Spirit of Organization

Another behavior pattern that characterizes empowering leaders is the way they help all members of the organization to feel included. They create a climate, or atmosphere, of inclusion across all levels of the organization by making sure that everyone has a voice and that this voice receives a hearing (Ford, 2006, p. 515). Because they understand that great ideas may spring from the most inconspicuous and unassuming among their people, such leaders highly value these individuals and their contribution. They know that the office assistant, who deals daily with the complaints and frustrations of clients, has a valuable perspective on the status of client satisfaction. They know that the custodian sees aspects of the organization that cannot be seen from any other angle. They also know that people are inherently creative and that innovation can spring from the remote corners of the organization.

This kind of leader behavior is in contrast with those leaders who include in the decision-making process only people who hold an official management role. Many managers have an elitist view of the decision-making process that is rooted in the hierarchical conception of organizations. It is a managerial caste system that still exists in many organizations today.

Empowering leaders also contrast with those leaders who only listen to those who think like themselves, excluding anyone who is different (Rothwell, 2005, p. 182). Listening to a dissenting voice is not comfortable for anyone, but empowering leaders learn to appreciate and even seek out the dissenting voice. Disempowering leaders fear such dissent and attempt to silence it, sometimes in subtle, diplomatic, ways; often in the systematic removal of such divergent voices. In extreme cases, this kind of leadership leads to totalitarian dictatorships as we see happening in Venezuela today and in the leadership of Adolf Hitler. Disempowering leaders must have unity at all costs, as expressed in Hitler’s definition of the art of leadership as

consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention. . . . The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category (Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Ch. 3).

Empowering leaders understand that an absolute singularity of attention is a dangerous foundation for organizational health. They see dissent as providing the edge of objectivity and innovation. They understand that they cannot sustain an effective response to a changing environment unless new ideas are allowed to penetrate the decision-making process. Ashkenenas, Ulrich, Jick & Kerr (2002) describe such organizations as having permeable boundaries. In such organizations, “ineffective performance is highly visible, not just to a few people but to many” (p. 24). Though truth can be painful, it opens the path to substantive solutions for tomorrow’s problems.

Empowering leaders, therefore, resist the urge to exercise their positional authority to RESOLVE tensions created by conflicting ideas. For them, power is comprised of “reciprocal forces within a tension-filled network of relations” (Ford, 2006, p. 500). Bagshaw (2004) refers to this interplay between order and innovation as “creative abrasion” (p. 154). In the words of Solomon, the ancient king of Israel, “Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another” (Proverbs 27:17). Empowering leaders believe that the process of giving voice to all members of the organization will lead to solutions that are superior to anything that might be decreed by a singular voice.

Questions for Reflection

(1) How well do you think your organization does at creating a climate of inclusion? (2) What should a leader do to begin creating a climate of inclusion? (3) What are some structural obstacles to inclusion? (4) What are the psychological and spiritual obstacles?

Works Cited

Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T. & Kerr, S. (2002). The boundaryless organization: Breaking the chains of organizational structure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bagshaw, M. (2004) Is diversity divisive?: A positive training approach. Industrial & Commercial Training 36(4), 153-157. Retrieved July 11, 2004, from Emerald Fulltext Database

Ford, R. (2006) Organizational learning, change & power: Toward a practice-theory framework. The Learning Organization 13(5), 495-524. Retrieved November 17, 2006, from Emerald Journals

Hitler, Adolf. (1925). Mein Kampf.

Rothwell, W. J. (2005). Effective succession planning: Ensuring leadership continuity & building talent from within (3rd ed.). New York: AMACOM.

Post a Reply

As mentioned in my previous post, the leader is one of the three core ingredients of an empowering system. A philosophy of empowerment assumes that leaders behave in an empowering manner. At least six behavior patterns tend to characterize the way empowering leaders approach management. Empowering leaders . . .

(1) influence through context;
(2) create a culture of inclusion;
(3) give and don’t take back power;
(4) provide moral and logistical support;
(5) communicate a clear mandate; and
(6) equip people for success.

