Three Rivers Press.

Paloutzian, Raymond F., Emmons, Robert A., & Keortge, Susan G. (2003). Spiritual well-being, spiritual intelligence, and healthy workplace policy. In Robert A. Giacalone & Carole L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and

organizational performance (pp. 123-136). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Parboteeah, K. Praveen, & Cullen, John B. (2003). Ethical climates and spirituality. In Robert A. Giacalone & Carole L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace

spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 137-151). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Paulson, Daryl S. (2002). Competitive business, caring business: An integral business

perspective for the 21st century. New York: Paraview Press.

Paulison, Geraldine L. (2002). Leadership and spirituality: Relationship of spirituality

factors to personality preferences of management. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ.

Peppers, Cheryl & Briskin, Alan. (2000). Bringing your soul to work: An everyday

practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Percy, Ian. (1997). Going deep: Exploring spirituality in life and leadership. Toronto: MacMillan Canada.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey. (2003). Business and the spirit: Management practices that sustain values. In Robert A. Giacalone & Carole L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of

workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 29-45). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Pielstick, C. Dean. (2005). Teaching spiritual synchronicity in a business leadership class. Journal of Management Education, 29(1), 153-169.

Powell, Karan H. (1998). The practice and understanding of reflection: A case study from

an organization as a whole perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.

Primeaux, Patrick, & Vega, Gina. (2002). Operationalizing Maslow: Religion and flow as business partners [Electronic version]. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(1/2), 97-109.

Pruzan, Peter. (1998). From control to value-based management and accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(13), 1379-1394.

241

Quatro, Scott A. (2002). Organizational spiritual normativity as an influence on

organizational culture and performance in Fortune 500 firms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Rabbin, Robert. (2002). Igniting the soul at work: A mandate for mystics. Charlottesville, VA: Hampton Roads.

Ray, Michael L. & Rinzler, Alan (Eds.). (1993). The new paradigm in business:

Emerging strategies for leadership and organizational change. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam.

Raynolds, Peter A. (1970). The Projective-Differential: A general-purpose inkblot technique for studying denotable “objects.” (Doctoral Dissertation, UCLA, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts International, 31(02), 521.

Raynolds, Peter A. (1997). On taming the evaluation monster: Toward holistic assessments of transformational training effects. Simulation and Gaming, 28(3), 286-316.

Raynolds, Peter A. & Raynolds, Gennie H.. (1989). Jog your right brain: Fun in the classroom (and research too!). Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 13(1), 7-22.

Raynolds, Peter A., & Raynolds, Gennie H. (1992). Jog your right brain (JOG): A case study in knowledge elicitation and evaluation. Proceedings Systems Dynamics:

International system dynamics conference 1992, 553-565.

Renesch, J., & DeFoore, B. (Ed.). (1998). The new bottom line: Bringing heart & soul to

business. Pleasanton, CA: New Leaders Press.

Rhodes, Terrel L. (2003) When the spirit moves you: Administration, law, and spirituality in the workplace. In Robert A. Giacalone & Carole L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 378-389). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Rojas, Ronald R. (2002). Management theory and spirituality: A framework and validation of the Independent Spirituality Assessment Scale. (Doctoral Dissertation, Argosy University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International,

62(02), 668.

Secretan, Lance H. K. (1997). Reclaiming higher ground: Creating organzations that

inspire soul. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Senge, Peter M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning

organization. New York: Doubleday.

Spears, Larry C. (Ed.). (1998). Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and

servant-leadership. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

242

Sturner, William F. (1994). Mystic in the marketplace: A spiritual journey. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation Press.

Swift, Jacqueline. (2003). Spiritual prescriptions for organizations: New strategies for

change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fielding Graduate Institute, Santa Barbara, CA.

Tepper, Bennett J. (2003). Organizational citizenship behavior and the spiritual employee. In Robert A. Giacalone & Carole L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of

workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 181-190). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Tischler, Len. (1999). The growing interest in spirituality in business: A long-term socio-economic explanation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(4), 273-279.

Vaill, Peter. (1989). Managing as a performing art. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Weinstein, Matthew. (2005). TAMS Analyzer [Computer software]. Retrieved December 17, 2005, from http://tamsys.sourceforge.net

Wheatley, Margaret J. (1992). Leadership and the new science: Learning about

organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Yamhure Thompson, Laura, & Shahen, Patricia E. (2003). Forgiveness in the workplace. In Robert A. Giacalone & Carole L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace

spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 405-420). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Yin, Robert K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods (Applied social

research methods series; v. 5). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Zellars, Kelly L., & Perrewé, Pamela L. (2003). The role of spirituality in occupational stress and well-being. In Robert A. Giacalone & Carole L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 300-313). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

243

Appendixes

Appendix A: Information Provided at Time of Initial Contact with Potential Participants

Research Process Overview: My research is intended to be an exploration into the how's, what's, and why's of a

spiritual approach to doing business. My starting point is that there is both an interest in, and a need to know, where and how spirituality might be consciously included in business processes, decisions, etc. However, to date, most research on this topic has been either highly anecdotal, or mostly theoretical, with very little being done that looks within whole organizations that are finding ways to incorporate a spiritual approach. For your information, I have copied the abstract from the approved proposal that I submitted to my dissertation committee at ITP.

As you will see in the proposal abstract, my intention is to collect data through

several means: interviews; pencil and paper assessments; and a "projective" assessment. In order to give you a better idea of what I am asking of participating organizations, I will outline here what I would be asking of them:

1. In-depth intereviews (approx. 90 minutes) with each member of the

management team 2. In-depth interviews (approx. 60 minutes) with a few employees (randomly

chosen from throughout the organization) 3. A pencil and paper assessment of spirituality (30 questions - about 15

minutes) to be completed by everyone 4. Participation in a projective assessment exercise - to be done in groups of

10-20, each group taking about 30-45 minutes 5. Financial information for the past 5 years (in the case of privately held

organizations, I will not ask for specific numbers, but rather some of the standard ratios: cash flow; ROI/ROE; etc.) - I can also provide the guidelines I am using for assessing the financial information

In order to help me decide how many employee interviews will be needed, I will

likely also need a copy of an Organization Chart. Although I have indicated above that I wish to have everyone complete the assessments, participation will be completely voluntary.

Abstract This study is designed to explore the incorporation of a spiritual approach in for-

profit businesses. I will collect both qualitative and quantitative data, both subjective and objective, from the members of three participating organizations. The assessments, questionnaires and interviews are designed to explore the operationalization of spirituality in the day to day business practices of the three organizations, including

244

issues of definition, individual spiritual expression, specific practices, and the challenges experienced by these companies. As such, this study will be primarily descriptive in nature.

The goal of this study is to provide a relatively complete picture of the implications

of making the decision to incorporate spirituality into one’s approach to business. This will include the distillation of “key learning points”. My hope is that an examination of the data will allow me to provide a detailed review of what can be learned from organizations that have already been incorporating a spiritual approach into how they operate as for-profit businesses, including: definitions of success and spirituality; specific practices; and specific challenges. I hope to be able to provide a roadmap of sorts for other business people interested in finding ways to incorporate, encourage, or honour spirituality in their organizations—a roadmap based in the reality of three organizations in some way practicing the incorporation of spirituality into how they do business, rather than based solely on the theoretical and anecdotal information currently available through academic discussion and self-report data.

245

Appendix B: Considerations Regarding Organization Viability

Deciding upon acceptable criteria for determining a minimum level of financial

success is, at best, difficult, especially in the context of this study. Although I did not

know prior to conducting the study whether this would actually be the case, it seemed at

least plausible that organizations incorporating spirituality into the conduct of their

business might define success somewhat differently than organizations not doing so. It

was with this possibility in mind that, although I wanted to be careful to ensure that the

participating organizations were viable entities, I did not want to limit the pool of

potential participating organizations by requiring levels of financial success that are not

realistic, or perhaps not even relevant, given their definitions of success, and thereby miss

out on exploring the topic within what could be the best exemplars available. As it turned

out, I did not obtain financial data prior to arriving at participation agreements with the

organizaitons, so the following considerations were not used for pre-screening. I have

decided to include them here as an indication of how I viewed the financial ratios I did

obtain from the participating organizations.

Clearly, for an organization to be a viable entity, at a minimum they must do well

enough financially to be able to continue the next year. Although accepting anything less

than the best possible financial performance might not be considered success to some, the

ability to stay in business for the foreseeable future will be a good starting point for this

study.

In order to continue from year to year, an organization needs three things:

1. Equity

2. Liquidity

3. Sustainability

246

Having enough equity allows an organization to do things and adapt to the changing

environment, as it surely will. Equity provides the flexibility and safety margin to make

short-term mistakes. Here one looks at the Debt/Equity ratio. The required D/E ratio is

different for each industry. What would be considered an acceptable D/E ratio can range

from 5-7:1 for a public utility, to a primary resource company, which will try to have no

debt (i.e., will be as close to fully equity financed as possible).

However, if an organization does not have cash, none of the other measures matter.

Liquidity is measured by the Working Capital or Current ratio. Again, acceptable ratios

differ by industry. Manufacturing companies strive for a 2:1 ratio, whereas resource and

IT companies will have to look more at real cash and "do we have enough cash to survive

the monthly ‘burn rate’ until we start to generate some revenue and cash flow". Even if

the company is making money, one still must assess the liquidity. One can outgrow the

equity (i.e., grow too fast) and run out of cash.

