Spirituality in the Workplace

Spirituality in the workplace is a topic that is not openly discussed in many organizations due to company regulations, policies, procedures, and laws. Although one may hear the occasional, “I’m blessed and highly favored” response to, “How are you today?” or the occasional religious symbol or Bible verse in the office, does not mean that individuals are practicing spirituality in the workplace (SAW).  I personally feel that spirituality in the workplace deals with servant leadership at its best. As a servant leader, it is my moral obligation to serve others and try to meet their individual needs. In the process, I must demonstrate integrity and social responsibility to those I serve.

As Mahatma Ghandi stated, we should “be the change we wish to see in the world.” As a leader, I must represent what I believe in through my actions. If I wish to see change in my organization, I must lead by example. Pruzan (2008, p. 101) contends, “Research clearly demonstrates that spirituality and leadership can have a synergetic relationship to each other.” Merriam-Webster (2013) defines synergy as “the increased effectiveness that results when two or more people or businesses work together.” The question is not “Can spirituality and leadership work together?” but “Should spirituality and leadership work together and why?”



Although laws have abolished prayer in schools and the expression of one’s religious beliefs in the workplace, the fact still remains that “we are a nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

In clearly analyzing the pledge of allegiance to the United States flag, I can see spiritual characteristics in our pledge. Spirituality has many interpretations but the common theme in most definitions is that of service or duty. As a nation, it is our duty to be cohesive, free, and fair. Spirituality focuses on providing a service, promoting unity, helping the oppressed feel free, and provide equality for all.

My friend and colleague, Pastor Reuben Sampson, Jr. (2013) shared with me, “Spirituality in the workplace paints somewhat of a paradox. One’s spirituality is personal. This in itself many times makes it difficult for some to not express their belief verbally. However, I’m of the persuasion that a person’s spirituality should be exhibited in the workplace through their choices and work. What do I mean? Your lifestyle in the work place and your work ethic should express what you believe. A great example is worth more than a thousand words. Simply put, when it comes to workplace spirituality, one should strive to live what they believe. Then they should function properly within the guidelines of the organization so as to promote their beliefs from a positive vantage point.”

In his book, Leading with Passion (2010), John J. Murphy asserts:

When we are leading in the spirit, we approach each day with joy, enthusiasm and positive expectations. We are deliberate and mindful in our actions and reactions. We respond to stimuli by consciously ‘minding the gap’ between cause and effect. Leading with passion and spirit requires that we remain positive, attracting positive energy into our lives and into the solutions we seek. We are never given a challenge we cannot meet or a problem we cannot solve. This is what keeps life interesting. We grow in spirit when we rise to these challenges. At the beginning of each day, the passionate leader remembers that we are spiritual beings destines to create a better world by thinking positively and acting wholeheartedly. And at the end of the day, the passionate leader realizes that to inspire others, we must be in-spirit ourselves. (pp. 104-105)

As previously stated, spirituality in the workplace begins with the leader. From my personal experience, I take the “what would Jesus do” (WWJD) approach to handling situations. By this I mean the following: although individuals make mistakes, murmur, conspire, threaten, etc., I look at those individuals with God’s heart and God’s eyes in order to move forward. As Murphy (2010) stated, I have to be “positive and attracting positive energy.” As the leader on my campus, I must remain positive in order to get employee buy in. This task is not always easy but crucial because it will impact campus culture and climate. Student centered leadership involves leaders making an effort to impact students. A positive attitude toward helping students achieve will motivate students to excel. Students are impressionable and can detect when someone does not genuinely care for them. In leading with the spirit, we must accept our students, faculty, and staff with their weaknesses and faults and commit ourselves to bringing out the very best in them. I have always felt that my job is my ministry and my calling. Educators do not go into the profession because of the money. We do not get paid for working overtime or get hefty raises. I can say that most educators lead with heart. We want to serve our children and will do everything possible to ensure their well-being. Pruzan (2008, p. 104) asserts, “spirituality can be looked upon as providing a framework for leadership that can serve as the very source of an organization’s values, ethics, and responsibility.” In education, we develop our campus vision and mission as a guide to help us reach our students. We adopt them as our “core values, ethics, and responsibility.” Educators have a moral responsibility to provide a high quality education to all students and to lead their followers to a higher level of professional growth and development.

