Search

The article proposes a framework utilizing the Person–Organization (P–O) fit approach to facilitate spirituality in the workplace. The article argues that spirituality can be described on a continuum varying from low to high at both individual and organizational levels. The interaction of the two continuums is then used to suggest a model to facilitate workplace spirituality. Thus, the approach is to first consider the interaction of person (individual) and situation (organization) factors and then depending on the (in)compatibility of these two factors, look for specific ways to facilitate spirituality at work. Various suggestions and examples are included to illustrate the practical implementation of our recommendations.

Meaning of work as explored in this study refers to the function that organizational paid employment serves for people. Is work a means of fulfilling social and economic expectations? Is it a means through which an individual can learn and grow personally? Is it a means of earning a living? Or is it an opportunity for people to express and apply their talents and expertise? In the real world, work could mean all of these together. However, when participants were asked about the meaning of work, their responses indicated the predominance of one meaning at any given time. The intent of this research was to explore how the predominant meaning of work got constructed before people started working and how that affected their work choices. The research was based on the assumption that meaning of work is a dynamic concept, i.e. the same individual can hold different meanings of work at two different points in time. This assumption in effect also suggests that meaning is not determined by fixed personality characteristics of an individual, but gets constructed through the interaction of the social structures and the personal preferences of people. In order to understand how the meaning of work evolves even before one starts working, a process theory of the construction of meaning of work was developed inductively using the work narratives of 44 public sector bank employees in India. It was found that work means different things to different people, but for ease of comprehension and for the purpose of analysis, the meaning of work has been categorized under two broad headings — social meaning of work and personal meaning of work. When the main function of work is to fulfill social and economic expectations, the person can be said to hold a social meaning of work. If work is predominantly a means to satisfy personal aspirations and interests, then it holds a personal meaning. The narratives suggest that when individuals have multiple career or job alternatives to choose from and also possess a clear knowledge of their interests, then their work choices are driven by personal inclinations and work takes on a personal meaning. On the other hand, when the number of job alternatives is limited and an individual does not have insight into one's own interests then social expectations and metaphors related to work influence the meaning of work and work choices. The theoretical and managerial implications of the findings and limitations are also discussed.

This study explores the mediating role of negative affect between three negative mentoring experiences of protégés: ( i) a mentor–protégé mismatch within the dyad; ( ii) the mentor’s distancing behaviour; and ( iii) the mentor’s work-related attitude, and one outcome of negative mentoring, namely, decline of organizational citizenship behaviour for the protégé. Drawing on affective events theory, it is suggested that negative mentoring experiences for the protégé may have far-reaching implications for the protégé and for the organization too.

Management of meaning inside organizations has been an enduring issue in organization studies. Issues relating to commitment and control through the meaning-making mechanisms have been studied by organization culture theorists for sometime now. However, rapidly changing dynamics of the business environment lend these issues a critical salience today. Two factors of this dynamic context are particularly noteworthy. Firstly, a redefinition of the long-standing employment relationship—loyalty no longer being traded for lifelong employment—has led management to look for alternative sources of gaining commitment from their employees. Second, several factors—socio-cultural, organizational and individual—have led the employees today to explore issues relating to meaning and purpose in their workplaces. Labelled variously by different scholars, the most widely accepted term for this growing movement is ‘Spirituality at Work’ (SAW). In this article we link the two factors to present a framework wherein the emergence of an issue from the private individual domain to the organizational is seen as having the potential of answering concerns of eliciting commitment from employees in a turbulent environment. However, the SAW movement is accompanied by vigorous debates about the concept itself and on how it is to be studied. In the course of this article we present the central conceptual debates that have characterized the SAW discourse to emerge with three definitional themes to understand and study SAW, and then argue for utilizing the person–organization fit lens to study SAW. We end with a conceptual framework that would enable researchers to make a comprehensive study of the elusive phenomenon of SAW.