Sustainability is where profits come in. Eventually the company must become self-

sustaining. This is where one looks at the profit measures and the Return on Equity

(ROE) and Return on Investment (ROI) measures. Once again, acceptable levels of these

measures varies, to some extent, with industry. One broader way to look at the ROE (for

an investment in shares), is to look at the long term return on the equity markets in North

America, which is about 12%. Most companies would strive to do better than the

markets.

Having briefly outlined some of the considerations that can go into determining

whether an organization is a viable entity, the following are the three questions I used to

assess the viability of the participating organizations:

247

1. Equity—Does the company have enough equity that one could

reasonably surmise that it could sustain itself through a modest

disaster?

2. Liquidity—Is the company going to run out of cash in the next 6-12

months?

3. Sustainability—Has the company historically made money and does the

company have a track record that would indicate that management

knows what they are doing and have the smarts to adjust to the

changing environment?

With each of these three questions answered in the affirmative, the organizations are

considered to have met an acceptable level of viability. I recognize that this may seem a

rather “loose” measure; however, I believe it is appropriate given the context of this

study.

248

Appendix C: Semistructured Interview Questions

1. What is your current title/position within this organization?

2. How long have you been in this position?

3. What are your primary responsibilities within the organization?

4. How has the past year been for this company?

5. Tell me about your personal philosophy of business. . . what is important to you

when thinking about being in business?

6. Tell me about your vision for this organization. . . what is the purpose of the

existence of this organization?

7. In general, how are decisions made in this company?

8. When faced with a difficult business decision, what are the primary considerations

that come into play for you?

9. What factors go into how you define business success?

10. How do you know/how do you determine if you have been successful?

11. Tell me about a time when something worked out very well here. What was your

role? What goals were you trying to achieve? What was accomplished? Were there

any other relevant outcomes?

12. Tell me about a time when something was not working out very well here. What was

your role? What goals were you trying to achieve? What was accomplished? Were

there any other relevant outcomes?

13. Are there things about the way you do business that come from your spiritual or

religious beliefs?

14. If yes, have you made explicit attempts to incorporate spirituality into the way

business is conducted in this organization? What have you, and the organization as a

whole, done to do so?

15. What do you see as the benefits (within the business context), to you, others, and the

business, of having a spiritual approach?

16. What do you see as the drawbacks (within the business context), to you, others, and

the business, of having a spiritual approach?

17. What factors most help you incorporate your spirituality into the way you approach

business?

249

18. What factors most hinder you in incorporating your spirituality into the way you

approach business?

19. How long has spirituality been a priority in this organization?

20. Since that time, has anything changed in your approach to incorporating a spiritual

approach?

21. Is there anything else you would like to add on this subject?

250

Appendix D: Employee Surveys

The following are the questions used for the customized employee surveys. As not

all questions were asked of all organizations, questions are marked with “All,” “WW,”

“CC,” and/or “ES” to indicate which employee group(s) the questions applied to.

[All] How long have you been with [company name]?

[All] Which best describes the area of the business in which you work?

__creative __administrative __technical __cutomer service/sales __labor __other

[ES] What made you want to work as ES?

[All] How has the last year been for [company name]? (As a business, have there been

any major changes? significant challenges? successes?)

[All] How has the last year been for you at [company name]?

[All] In your own words, what is your understanding of the vision, mission, and purpose

of [company name]?

[All] In a sentence or two, how would you describe the culture of [company name]?

[All] In your opinion, what is the best thing about working at [company name]?

[All] What is the worst thing about working at [company name]?

[All] Have you ever been involved in a conflict at [company name]? If yes, please

describe (what was the nature of the conflict, how was it dealt with?)

[WW/CC] How are important decisions made at [company name]?

[WW/CC] How are day to day decisions made?

[WW/CC] Would you consider [company name] to be a “spiritually oriented”

organization, in terms of how it is run (as opposed to what the actual business is)?

251

[WW] If you were at WW at the time of the WW “plane crash” (summer/fall 2000), what

was that like for you? How was it dealt with?

[CC] If you were at CC during the time [the President of CC] refers to as the “Dark

Ages,” what was that like for you? What was learned from that time and how was it

different from now?

[WW/CC] Do you feel that the environment at [company name] is supportive of you,

your own process, path, and growth? Please explain. . .

[WW/CC] How do you feel personally about the blending and balancing of spirituality

and business in general?

[WW/CC] Do you feel that [company name] is a good example of an organization that is

doing that blending and balancing well? Please explain. . .

[WW/CC] If it were up to you, what would you do differently (either from a strictly

business perspective, or from an incorporating spirituality perspective)?

[All] Please rate [company name] on each statement using the following scale – (circle

the answer that is most accurate for you):

1 = not at all 2 = a little 3 = somewhat 4 = a lot 5 = completely

a. supportive of my personal path and growth 1 2 3 4 5

b. spiritually oriented (for ES: spiritually/values oriented) 1 2 3 4 5

c. values self-awareness 1 2 3 4 5

d. values truth-telling—even when it may cause discomfort 1 2 3 4 5

e. has integrity 1 2 3 4 5

f. consistent with my personal view of spirituality (for ES: consistent with my personal values) 1 2 3 4 5

g. deals well with ambiguity/uncertainty 1 2 3 4 5

h. welcomes change 1 2 3 4 5

i. actively encourages sharing of different opinions 1 2 3 4 5

252

j. acheives a good balance between knowing, being, and doing (i.e., a good balance between the people” side of the organization and the “business” side of the organization)

1 2 3 4 5

[ES] How do you feel about ES’ level of community/charitable involvement?

[ES] Do you feel that the environment at ES is supportive of you, your own process, path,

and growth (professional/psychological/physical/spiritual)? Please explain.

[WW/CC] What are the biggest challenges [company name] faces in trying to be a

"spiritually oriented" organization?

[WW/CC] What are the greatest opportunities for [company name] by being a "spiritually

oriented" organization?

[All] Are there any questions I did not ask that you wish I did? Is there anything else you

think I should know?

253

Appendix E: Projective Differential Images and Topics

Questions for the PD are in the form of “Which image is somehow more like. . . ?”,

and given in response to each displayed pair of images. Each run consists of 10 pairs.

I did six runs of the paired images, collecting data for four issues or concepts (topics

4 and 5 are “anchor” topics). The five were as follows:

1. Which is somehow more like this organization?

2. Which is somehow more like this organization at its best?

3. Which is somehow more like the leadership/employees of this company?

4. Which is somehow more like me as I actually am?

5. Which do I prefer?

6. Which is somehow more like spirituality? Below are the five abstract images used in the PD (actual images are in color):

A B C

D E

PD Images—© 1982, Peter A. Raynolds & Gennie H. Raynolds. Projective Differential

Images. Sedona, Arizona: Projective Awareness Research Center. Reprinted with Permission. Jog Your Right Brain (Video version of PD administration)—© 1992, Peter A. Raynolds & Gennie H. Raynolds. Jog Your Right Brain (Powerpoint version of PD administration)—© 2002, A. Scott McCulloch & Peter A. Raynolds.

254

Appendix F: Semantic Differential

20-ITEM SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL

Indicate the degree to which you associate the topic with one or the other of the

poles of the following scales by filling in the appropriate circle

Topic

Acceptable Unacceptable

Active Passive

Anxious Secure

Bad Good

Beautiful Ugly

False True

Heavy Light

Large Small

Meaningless Meaningful

Pleasant Unpleasant

Positive Negative

Relaxed Tense

Rugged Delicate

Shallow Deep

Sharp Dull

Slow Fast

Unimportant Important

Useless Useful

Valuable Worthless

Weak Strong

255

Appendix G: Informed Consent Forms

(Management Team)

To the participants in this research: You are invited to participate in a study to explore the influence of openness to spirituality on the climate and practices of business organizations. All participating members of the Executive Team will be asked to participate in an in-depth interview with the researcher designed to explore your approach to business, spirituality, and any specific practices that you have incorporated into your business that are designed to foster a spiritual approach. The interviews should not take more than one-and-a-half hours and will be recorded on audio tape. In addition, all participating members of the Executive Team will be asked to complete one stand-alone, pencil and paper assessment. Completion of the assessment should take no more than 12 minutes, should be completed at one sitting, and may be completed either at home, or at work (your schedule permitting), but please be sure that you can work uninterrupted while completing it. Assessments should be returned directly to me either in person, or in the accompanying stamped, addressed envelope. You will also be asked to partake in a non-verbal assessment, which will consist of viewing pairs of images and choosing one in accordance with which seems “somehow more like” the issue in question. There will also be a portion of the assessment that is verbal, where you will be asked to rate each of the topics on a scale between two words (e.g. warm at one end of the scale, cold at the other). These assessments will be completed in groups of 5-20, depending on space and scheduling considerations. Following the completion of the individual portions of the assessment, and time permitting, you will be divided into small groups in order to be given the opportunity to discuss some of your perceptions of the images that were presented (many people find this portion of the assessment to be quite fun, as well as informative). This whole process will take approximately 45 minutes to an hour, and will be completed at your workplace. For the protection of your privacy, all information received from you will be kept confidential as to the source and your identity will be protected. All original materials will be kept in a locked cabinet in my home to which only I have access. Audio tapes of the interviews will also be supplied to a professional transcriptionist trained in issues of confidentiality. Those tapes will be returned to me after transcribing has been completed. Your identity will be protected with the use of a code number. In the reporting of information in published material, any information that might identify you (including the company name) will be altered to ensure your anonymity. At the conclusion of the research I will make available copies of a summary of my findings for any who are interested. I will also make myself available to present the summary of my findings to the organization, should that be of interest to you.