Spirituality will help them achieve that. John Maxwell (1993, p. 7-8) contends, “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. Leadership begins with the heart, not the head. It flourishes with a meaningful relationship, not more regulation. You can love people without leading them, but you cannot lead people without loving them.”

Tourish & Tourish (2010, pp. 213-214) describe:

Accordingly, a leader who embraces SAW [spirituality at work] will have a heightened obligation to offer a sense of meaning in life, and to provide a feeling of community rooted in the workplace. It is an agenda built on the assumption that organizations have a unitarist nature, thereby ensuring that the extension of leaders’ power in more intrusive directions will have a benign effect. The focus is on the need for individuals to adapt everything they possess, body and soul, to the organizational environment in which they find themselves, in pursuit of meaning and solace. The possibility that such a colonization of people’s affective domain might be oppressive, invasive or unwelcomed is not generally considered.

A feeling of community and acceptance is vital in attempting to establish relationships. Guy Ferguson, as cited by Maxwell (1993, p. 115) asserts:

To know to do a job is the accomplishment of labor;

To be available to tell others is the accomplishment of the teacher;

To inspire others to do better work is the accomplishment of management;

To be able to do all three is the accomplishment of true leaders.

References

Maxwell, J. C. (1993). Developing the Leader Within You. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Merriam-Webster. (2013). Retrieved November 4, 2013, from Merriam-Webster: www.merriam-

          webster.com

Murphy, J. J. (2010). Leading with Passion. Naperville: Simple Truths, LLC.

Pruzan, P. (2008). Spiritual-based Leadership in Business. Journal of Human Values , 101-114.

Sampson, R. (2013, November 7). Spirituality in the Workplace. (M. Oliva, Interviewer)

Tourish, D., & Tourish, N. (2010). Spirituality at Work, and its Implications for Leadership and

          Followership: A Post-structuralist Perspective. Leadership , 207-224.

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

Voltaire stated, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Many can attest that the greater the power, the greater responsibility. Power seems to be the force that motivates people in making decisions that will benefit their organization if properly utilized or hinder its progress if abused. Morgan (2006, p. 166) asserts,

Power is the medium through which conflicts of interest are ultimately resolved. While some view power as a resource (i.e., as something one possesses), others view it as a social relation characterized by some kind of dependency (i.e., as an influence over something or someone). Power influences who gets what, when and how.

Over the years, I have heard comments such as, “I don’t want that job because I don’t want the responsibility, or that responsibility isn’t worth the headache.”  While it is true that power and responsibility are synonymous, it is also true that power+responsibility=corruption at times. Hence, the questions, “Does absolute power corrupt absolutely?” What will an individual do to “get what he/she wants, when and how?” In order to answer the aforementioned questions, it is imperative to give a synopsis of how the theory of “absolute power  corrupts absolutely” emerged.

The Online Library of Liberty (2008) reports that Lord Acton

was one of the great historians of the Victorian period and one of the greatest classical liberal historians of all time. His theme was ‘the history of liberty’ and even though he was never able to complete his magnum opus of that name he did write numerous essays, book reviews, and lectures. He also was the inspiration behind the multi-volume Cambridge Modern History. [He wrote to Bishop Creighton that] the same moral standards should be applied to all men, political and religious leaders included, especially since ‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ (1887). [In his letters to Bishop Creighton, Lord Acton expresses the following:] I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.

Lord Acton believed that morals played a critical role in corruption. Indeed, anyone in authority that does not abide by laws, policies, rules, and regulations, is viewed as a rebel that commits immoral acts. They believe they are above the law and will abuse their power “in the best interest of the company or the organization.” Absolute power can lead to corruption. We have seen many politicians, doctors, lawyers, preachers, and educators fall because of their hunger for power. The truth is that no one is exempt from corruption and corruption hurts many. Corruption damages lives and no one is exempt from its pain.
Shapiro, Ingols, & Blake-Beard (2011) contend that

to be successful, all managers—male and female—must be proficient in the use of power. But does the exercise of power mean the same thing for both men and women? We would argue “no,” that there are gendered expectations regarding how men and women are supposed to use power, and that both men and women may face a double bind when enacting power.