256

This study is designed to minimize potential risks to you. If at any time you have any concerns or questions, I will make every effort to discuss them with you and inform you of options for resolving your concerns. It is my hope that by helping me to better understand the influence of openness to spirituality might have on business, you too will gain a better understanding of this interaction. Together we may be able to make better sense of, and sort through, a topic that has been gaining increasing press. By making the connection more explicit, you may also experience increased self-awareness in terms of what is important to you on the job. If you have any questions or concerns, you may call me collect at (xxx) xxx-xxxx, or Jenny Wade, Ph.D., Chairperson of my dissertation committee, at (xxx) xxx-xxxx, or Rosemarie Anderson, Ph.D., the Chairperson of the Ethics Committee for Research of the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology, at (650) 493-4430. The Institute of Transpersonal Psychology assumes no responsibility for psychological or physical injury resulting from this research. If you decide to participate in this research, you may withdraw your consent and discontinue your participation at any time during the conduct of the study and for any reason without penalty or prejudice. If you do decide to participate, I would ask that you return this form to me, in the enclosed stamped, addressed envelope by [date]. I would like to receive all other, completed materials by [date]. You may request a summary of the research findings by providing your mailing address with your signature. I attest that I have read and understood this form and had any questions about this research answered to my satisfaction. My participation in this research is entirely voluntary. My signature indicates my willingness to be a participant in this research.

_________________________________ __________________ Participant’s Signature Date Mailing Address (if you want summary of research findings):

______________________________ ______________ Researcher’s Signature Date A. Scott McCulloch (XXX) XXX-XXXX smcculloch@itp.edu P.O.Box X, Mountain View, CA

257

(Employees)

To the participants in this research: You are invited to participate in a study to explore the influence of a particular leadership orientation to business processes on the climate and effectiveness of business organizations. Each participant will be asked to partake in a non-verbal assessment, which will consist of viewing pairs of images and choosing one in accordance with which seems “somehow more like” the issue in question. There will also be a portion of the assessment that is verbal, where you will be asked to rate each of the topics on a scale between two words (e.g. warm at one end of the scale, cold at the other). This assessment will be completed in groups of 5-20, depending on space and scheduling considerations. Following the completion of the individual portions of the assessment, and time permitting, you will be divided into small groups in order to be given the opportunity to discuss some of your perceptions of the images that were presented (many people find this portion of the assessment to be quite fun, as well as informative). This whole process will take approximately 45 minutes to an hour, and will be completed at your workplace. You will also be asked to complete a pencil and paper assessment. This assessment should take less than 15 minutes to complete. Once completed, all assessment forms can be returned to directly to me, along with this form, either in person, or in the stamped, addressed envelope included with this package. In addition to the above assessments, participants will be asked to complete one more short survey consisting of approximately 15 short answer questions, that should take about 20 minutes or less to complete. This survey instrument will be provided to you, along with a stamped, addressed envelope, within one month of the onsite portion of the research. Finally, you may also be asked to participate in an interview with the researcher. The interview will take place in private, at a mutually agreed upon time, and should last no longer than one hour. The interview may be conducted either in person or by phone, depending on scheduling considerations. The interview will be recorded on audio tape. For the protection of your privacy, all information received from you will be kept confidential as to the source and your identity will be protected. All original materials will be kept in a locked cabinet in my home to which only I have access. All assessments that you complete will be done so anonymously, with the only identifying information being the department in which you primarily work. Audio tapes of the interviews will also be supplied to a professional transcriptionist trained in issues of confidentiality. Those tapes will be returned to me after transcribing has been completed. In the reporting of information in published material, any information that might identify you (including the company name) will be altered to ensure your anonymity.

258

At the conclusion of the research I will make available copies of a summary of my findings for any who are interested. I will also make myself available to present the summary of my findings to the organization, should that be of interest. This study is designed to minimize potential risks to you. If at any time you have any concerns or questions, I will make every effort to discuss them with you and inform you of options for resolving your concerns. It is my hope that by helping me to better understand the influence of certain leadership approaches to business behaviours might have on business, you too will gain a better understanding of this interaction. Together we may be able to make better sense of, and sort through, a topic that has been gaining increasing press. By making the connection more explicit, you may also experience increased self-awareness in terms of what is important to you on the job. If you have any questions or concerns, you may call me collect at (xxxx) xxx-xxxx, or Jenny Wade, Ph.D., Chairperson of my dissertation committee, at (xxx) xxx-xxxx, or Rosemarie Anderson, Ph.D., the Chairperson of the Ethics Committee for Research of the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology, at (650) 493-4430. The Institute of Transpersonal Psychology assumes no responsibility for psychological or physical injury resulting from this research. If you decide to participate in this research, you may withdraw your consent and discontinue your participation at any time during the conduct of the study and for any reason without penalty or prejudice. If you do decide to participate, I would ask that you return this form to me by [date]. All other materials should be returned to me, within 3 weeks of my giving them to you to complete (an actual date will be provided to you at that time). You may request a summary of the research findings by providing your mailing address with your signature. I attest that I have read and understood this form and had any questions about this research answered to my satisfaction. My participation in this research is entirely voluntary. My signature indicates my willingness to be a participant in this research.

_________________________________ __________________ Participant’s Signature Date Mailing Address (if you want summary of research findings):

259

______________________________ ______________ Researcher’s Signature Date A. Scott McCulloch (XXX) XXX-XXXX, smcculloch@itp.edu P.O.Box X, Mountain View, CA

260

Appendix H: Financial Information for Wisdom Works

Table H1

Financial Data - Wisdom Works

Measure

Year ROE Current Ratio Debt/Equity Ratio

1998 39% 2.05:1 0.89:1

1999 6.7% 2.61:1 0.48:1

2000 (17%) 2.29:1 0.63:1

2001 6.8% 2.51:1 0.54:1

Other than in 2000, Wisdom Works has been profitable every year of operation. Up

until 1998 WW had operated on a "cash" basis, without any lines of credit or bank loans,

growing by approximately $1M a year simply by reinvesting their profits. However, after

a couple of slow years, they decided to embark on a conscious path of growth to go from

a $9M/year company to $15M/year. To do so, in 1998 WW obtained a $1M line of credit,

began a new division, hired additional personnel (at their largest they numbered about 70)

and proceeded to attempt to grow in a couple of new directions. The skills that had

brought WW from a one person conference recording operation to a $9M/year in sales

company were not up to the task of managing fast growth from $9M to $15M/year. The

CEO herself acknowledges that she didn't have the planning and cash-management tools

required for that kind of conscious, directed growth. In addition, WW was growing into

areas in which it had no experience - although some of the businesses were closely

related, many of the underlying assumptions were vastly different (e.g., cost of

production and inventory; royalty structures; etc.). These problems were further

compounded by discovering in May of 2000 that that the $800K profit they thought they

261

had made in 1999 was in reality only $300K. Having hired and expanded based on the

incorrect profit data and the line of credit availability, WW found itself facing its first

ever loss in 2000. The fact that management was able to recover from this situation,

recognize its mistakes, and return to profitability the following year (6.9% ROE in 2001)

indicates that the loss was indeed an aberration and that management has the capacity to

respond and adapt to changing realities.

262

Appendix I: Additional Materials from Wisdom Works

263

264

Appendix J: Image Names ~ Wisdom Works

Image A

WW EXEC • emerging out of the darkness into the light • Colorful Chrysalis of Lobster-like beauty • POWER

WW EMPL • goddess • security/trust • flowering cactus - sun setting - springtime • colorful • goddess/angel • complete - happiness • • strength • scorpion stuck in a green mucous cocoon. Maybe amber • ethereal heart • dark angel in a whirlwind • winged being with aura - benevolent but confused • 2 molting moths getting ready to open • corn w/ husk in field • unchallenged stealth - silent watch over sunny haze • strength in essence • caterpillar emerging from cocoon - or Mr Hanby the Christmas Poo • mist uplift - strength with courtesy • cocoon/butterfly metamorphosis • moose closeup • desert canyon • phoenix • the monolithic stone god • creation/potential • sacrum • shell of a crab/lobster • desert landscape • raven speaks • gossimer, upward movement, soft, light, protected, whirlwind, encompassing • underside of a bird flying at sunset • -- • being/entity standing in an aura, arms up • higher being

265

• density toward the middle, light around the edges • angel cocoon • goddess in a sunset • cactus at sunset

Image B

WW EXEC

• the power animal/totem & its relationship with human beings • Weird Bar with Shamanic Rams Horns • UNSETTLING

WW EMPL • Montana sunset • longevity/future • mountains in background of desert • unusual • majestic • up-rooting - change • counts • animal • a realized and engaged being • mouth of wisdom • dog w/ huge head • hawk like - ordered, intense not integrated • 2 tiger face - w/mouth open & smiling • armadillo in pink • smiling bear - looking to the sky & laughing, playful, warn, strong &

gentle • intelligence in overseeing • bull skull decorated for ceremony • grounded person in landscape • sunset w/elk • bear flying at me • mountain sunset • black sheep • the island sage • mother earth • primal • manatie swimming • sheep-ram • angry goat • radiating, center-outward moennd, reaching, expansion, flight • feathered hat from the 1920s • deerskull • white bird flying out of (towards me) out of cloud [train] -- actually,

266

my first image was an old fashioned steam engine black (train) coming towards me out of orange (etc) cloud

• bird in flight • bull emerging from the mountains down • bear head • a wolf jumping through a hoop • mammal

Image C

WW EXEC

• the underground dark; reptilian energy in the world • Ugly Insect Warrior ready to launch into space • INSECT

WW EMPL • metamorphosis • authority/hardship • woman standing at lake with mirror image of her self reflection • defined, clear • insect/bug • structured - organized • the bill • a person standing far away • a shrine made from a rabbit's body and 2 feathers. Also a cow skull • fluttering moth • goldfish in coral undersea garden • chaotic, angry, insectoid, violent, machine • an insect stuck in muddy water • moth with horns - 1st impression ---- people at conference table - 2nd

impression • stairway to the altar - a desert oasis, out of the water & up to the sacred • starfish mating • goddess woman standing behind lobster she is releasing into marshy

area • diverse structure, decisive, yet scattered/ woman on bridge needing to

make choices (bridge made of manatee) • indian burial grounds • coy but wise • man riding caterpillar • Hanukkah • the technique/ritual idol • evil • mother nature emerging • staircase/with a woman @ the top/trees on the side • fish in water

267

• sitting by the well • bug, nature, rooted • space alien insect • fly or moth • an orange fly - blue, purple, green wings • fish basking in the sun • insect being on the pond • cricket • a bug in a pond • catfishbird

Image D

WW EXEC

• ascending above & beyond; the transcendent; 7th chakra; up & out • Floating flying free blob of possibility • MIXED MOODS

WW EMPL • community • progress/movement • overcast - clouds - sunset - rain filled day • confused • calm/heaven • vague - unclear - dark • people badname • somebody walking in fire • a person in the dark night of the soul • holding sky & earth • king kong rising above a forest fire • love, bliss, sexuality, egyptian plasma-being, sensual • a full form angel working on opening its wings • moth in cocoon -- person with power over • swimming in Detroit - prevail, nothing can stop this person, resilient,

not afraid of the dark • fight or flight • mutant horror movie character emerging from smokey rubble • looming threat to light • image of person in a glowing fog • I am One (with everything) • owl in flight (or bat) • brain test • the blossoming of love thingie • birth/emerging from darkness • searching woman • tree

268

• ethereal dream scape • the whole world in HIS hands • nurturing, passionate, expansion, perspective from above, encompass,

birth, power from above/within • cubist painting of a colored man • little rain cloud • ariel view looking down on a brain black part front, looking forward • man walking in smoke • woman emerging from a dream • bat in mushroom cloud • a person in some fog • childbirth

Image E

WW EXEC

• peace; matter; ocean; protection; caring; the divine feminine embrace • Butterfly lovers, from one we have two & two becomes one, dancing in

heaven • OPENESS, SPACIOUSNESS

WW EMPL • inkblot? Butterfly • love/hope • painting of a person with thumbs up folded in half to mirror itself • enlightened • lies • unstructured - but spiritual/free thought • 2 dog • a butterfly • a design for a wedding invitation at some evangelical church • upside down dwarf/butterfly • 2 monkeys in blue ? & helmets giving each other thumbs up • cool, weak, ridiculous, unbalanced, spread out • two figures facing each other & embraced • butterfly • 2 hummingbirds gathering nectar from wedding flowers, matrimony • tranquility • siamese twins in hooded purple jacket w/pink fuzzy trim that fell into

a pond • happy confusion, airy, spacious but no direction • happy 2 thumbs up guy • two thumbs up! • frozen pond • symphony • the non-violent effluvium of positive regard

269

• bliss • ahh - heart • a being in the middle • water - sky blue - again ethereal • peaceful valley for lovers • peace, tranquility, clean energy, bright, union, partnership • mirror image of 2 monkeys • man with sunglasses w/thumbs up • blue sky - pink hands, thumbs up, purple torso, woman's no head • flower floating on a pond • sweet girls dancing together • the Fonz • 2 happy folks giving themselves thumbs up & hugging • shrouded man

270

Appendix K: Additional Data Tables ~ Wisdom Works

Table K1

Between-Topic Differences in PD-SCSs ~ WW EXEC Cohort

Test Statistics

Topic Comparison Difference dd Ze p

Identification with Spirituality - Attitude towards Spirituality -3.33 -0.1495 -1.000a .3173

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Attitude towards Spirituality -3.33 -0.1629 -1.000a .3173

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Attitude towards Spirituality 0.00 0.0000 -1.000b 1.000

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Attitude towards Spirituality -16.66 -1.1517 -1.342a .1797

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Identification with Spirituality 0.00 0.0000 0.000b 1.000

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - - Identification with Spirituality 3.33 0.1495 -1.000c .3173

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Identification with Spirituality -13.33 -0.7228 -0.816a .4142

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 3.33 0.1629 -1.000c .3173

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -13.33 -0.8241 -1.000a .3173

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Best -16.66 -1.1517 -1.342a .1797

Note. N = 3. Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is;

Spirituality ~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp.

Cohort = the perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite

cohort is the employee cohort).

aBased on positive ranks. bThe sum of negative ranks equals the sum of positive ranks. cBased on negative

ranks. dCohen’s d calculated using pooled standard deviation and bias corrected. eZ score of Wilcoxon

matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

271

Table K2

Between-Topic Differences in PD-SCSs ~ WW EMPL Cohort

Test Statistics

Topic Comparison Difference dc Zd p

Identification with Spirituality - Attitude towards Spirituality -4.41 -.2345 -1.431a .1524

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Attitude towards Spirituality -18.53 -1.1405 -4.114a 3.88E-05

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Attitude towards Spirituality -4.41 -.2668 -1.451a .1468

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Attitude towards Spirituality -30.00 -1.5393 -4.304a 1.677E-05

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Identification with Spirituality -14.12 -.7616 -3.187a 1.439E-03

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Identification with Spirituality 0.00 .0000 -.0516b .9589

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Identification with Spirituality -25.59 -1.1937 -3.734a 1.884E-04

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 14.12 .8705 -3.172b 1.512E-03

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -11.47 -.5968 -2.446a .0145

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Best -25.59 -1.3146 -4.010a 6.066E-05

Note. N = 34. Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is;

Spirituality ~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp.

Cohort = the perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite

cohort is the employee cohort).

aBased on positive ranks. bBased on negative ranks. cCohen’s d calculated using pooled standard deviation

and bias corrected. dZ score from Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

272

Table K3

Between-Topic Differences in INcongruence ~ WW EXEC Cohort

Test Statistics

Topic Comparison Difference dd Ze p

Identification with Spirituality - Attitude towards Spirituality -8.54 -.5058 -1.07a .2850

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Attitude towards Spirituality -11.76 -.7046 -1.60a .1088

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Attitude towards Spirituality -12.01 -1.6723 -1.60a .1088

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Attitude towards Spirituality -3.22 -.4624 -.535a .5930

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Identification with Spirituality -3.22 -.1421 -.535a .5930

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Identification with Spirituality -3.47 -.2047 .000b 1.000

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Identification with Spirituality 5.32 .3167 -.535c .5930

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -0.25 -.0146 .000b 1.000

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 8.54 .5142 .000b 1.000

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Best 8.79 1.2573 -1.07c .2850

Note. N = 3. Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is;

Spirituality ~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp.

Cohort = the perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite

cohort is the employee cohort).

aBased on positive ranks. bThe sum of negative ranks equals the sum of positive ranks. cBased on negative

ranks. dCohen’s d calculated using pooled standard deviation and bias corrected. eZ score from Wilcoxon

matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

273

Table K4

Between-Topic Differences in INcongruence ~ WW EMPL Cohort

Test Statistics

Topic Comparison Difference dc Zd p

Identification with Spirituality - Attitude towards Spirituality -7.95 -.3759 -1.445a .1486

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Attitude towards Spirituality 6.05 .3450 -1.872b .0612

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Attitude towards Spirituality -3.99 -.2067 -1.308a .1909

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Attitude towards Spirituality 13.42 .6854 -2.727b 6.393E-03

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Identification with Spirituality 14.00 .7239 -2.983b 2.851E-03

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Identification with Spirituality 3.96 .1887 -.915b .3604

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Identification with Spirituality 21.37 1.0074 -3.257b 1.126E-03

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -10.04 -.5800 -2.299a .0215

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 7.37 .4192 -1.103b .2701

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Best 17.41 .8982 -3.377b 7.340E-04

Note. N = 34. Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is;

Spirituality ~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp.

Cohort = the perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite

cohort is the employee cohort).

aBased on positive ranks. bBased on negative ranks. cCohen’s d calculated using pooled standard deviation

and bias corrected. dZ score from Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

274

Table K5

ESI-R Descriptive Statistics ~ WW EXEC Cohort

Statistics

Subscale M Std. Dev.

Total ESI-R 81.33 25.384

COS 19.67 4.041

EPD 19.33 8.083

EWB 17.33 1.528

PAR 12.67 6.110

REL 12.33 7.024

Note. N = 3. ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation towards

Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR = Paranormal

Beliefs; REL = Religiousness.

Table K6

ESI-R Descriptive Statistics ~ WW EMPL Cohort

Statistics

Subscale M Std. Dev.