People often lose control of power and let power control them. Individuals that have absolute power for the first time often do not know how to manage it. Often times, they get too hung up on titles and handles that they feel the need to prove themselves. In the process of making a name for themselves, they exploit and abuse people and continuously remind them of “who is in charge.” In addition, many individuals with absolute power do not want to let any power go. Instead of empowering others, they empower themselves by making it known that others do not have any type of authority to make any decisions. 

Sandelands (2008) describes power as

the ability to get things done through people—is said to be the key to success in business and, indeed, everything else in life. Power would thus seem to be an unalloyed good, something to always seek and exercise. But this is not how power is seen by many or most people. By identifying human power with nature (with fact, with how the world is) instead of with justice (with value, with how the world ought to be), these ideas strip human power of its moral dimension, of its connection to what is right and good. Such amoral reasoning about power turns to amoral practice in ideas about how to manage power in organizations.

Nature does play a vital role in how an individual handles absolute power. A person’s educational, cultural, and socio economic background may influence the way a person uses the power he/she is given. Many individuals are egotistical in nature for various reasons. Children with no siblings have a strong sense of self because they have never had to be compared to anyone. All attention was given to them and they feel they are of utmost importance. They have difficulty sharing, listening, and are very dominant and controlling. Goh & Kuczynski (2009, p. 529) state, “single children enjoy an elevated position at home, with enhanced leeway regarding their expression of agency in inter- actions with the multiple caregivers who revolve around them.” With this in mind, single children may grow up as adults who feel they must maintain that “elevated position” and will do whatever it takes to remain as such.

Other individuals who come into some type of authority care about making a name for them and want to do things that will benefit them in future endeavors. Malhotra & Gino (2011, pp. 559-592) share that “people experiencing a sense of entitlement, who therefore have inflated aspirations about what is to be gained from the exchange relationship, will be more likely to engage in exploitative and opportunistic behavior as a means to achieve these aspirations.” Those “entitled” individuals see themselves above everyone else. They do not value others’ positions, thoughts, time, or worth. Individuals with absolute power who believe they are “entitled” often commit immoral acts in order to justify their “entitlement.” The unethical acts commonly consist of tampering with files and records, obtaining perks, and stealing money.

Organizations as a whole can also be corrupt. In order to maintain a certain status, organizations 

will do unethical things to get desired results.  Morgan (2006, p. 173) states,

our understandings of problems and issues often act as mental straitjackets that prevent us from seeing other ways of formulating basic concerns and finding the alternative courses of action. Many of these unobtrusive controls are ‘cultural’ in the sense that they are built into organizational assumptions, beliefs, and practices about ‘who we are’ and ‘the way we do things around here.’

            Organizations can manipulate information to get consumers/clients to believe that they are providing a quality service when indeed they are not. They make things appear attractive, organized, and glamorous but underneath it all, they are rotten to the core. Many organizations exploit their workers by making them work extra hours without pay, making them work in deplorable conditions, not giving them full benefits, and threatening and intimidating them.

            

So the question remains, “Does absolute power corrupt absolutely?” Only you can determine your own truth.

References

Goh, E., & Kuczynski, L. (2009). Agency and Power of Single Children in Multi-

Generational Families in Urban Xiamen, China. Culture & Psychology , 506-

532.

Malhotra, D., & Gino, F. (2011). The Pursuit of Power Corrupts; How Investing in

Outside Options Motivates Opportunism in Relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly , 559-592.

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Sandelands, L. (2008). Thy Will Be Done? Journal of Management Inquiry , 137-142.

Shapiro, M., Ingols, C., & Blake-Beard, S. (2011). Using Power to Influence Outcomes:

Does Gender Matter. Journal of Management Education , 713-748.

The Online Library of Liberty. (2008, September 3). Retrieved October 24, 2013, from

The Online Library of Liberty: oll.libertyfund.org