Total ESI-R 85.35 15.851

COS 19.56 3.847

EPD 18.76 5.505

EWB 16.50 4.574

PAR 15.76 4.493

REL 14.76 4.112

Note. N = 34. ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation

towards Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR = Paranormal Beliefs; REL = Religiousness.

275

Table K7

Between-Cohort Differences ESI-R Subscale Means ~Wisdom Works Cohorts

Statistics

Subscale MEMPL - MEXECa d

b Uc p

ESI-R Total 4.05 .2395 48.500 .8893

COS -0.11 -.0270 50.000 .9554

EPD -0.57 -.0987 39.000 .4991

EWB -0.83 -.1830 49.500 .9333

PAR 3.09 .6578 34.500 .3567

REL 2.43 .5481 38.000 .4675

Note. EXEC (N = 3). EMPL (N = 34).

a M1 is the mean score for the EMPL cohort. M2 is the mean score for the EXEC cohort. Negative

differences indicate that the EXEC cohort scored the item higher than the EMPL cohort. bCohen’s d values

are based on the pooled std. dev. – negative values are indicative of the EXEC cohort scoring the item

higher than the EMPL cohort. cMann-Whitney U statistic.

Table K8

ESI-R Differences Between Subscale Means ~ WW EXEC Cohort

Test Statistics

Subscales M1 - M2 db Zc p

EPD - COS -0.34 -.0416 -.447a .6547

EWB - COS -2.34 -.6094 -1.00a .3173

PAR - COS -7.00 -1.0782 -1.60a .1088

REL - COS -7.34 -1.0212 -1.60a .1088

EWB - EPD -2.00 -.2744 -.535a .5930

PAR - EPD -6.66 -.7424 -1.60a .1088

REL - EPD -7.00 -.7376 -1.63a .1025

PAR - EWB -4.66 -.8361 -1.07a .2850

REL - EWB -5.00 -.7849 -1.07a .2850

REL - PAR -0.34 -.0404 -.577a .5637

Note. N = 3. ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation towards

Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR = Paranormal

Beliefs; REL = Religiousness.

aBased on positive ranks. bCohen’s d calculated using pooled standard deviation and bias corrected. cZ

score of Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

276

Table K9

ESI-R Differences Between Subscale Means ~ WW EMPL Cohort

Test Statistics

Subscales M1 - M2 db Zc p

EPD - COS -0.80 -.1665 -.812a .4176

EWB - COS -3.06 -.7158 -3.172a 1.515E-03

PAR - COS -3.80 -.8982 -3.991a 6.575E-05

REL - COS -4.80 -1.1918 -4.652a 3.293E-06

EWB - EPD -2.26 -.4415 -2.285a .0223

PAR - EPD -3.00 -.5903 -2.828a 4.690E-03

REL - EPD -4.00 -.8139 -3.593a 3.275E-04

PAR - EWB -0.74 -.1614 -.639a .5230

REL - EWB -1.74 -.3955 -2.202a .0277

REL - PAR -1.00 -.2295 -1.866a .0620

Note. N = 34. ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation

towards Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR =

Paranormal Beliefs; REL = Religiousness.

aBased on positive ranks. bCohen’s d calculated using pooled standard deviation and bias corrected. cZ

score from Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

Table K10

ESI-R Descriptive Statistics ~ Wisdom Works

Statistics

Subscale M Std. Dev.

Total ESI-R 85.027 16.351

COS 19.57 3.805

EPD 18.81 5.607

EWB 16.57 4.400

PAR 15.51 4.617

REL 14.57 4.324

Note. N = 37. ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation

towards Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR =

Paranormal Beliefs; REL = Religiousness.

277

Appendix L: Financial Information for Co-Op Credit

Table L1

Financial Data - Co-Op Credit

Measure

Year ROE Current Ratio Debt/Equity Ratio

1999 11.78% 4.40:1 14.18:1

2000 13.03% 6.38:1 13.09:1

2001 11.25% 5.67:1 12.75:1

2002 8.01% 5.83:1 12.64:1

As a financial services company, we would expect a higher D/E than what would be

acceptable in most other industries. Based on NCUA document—average D/E for a credit

union of Co-Op Credit’s size would be around 8.25. Although CC is high on the D/E,

they come in pretty much in line with other measures available for calculation through

the NCUA.

The higher D/E ratio was acknowledged by the President of CC during the interview,

and is part of their conscious choice to “push the envelope” a bit. According to the

President, CC is in regular contact with the regulating bodies and has always had their

approach ultimately approved.

278

Appendix M: Additional Materials from Co-Op Credit

The following are pages from the CC “Heart Book,” a hard-cover journal given to all

employees. In the “Heart Book,” the pages presented here are followed by blank pages

for the “owner” of the book to use as a journal for whatever thoughts he or she cares to

write. All identifying words and images have been blurred.

279

280

281

282

283

284

The text inside the “heart” on the previous page:

Today I want to share something about Co-Op Credit that you probably know little about; something you cannot see. This is the spirit; the soul; the heart of your credit union.

Conventional thinking would lead us to believe that organizations are things; non-living entities; how can an organization have soul, heart, or spirit? I am here to tell you that I do not buy into this conventional wisdom. I just cannot accept that what we do—our jobs—do not have meaning or purpose; that is not to say that the meaning or purpose is obvious or easy to articulate. Just like the tin man in the Wizard of Oz, when you thumped on his chest it just echoed, but don’t be fooled, the tin man had plenty of heart as demonstrated in his leadership and actions while on the journey to Oz.

Now, we are not on a journey to Oz, but as an organization we are on a journey of spirit, of soul. A journey with heart. The journey has many directions, but no destinations. It is one of education, of personal development, one of becoming the premier financial cooperative in the state of [state name], it is one of service above self to our members and between each other.

Our spirit is demonstrated in how we do business and how we do business demonstrates our spirit. The spirit and life of the organization are those that choose to work here. Those that come together around the common values and meaning of CC.

~ [President of CC]

285

Appendix N: Image Names ~ Co-Op Credit

Image A

CC EXEC

• within - self/moving/life • angel surrounded by radiant beauty - eternal life • vapor around a solid center • uplifting - centered

CC EMPL • calming, flowing, spiritual, faith • angel in a hazy mist • warm, soothing, open arms, welcoming • figure in middle of colorful mist • angel • bug • angel at dusk • mellow, light, different • young, unorthodox, uncertainty • confused, death, angel, cloud, anger, hurt, mad • at sunset in Greenland with bird flying - warm, calm, relaxing • cloudy, scorpion, troubled • someone standing in the light waiting to take someone to a better

place. Helpful, waiting • angel, virgin mary, morning (sunrise) calm • Christ returning in clouds of glory • powerful guardian • anxious, confusing, feeling a little disturbing • righteousness - like the cross • spinning person dancing • colorful - faded • butterfly • I see an angel flying • angelic, calm • Gendrou Jensen's drawings (bones) • butterfly beginning coming out of cocoon • "Cactus" strong. . . but soft, easy to look at heart • alone amongst many • feels "medical", female anatomy, uterus, etc • angel/love/heart • angel in clouds • angel • strength • desert mirage

286

• cloudy day, tired • surrounded, peaceful, glowing • power, stong, determined • angel - soft colors, peaceful, flying above • potential, new beginning - coming up from ground into sun • mysterious person, dark • relaxing, colorful • WITHHELD - I don’t' feel any connection to this image, the gray area

makes me feel unsettled. • reminds me of movie "Mothman Prophecies" - a bug, creepy • metamorphosis • purple scorpion blob • serenity • angel • rocket or angel • angel at sunset • angel w/aura - colors of chakras • person rising upward w/wings • butterfly, free, light, happy, open, carefree, beautiful • bird flapping wings to fly fast • angel • dark, getting brighter, expand • phoenix rising • space shuttle being launched • tornado • spirit, wings, angel, envelops me, reaching out, hugging

Image B

CC EXEC

• emerging expansive more complete • gobble gobble • face of an insect • charging bull

CC EMPL • thanksgiving, fall, breezy, praise • turkey lifting its wings • loud, strong, confident • winged figure in a fire mist • spooky turkey • turkey • turkey with its tail feathers opened • a little dark, soars, open path • boastful, egotistical, self-assured, moving ahead, two sided • anger, rage, intense, forceful, deep seated anger, blood

287

• a flower erupting, a storm of confusion, feel uneasy • ram's head, skull, natural • dark but still nice. Hasn't decided what it should be • angry mountain lion (anger, pain) • mad bull going through ring of fire • egyptian celebration head • ball of fire - bear • bold • turkey (warm & inviting) • sunset - mnts • wishbone • I see a hambuger • powerful, explosive • "rising" • turkey/fall season • "Turkey" - fall colors • emerging bear • butterfly (see wings, antennae) • spaceship attacking something • eagle flying • bull, strong • silly • angry beetle • sunrise, mountains driving road flying • anger, baggage • spiritual, beautiful, enlightened • erupted volcano, powerful, angry • growth, coming into the light, gaining strength • cat, sadness • strong, powerful • POSSIBILITY - good balance, an outstretch of sunshine rays, seems to

be overcoming something • large tree in the fall, many outstretched branches • pumpkin with large ant inside • orange exploding cloud • energy - enthusiasm • a wolf ready for attack • angry animal • bird • bird landing/flying w/arizon horizon • a very fat bee or an angry fat red & black sheep • turkey, dark, stupid, annoying, loud, angry • turkey with tail feathers spread • turkey • sunset, calm • earth's layers, slightly chaotic • a colorful turkey

288

• bull running full force • cow, bull, horns, mad, changing, somehow negative or evil

Image C

CC EXEC

• yuk; not "right"; amiss • grasshopper taking a bath • ancient throne • symmetry

CC EMPL • free, insect, being-small in a bug world, springtime • spaceship • active, busy • orange/red thorny harsh insect image • satanic • bull blowing/tusks • devil fly • odd, different • fly, two faced, betrayal • grass, in control, on top of things, transition, peace, controlling, lost,

searching • a half breed of a pig & a spider, feel confused, walking on water • alien, flying dinosaur, weird • ungrateful not willing to help others, is above everyone else • person walking away, shadow behind them • invasion of the large bug • spider empire • person standing at end of long path • staircase with points • colorful bug • funny bug - grass • crayfish • I see lots of people together • focused, structured • "Chairman of the Board" • plant coming out of ground • "Insect" - ugly. . . mean, puzzling • emperor at the top of the city • bug, very thorny, maybe a beetle - probably bites • grasshopper • insect • uncomfortable • attack of the killer ants! • fly caught in still frame

289

• knives, sharp, person at the end, hard to get to, harps on either side, distance

• grounded, focused • plain • butterfly, earthly-natural, perfection, flying • stability, nature, strong & solid • fish, happy/swimming • reminds me of a bug • INDEPENDENCE - it is as thought a bird (what it looks like to me) is

managing on their own • abstract art - calming, nothing in particular • walking ot great place • red ant cloud • freedom • a vicious insect • insect • submarine • chiniees decoration - interesting - cricket - neat • a water bottle • fly, annoying, stings, won't go away, doesn't get any better • lady bug • lamp in garden • creepy spider, angry • satan's influence • an angry bee ready to attack • the one in charge • asian bug, wings, flying, shooting upward

Image D

CC EXEC

• comfort; whole; revolving energy full • an angel watching over me • solid top on a unsolid base • protecting spirit

CC EMPL • floral, bouquet, inspiration, peaceful, protection • robot surrounded by fire • comforting, peaceful • colorful image casign a brief reflection • alien • blood/heart • bird's eye view of an explosion • bright, open, reflective, path • honesty, firey, emotional, rising above

290

• looking up to heaven, trapped, being freed, one, blended, searching for something

• like a picasso, very angy and unhappy, like Lord of the Rings, feeling of overcoming

• soft, cotton puff, flying bird, flower • bad things trying to cover up all of the good things • heart (soul), shrouded by negativity • evil storm clouds - bomber over Iraq • sharing • someone is swimming, floating, peaceful feeling, watching over

someone • encompassing of man • clouds of confusion • man crying for help • bat flying • I see a person emerging from a cloud of smoke • happy, warm, balanced • "Gather Together" • fire, smoke • "Monster" - cold, intimidating • open arms being pulled away by chaos • x-ray of a pelvis, pelvic bones • fighter plane taking off • man with open arms • future - creating • god of thunder • welcoming/haunting aura • distance, unable to see, vague, supressed • floating, saddness • beautiful, shining, inspirational • the world as a whole or as one • start of storm - fascinating clouds roll in, change coming • circle of different emotion w/the colors representing them • gloomy, depressing • SERENITY - the overcast of neutrals atop the pastels signifies coziness

to me • strong, definite, bold - looks like heart • parachute/skydiving • purple exploding cloud • control • God - a higher power • bat hovering, ufo, airplane flying away • airplane • person @ bottom w/yellow light - me - smoke round • a woman dancing w/flowing gown • watercolor, free, open to expression, includes some darkeness • human in a foggy swamp

291

• colored ornament • heavenly, gliving over, beautiful • mother nature/god watching over the world • a storm cloud • a thing bringing people in the job or family • lookis like a man with his arms outstretched coming through mist

Image E

CC EXEC

• evolving; becoming; bland; not quite "there" • hands reaching out to embrace me • centered shadow or human image • "way to go" thumbs up

CC EMPL • angelic, peaceful, cool breeze, whisper, ballerina • 2 eskimos facing each other standing on ice • free, at peace, loving, unity • purple image with blue misty surroundings light and easy pastels • two thumbs up • equalness • kneeling with the sky background • beautiful, bright, colorful, water, likeable • beauty, calm, serene, love, patience, purity, constructive • distorted, in agreement, fury surrounded by calmness • a scuba diver with thumbs up just under the surface of the water. Find

this image relaxing • flower, appealing, identical halves • peaceful, open arms to everyone and pretty blue skies around it • 2 people joining together, love, tranquility, peace • dancing bears, conjoined twins • twin monkeys • not sure - have a very calm peaceful feeling. Angel • union of mankind - team • splitting in two • double exposure, twin animals • thumbs up • I see a welcoming hug from a double image of a person reaching out • complex, layered • Great Job! • peaceful, calms, cool, accepting • "Butterfly" - soft, even (symetrical) thumbs up ha ha • tow halves coming together to be whole • warm, clouds or heaven • cherubs whispering - playful/peace

292

• reflection in water • pleasing • self-reflection • soft butterfly • 2 people meetig, talking, heavy discussion, thumbs up • positive • beautiful, cheerful, happy • calming blue water, flowing • creating something new; change' altering former reality to something

possibly greater or better • the joining of something that is good. Face watching • another relaxing, soothing • UNSETTLED - it seems chaotic, the color balance • calming - reminds me of water, flowing together • big canyon with river on bottom • purple ant face with thumbs up • peace • Jesus w/his thumbs up - OK • serious face but bright colors • butterfly • hug - healing - blue energy - caring • a pretty butterfly or a bearded iris • open sky, ever changing, embracing, thumbs-up, light • butterfly • flower • butterfly, energy, growing • an empty heaven • a butterfly in the sky • balance graceful • butterfly, coolness

293

Appendix O: Additional Data Tables ~ Co-Op Credit

Table O1

Between-Topic Differences in PD-SCSs ~ CC-EXEC Cohort

Test Statistics

Topic Comparison Difference dd Ze p

Identification with Spirituality - Attitude towards Spirituality -15.00 -.6320 -1.069a .2850

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Attitude towards Spirituality -10.00 -.4213 -.816a .4142

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Attitude towards Spirituality -12.50 -.6313 -1.069a .2850

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Attitude towards Spirituality -12.50 -.4876 -.816a .4142

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Identification with Spirituality 5.00 .1651 .000b 1.000

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Identification with Spirituality 2.50 .0916 -.378c .7055

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Identification with Spirituality 2.50 .0786 -.447c .6547

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -2.50 -.0916 .000b 1.000

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -2.50 -.0786 -.378a .7055

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Best 0.00 .0000 .000b 1.000

Note. N = 4. Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is;

Spirituality ~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp.

Cohort = the perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite

cohort is the employee cohort).

aBased on positive ranks. bThe sum of negative ranks equals the sum of positive ranks. cBased on negative

ranks. dCohen’s d calculated using pooled standard deviation and bias corrected. eZ score of Wilcoxon

matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

294

Table O2

Between-Topic Differences in PD-SCSs ~ CC-EMPL Cohort

Test Statistics

Topic Comparison Difference db Zc p

Identification with Spirituality - Attitude towards Spirituality -2.07 -.1019 -.967a .3336

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Attitude towards Spirituality -3.80 -.1730 -.775a .4381

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Attitude towards Spirituality -5.18 -.2431 -1.383a .1667

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Attitude towards Spirituality -11.55 -.5424 -3.051a .0023

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Identification with Spirituality -1.73 -.0848 -.083a .9335

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Identification with Spirituality -3.11 -.1581 -.704a .4816

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Identification with Spirituality -9.48 -.4824 -2.564a .0103

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -1.38 -.0648 -.609a .5428

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -7.75 -.3639 -2.179a .0293

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Best -6.37 -.3088 -1.547a .1217

Note. N = 58. Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is;

Spirituality ~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp.

Cohort = the perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite

cohort is the employee cohort).

aBased on positive ranks. bCohen’s d calculated using pooled standard deviation and bias corrected. cZ

score of Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

295

Table O3

Between-Topic Differences in INcongruence ~ CC EXEC Cohort

Test Statistics

Topic Comparison Difference dd Ze p

Identification with Spirituality - Attitude towards Spirituality 8.59 .3212 .000a 1.000

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Attitude towards Spirituality 1.46 .0532 -.365b .7150

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Attitude towards Spirituality 4.90 .1940 -.365c .7150

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Attitude towards Spirituality 2.81 .1011 -.365b .7150

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Identification with Spirituality -7.13 -.2458 .000a 1.000

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Identification with Spirituality -3.69 -.1366 -.365b .7150

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Identification with Spirituality -5.78 -.1969 -.730b .4652

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 3.44 .1245 -.365b .7150

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 1.35 .0451 .000a 1.000

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Best -2.09 -.0747 .000a 1.000

Note. N = 4. Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is;

Spirituality ~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp.

Cohort = the perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite

cohort is the employee cohort).

aThe sum of negative ranks equals the sum of positive ranks. bBased on positive ranks. cBased on negative

ranks. dCohen’s d calculated using pooled standard deviation and bias corrected. eZ score from Wilcoxon

matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

296

Table O4

Between-Topic Differences in INcongruence ~ CC-EMPL Cohort

Test Statistics

Topic Comparison Difference dc Zd p

Identification with Spirituality - Attitude towards Spirituality -11.81 -.5066 -3.813a 1.372E-04

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Attitude towards Spirituality -8.48 -.3389 -2.265a .0235

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Attitude towards Spirituality -7.51 -.3033 -2.241a .0250

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Attitude towards Spirituality -2.53 -.1032 -.735a .4624

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Identification with Spirituality 3.33 .1589 -.770b .4411

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Identification with Spirituality 4.30 .2084 -1.088b .2767

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Identification with Spirituality 9.28 .4557 -2.598b .0094

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 0.97 .0431 -.139a .8897

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 5.95 .2669 -1.947b .0515

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Best 4.98 .2263 -1.150b .2503

Note. N = 58. Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is;

Spirituality ~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp.

Cohort = the perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite

cohort is the employee cohort).

aBased on positive ranks. bBased on negative ranks. cCohen’s d calculated using pooled standard deviation

and bias corrected. dZ score of Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

297

Table O5

ESI-R Descriptive Statistics ~ CC EXEC Cohort

Statistics

Subscale M Std. Dev.

Total ESI-R 89.00 6.377

COS 21.75 1.893

EPD 15.75 2.363

EWB 16.75 3.304

PAR 14.50 1.732

REL 20.25 3.096

Note. N = 4. ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation towards

Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR = Paranormal

Beliefs; REL = Religiousness.

Table O6

ESI-R Descriptive Statistics ~ CC-EMPL Cohort

Statistics

Subscale M Std. Dev.

Total ESI-R 73.741 15.163

COS 17.40 4.588

EPD 11.55 5.798

EWB 16.47 4.244

PAR 12.16 5.818

REL 16.17 4.885

Note. N = 58. ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation

towards Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR = Paranormal Beliefs; REL = Religiousness.

298

Table O7

ESI-R Differences Between Subscale Means ~ CC-EXEC Cohort

Test Statistics

Subscales M1 - M2 dc Zd p

EPD - COS -6.00 -2.4343 -1.826a .0679

EWB - COS -5.00 -1.6130 -1.841a .0656

PAR - COS -7.25 -3.4710 -1.841a .0656

REL - COS -1.50 -.5078 -1.300a .1936

EWB - EPD 1.00 .3024 -.365b .7150

PAR - EPD -1.25 -.5241 -1.105a .2693

REL - EPD 4.50 1.4193 -1.841b .0656

PAR - EWB -2.25 -.7409 -.730a .4652

REL - EWB 3.50 .9495 -1.841b .0656

REL - PAR 5.75 1.9910 -1.633b .1025

Note. N = 4. ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation towards

Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR = Paranormal

Beliefs; REL = Religiousness.

aBased on positive ranks. bBased on negative ranks. cCohen’s d calculated using pooled standard deviation

and bias corrected. dZ score from Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

299

Table O8

ESI-R Differences Between Subscale Means ~ CC-EMPL Cohort

Test Statistics

Subscales M1 - M2 dc Zd p

EPD - COS -5.85 -1.1103 -5.861a 4.600E-09

EWB - COS -0.93 -.2092 -1.153a .2489

PAR - COS -5.24 -.9935 -4.768a 1.861E-06

REL - COS -1.23 -.2565 -2.427a .0152

EWB - EPD 4.92 .9605 -3.996b 6.431E-05

PAR - EPD 0.61 .1032 -1.046b .2956

REL - EPD 4.62 .8560 -5.026b 4.999E-07

PAR - EWB -4.31 -.8407 -3.469a 5.222E-04

REL - EWB -0.30 -.0636 -.172a .8633

REL - PAR 4.01 .7427 -3.998b 6.393E-05

Note. N = 58. ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation

towards Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR =

Paranormal Beliefs; REL = Religiousness.

aBased on positive ranks. bBased on negative ranks. cCohen’s d calculated using pooled standard deviation

and bias corrected. dZ score from Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

Table O9

ESI-R Descriptive Statistics ~ Co-Op Credit

Statistics

Subscale M Std. Dev.

Total ESI-R 74.726 15.203

COS 17.68 4.584

EPD 11.82 5.725

EWB 16.48 4.168

PAR 12.31 5.667

REL 16.44 4.878

Note. N = 62. ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation

towards Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR =

Paranormal Beliefs; REL = Religiousness.

300

Appendix P: Financial Information for Ergo Spaces

Table P1

Financial Data - Ergo Spaces

Measure

Year ROE Current Ratio Debt/Equity Ratio

2000 107.00% 1.44:1 7.46:1

2001 61.00% 1.38:1 4.18:1

2002 103.00% 1.31:1 3.43:1

2003 41.00% 1.45:1 2.23:1

Ergo Spaces did not provide financial statements or figures beyond what is presented

above, therefore I do not have any additional information to supplement what is in the

table. It is clear that based on these figures, ES is managing a very high Return on Equity,

and over the period presented has been decreasing their Debt/Equity ratio. They have also

managed to maintain a pretty steady cash flow. Given these figures, and the fact that ES

has been in business for over 12 years, it seems safe to assume they are a financially

viable operation.

301

Appendix Q: Additional Materials from Ergo Spaces

Statement of Core Values

Our People. They are our most important resource. We treat everyone with respect

and dignity, we hire the best and reward based on performance. At all levels of our

organization we foster integrity, progressive and innovative thinking. We also

encourage the pursuit of personal and professional growth.

Our Customers. To whom we provide total customer satisfaction through our focus

on TQM and by being service driven.

Our Communities. Upon which we commit to being leaders through our corporate

citizenship, voluntary efforts of our people, and commitment of our resources to not-

for-profit organizations.

Our Environment. We will enhance our value to our Customers by providing

environmentally sustainable solutions, and by nurturing long-term relationships with

global Partners who are world leaders in environmentally-friendly products.

302

Appendix R: Image Names ~ Ergo Spaces

Image A

ES EXEC • butteryfly • looks like an angel - peaceful • Christ/angel in colors • angela in a cloud/haze • angel

ES EMPL • channeled focus • angelic uterus • calming, serene, at peace • looks like a perosn with arms up • butterfly - hope & peace • Christianity (Virgin Mary/Angel) • eclosed, kind of dark, mysterious, strength, cloud, power • angel ascending • looks like a butterfly • nature, like a forest, leaves • beacon/lighthouse in early dawn - reflecting in/off water • butterfly with wings flapping • lobster in cloud • angel • pastel/water colour painting • interesting design • angel • scorpion in the sun

Image B

ES EXEC

• crow flying • looks like a bird (ostrich) • plane going upward in red sky • animal w/horns • individual

ES EMPL • protective guardian • alien being

303

• black indicates darkness, someone trying to get out of the dark into restful position

• looks like a bird with wings expanded • danger - furious • freedom • butterfly, turkey, misshaped, open, changing • animal with wings • turkey • looks like a turkey or a bee • ugly bird trying to take flight but wings cannot support & bird of prey

descending upon it • turkey, wings out • lion with bird in its mouth • bat or eagle • colours & shapes • bland colors • bird flying • peacock strutting

Image C

ES EXEC

• disruption, chaos • women in a pond • multi-colored bug - moth - profile • scorpion • bug/worker bee

ES EMPL • pincushion torn in diff directions • upside down bulls head w/horns • appears busy and much going on • looks like a bug • conquer - on top of the world • parasite • cricket, direct, specific, requires attention, stern, possibly mean • big spider • housefly • strength - a woman standing on a beetle • garden slug in between rows of vegetables • garden bug • beatle in the grass with someone standing on its back holding onto reings or

straps • person with swords & turtle with swords going into the water

304

• insect • bold contrast • spider & grass • man riding a bug in the grass

Image D

ES EXEC

• crow flying toward you • old man sitting down • Darth Vader helmet with arms spread coming out of a mist • womans vagina • control/on top

ES EMPL • big picture • Micheline Tire guy / snowman • tryhing to escape, get out of present situation - still in womb • looks like aperosn falling (like a parachute) • confused - scattered (a bit scary) • focus (concentrate) • offered hug, light, confused, encompassing, personable • lung • a dancer with a feather boa • turmoil, uncertainty • man in pressure suit surrounded by gases - slowly beign choked (dying - skin

beign pulled off skull) • man carrying weights • brain • person huging the world • animation • unappealing/bland • spiritual figure • grasshopper rising up (creepy)

Image E

ES EXEC

• peacefullness • angel in a cloud • purple & pink cloud colum in a soft blue sky • butterfly • confused

305

ES EMPL • tranquil seperation • dream image • soothing colours but busy diagram. Appears much is going on • looks like two people face to face • unsettled - confused • exploration (space) • a lake, snowflakes, shimmering, at peace, pleased, soft & warm, blessed • perfume bottle in shadow • vase full of beautiful flowers • reflection of sunset on lake - serene, soft • nothing seen, but ethereal and calming • roach, bug • sunset reflecting in a lake • butterfly • lake • soothing colors • a calm setting, peaceful • butterfly

306

Appendix S: Additional Data Tables ~ Ergo Spaces

Table S1

Between-Topic Differences of PD-SCSs ~ ES EXEC Cohort

Test Statistics

Topic Comparison Difference dd Ze p

Identification with Spirituality - Attitude towards Spirituality -10.00 -.2396 -.535a .5930

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Attitude towards Spirituality -10.00 -.3307 -.412a .6803

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Attitude towards Spirituality 18.00 .5272 -2.060b .0394

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Attitude towards Spirituality -26.00 -.7957 -1.289a .1975

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Identification with Spirituality 0.00 .0000 .000c 1.000

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Identification with Spirituality 28.00 .6755 -1.841b .0656

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Identification with Spirituality -16.00 -.3975 -.736a .4615

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 28.00 .9387 -1.289b .1975

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -16.00 -.5687 -1.857a .0633

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Best -44.00 -1.3623 -2.032a .0422

Note. N = 5. Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is;

Spirituality ~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp.

Cohort = the perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite

cohort is the employee cohort).

aBased on positive ranks. bBased on negative ranks. cThe sum of negative ranks equals the sum of positive

ranks. dCohen’s d calculated using pooled standard deviation and bias corrected. eZ score of Wilcoxon

matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

307

Table S2

Between-Topic Differences of PD-SCSs ~ ES EMPL Cohort

Test Statistics

Topic Comparison Difference dc Zd p

Identification with Spirituality - Attitude towards Spirituality 1.67 .0647 -.321a .7482

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Attitude towards Spirituality -1.66 -.0761 -.289b .7724

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Attitude towards Spirituality -2.22 -.0971 -.419b .6750

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Attitude towards Spirituality -5.00 -.2075 -1.210b .2263

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Identification with Spirituality -3.33 -.1448 -.654b .5132

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Identification with Spirituality -3.89 -.1625 -1.022b .3067

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Identification with Spirituality -6.67 -.2655 -1.513b .1303

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -0.56 -.0281 -.040b .9682

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -3.34 -.1575 -.549b .5830

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Best -2.78 -.1254 -.605b .5449

Note. N = 18. Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is;

Spirituality ~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp.

Cohort = the perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite

cohort is the employee cohort).

aBased on negative ranks. bBased on positive ranks. cCohen’s d calculated using pooled standard deviation

and bias corrected. dZ score from Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

308

Table S3

Between-Topic Differences in INcongruence ~ ES EXEC Cohort

Test Statistics

Topic Comparison Difference dc Zd p

Identification with Spirituality - Attitude towards Spirituality 6.53 .1440 -.135a .8927

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Attitude towards Spirituality 3.92 .1067 -.135b .8927

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Attitude towards Spirituality -27.27 -.5786 -2.023a .0431

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Attitude towards Spirituality 20.64 .5158 -.674b .5002

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Identification with Spirituality -2.61 -.0917 -.405a .6858

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Identification with Spirituality -33.80 -.8236 -2.023a .0431

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Identification with Spirituality 14.11 .4325 -.405b .6858

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual -31.19 -.9995 -1.483a .1380

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 16.72 .8885 -1753b .0796

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Best 47.91 1.3678 -2.023b .0431

Note. N = 5. Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is;

Spirituality ~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp.

Cohort = the perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite

cohort is the employee cohort).

aBased on positive ranks. bBased on negative ranks. cCohen’s d calculated using pooled standard deviation

and bias corrected. dZ score from Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

309

Table S4

Between-Topic Differences in INcongruence ~ ES EMPL Cohort

Test Statistics

Topic Comparison Difference dc Zd p

Identification with Spirituality - Attitude towards Spirituality -7.90 -.2768 -1.241a .2145

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Attitude towards Spirituality -5.73 -.2309 -.762a .4460

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Attitude towards Spirituality -5.40 -.2032 -.588a .5566

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Attitude towards Spirituality -2.57 -.0908 -.109a .9133

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual - Identification with Spirituality 2.17 .0886 -.414b .6791

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Identification with Spirituality 2.50 .0953 -.849b .3958

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Identification with Spirituality 5.33 .1905 -.719b .4724

Spirituality ~ Org. Best - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 0.33 .0150 -.283b .7771

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 3.16 .1308 -.523b .6012

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort - Spirituality ~ Org. Best 2.83 .1090 -.544b .5862

Note. N = 18. Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is;

Spirituality ~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp.

Cohort = the perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite

cohort is the employee cohort).

aBased on positive ranks. bBased on negative ranks. cCohen’s d calculated using pooled standard deviation

and bias corrected. dZ score from Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

310

Table S5

ESI-R Descriptive Statistics ~ ES EXEC Cohort

Statistics

Subscale M Std. Dev.

Total ESI-R 77.00 9.192

COS 20.00 2.828

EPD 11.20 4.764

EWB 20.60 2.881

PAR 11.80 2.490

REL 13.40 5.595

Note. N = 5. ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation towards

Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR = Paranormal

Beliefs; REL = Religiousness.

Table S6

ESI-R Descriptive Statistics ~ ES EMPL Cohort

Statistics

Subscale M Std. Dev.

Total ESI-R 72.278 17.973

COS 17.67 4.173

EPD 11.44 6.428

EWB 16.06 4.249

PAR 12.67 6.499

REL 14.44 6.354

Note. N = 18. ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation

towards Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR = Paranormal Beliefs; REL = Religiousness.

311

Table S7

ESI-R Differences Between Subscale Means ~ ES EXEC Cohort

Test Statistics

Subscales M1 - M2 dd Ze p

EPD - COS -8.80 -2.0276 -2.023a .0431

EWB - COS 0.60 .1897 .000b 1.000

PAR - COS -8.20 -2.7780 -2.023a .0431

REL - COS -6.60 -1.3440 -2.032a .0422

EWB - EPD 9.40 2.1553 -2.023c .0431

PAR - EPD 0.60 .1425 -.271c .7865

REL - EPD 2.20 .3822 -1.483c .1380

PAR - EWB -8.80 -2.9502 -2.023a .0431

REL - EWB -7.20 -1.4606 -1.826a .0679

REL - PAR 1.60 .3336 -.405c .6858

Note. N = 5. ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation towards

Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR = Paranormal

Beliefs; REL = Religiousness.

aBased on positive ranks. bThe sum of negative ranks equals the sum of positive ranks. cBased on negative

ranks. dCohen’s d calculated using pooled standard deviation and bias corrected. eZ score from Wilcoxon

matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

312

Table S8

ESI-R Differences Between Subscale Means ~ ES EMPL Cohort

Test Statistics

Subscales M1 - M2 dc Zd p

EPD - COS -6.23 -1.1227 -3.162a 1.567E-03

EWB - COS -1.61 -.3741 -1.070a .2844

PAR - COS -5.00 -.8952 -2.879a 3.988E-03

REL - COS -3.23 -.5861 -2.567a .0103

EWB - EPD 4.62 .8275 -2.202b .0276

PAR - EPD 1.23 .1849 -1.168b .2428

REL - EPD 3.00 .4590 -1.450b .1472

PAR - EWB -3.39 -.6035 -1.516a .1295

REL - EWB -1.62 -.2914 -.997a .3187

REL - PAR 1.77 .2705 -.894b .3711

Note. N = 18. ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation

towards Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR =

Paranormal Beliefs; REL = Religiousness.

aBased on positive ranks. bBased on negative ranks. cCohen’s d calculated using pooled standard deviation

and bias corrected. dZ score of Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

Table S9

ESI-R Descriptive Statistics ~ Ergo Spaces

Statistics

Subscale M Std. Dev.

Total ESI-R 73.304 16.400

COS 18.17 3.985

EPD 11.39 6.006

EWB 17.04 4.374

PAR 12.48 5.822

REL 14.22 6.090

Note. N = 23. ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation

towards Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR =

Paranormal Beliefs; REL = Religiousness.

313

Appendix T: Additional Data Tables ~ Between Organizations

Table T1

PD-SCS ~ Kruskal-Wallis Among EXEC Cohorts

Statistics

Topic K-W 2 p(df=2)

Attitude towards Spirituality 1.877 .3911

Identification with Spirituality 1.607 .4477

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 3.366 .1858

Spirituality ~ Org. Best 1.352 .5086

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 3.999 .1354

Note. Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is; Spirituality

~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort = the

perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite cohort is the

employee cohort).

Table T2

INcongruence ~ Kruskal-Wallis Among EXEC Cohorts

Statistics

Topic K-W 2 p(df=2)

Attitude towards Spirituality 1.805 .4055

Identification with Spirituality 1.985 .3707

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 4.029 .1334

Spirituality ~ Org. Best 1.445 .4856

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 5.426 .0663

Note. Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is; Spirituality

~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort = the

perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the executive respondents, the opposite cohort is the

employee cohort).

314

Table T3

ESI-R ~ Kruskal-Wallis Among EXEC Cohorts

Statistics

Topic K-W 2 p(df=2)

Total ESI-R 2.813 .2450

COS 1.535 .4641

EPD 3.406 .1822

EWB 3.563 .1684

PAR 1.650 .4382

REL 4.195 .1228

Note. ESI-R = Expressions of Spirituality Inventory-Revised; COS = Cognitive Orientation towards Spirituality; EPD = Experiential-Phenomenological; EWB = Existential Well-Being; PAR = Paranormal

Beliefs; REL = Religiousness.

Table T4

INcongruence ~ Kruskal-Wallis Among EMPL Cohorts

Statistics

Topic K-W 2(df=2) p

Attitude towards Spirituality 3.945 .1391

Identification with Spirituality 4.325 .1150

Spirituality ~ Org. Actual 3.739 .1542

Spirituality ~ Org. Best 4.374 .1123

Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort 2.847 .2409

Note. Spirituality ~ Org. Actual = the perceived spirituality of the organization as it actually is; Spirituality

~ Org. Best = the perceived spirituality of the organization at its best; Spirituality ~ Opp. Cohort = the

perceived spirituality of the opposite cohort (i.e., for the employee respondents, the opposite cohort is the

executive cohort).