Leaders who see the organizational and personal value of empowerment can make a conscious choice to adapt their behavior patterns to better fit the empowering model, assuming that the leader has self-leadership capability and is willing to change. The first and probably most difficult empowering behavior is to learn to influence through context, rather than through direct management. An effective gardener makes sure that her plants have the necessary water and fertilizer to grow. She knows how to properly administer these ingredients so that they don’t end up stunting the growth of the plants. She knows that the force of growth is not in command, but in creating a growth-facilitating context. She trusts the natural forces of creation to produce the desired results. Empowering leaders have also developed a trust in a higher principle or guiding force that is present in life in general and in their organization in particular. For the Christian, that higher principle is the providence of God; for others, it may be a belief in the creative potential of human nature.

The point is that empowering leaders trust the process. This approach to management is in contrast to those leaders who feel that the only way to manage is through their direct influence. Such leaders feel compelled to always “take the bull by the horns” and push their agendas through. Command and control are the only options they have available to them. Unfortunately, if all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. These leaders spend a lot of their time, pounding down the nails around them and throughout their organization.

Empowering leaders understand the systemic nature of human behavior, that they are not the only or even primary influence in the behavior of their employees. Empowering leaders see themselves as responsible for creating a context where empowerment is released and nurtured (Honold, 1997, p. 2003). In The Company of the Future, Francis Cairncross says that such leaders “define context and standards at every level of the company and then give people the freedom to act and innovate, developing leadership throughout the organization” (Cited in Daft, 2004, p. 27). Once this context is in place, these leaders believe that it will naturally produce proactive employees whose combined wisdom will give them the competitive edge.

The Apostle Paul spent a great deal of his church-planting efforts in the preparation of a context that would nurture and build strong churches throughout the Mediterranean world. He knew he would not be present to command and control the churches and that he had to depend on their culture to preserve and grow the body of Christ. The early church was not organized according to the hierarchical structures that it latter adopted from the Roman Empire. Each congregation was lead by a plurality of elders, each of whom saw themselves as servants of Christ, and none of whom possessed authority over the others (Acts 14:23; 20:17). The key to the survival of this new movement in a hostile environment was to prepare a context where people could grow and thrive and where truth would prevail. Some of the elements of this context included a shared vision and purpose, diversity of gifts and talents, mutual respect for others AND FOR ONESELF, and the generalized practice of caring for others (See 1 Corinthians 12). The most important contextual element, however, was the belief of the early Christians that Jesus Christ was directly in their midst through the Holy Spirit. This confidence empowered them not only to survive but to religiously and philosophically conquer the Roman Empire by the start of the third century. In today’s world of accelerated change and complexity, leaders will have to develop the skills of indirect leadership or fail their organizations.

Questions for Reflection

(1) What are some ways you can use indirect influence in your work? In your family? (2) What is it in the leader that keeps him or her from trusting the power of context? (3) What happens when the leader gets impatient and uses direct influence before giving indirect influence time to do its work? (4) Is there a danger of depending too much on the context to get things done?

Post a Reply

Works Cited

Honold, L. (1997) A review of the literature on employee empowerment. Empowerment in Organisations 5(4), 202-212. Retrieved November 24, 2006, from Emerald Journals

Daft, R. L. (2004). Organization Theory and Design (8th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.

Photo of “Balancing Rock” in the Wonderland of Rocks area of Chiricahua National Park. (August 9, 2006). By Dawn M. Turner. Accessed  October  27, 2007 from  http://www.morguefile.com/archive/?display=138424&

WHAT IF I WANT TO DEVELOP AN EMPOWERING ORGANIZATION? What exactly does that mean? What kinds of changes are we talking about? Is it just some new management fad; or is there substance here? I believe the latter: that organizational empowerment will not only bring bottom-line benefits to the organization, but is also central to what it means to be a true leader.

It’s important, however, that we don’t take this great idea and squeeze into a mediocre concept. For example, empowerment is not the same as delegation. The root meaning of delegate is to “send as a representative” (Harper, 2001). When you delegate a task, you are saying to your subordinate that he or she is representing YOU in the accomplishment of YOUR work. The one to whom work has been delegated becomes an instrument in completing YOUR project. You retain the ownership and make all the important decisions.

Empowerment is much more than this. It is a multi-dimensional construct that includes three main behavioral and situational conditions: an empowering leader, an empowered subordinate, and an empowering organizational structure. The absence of any one of these dimensions can jeopardize efforts to become an empowering organization.

Empowerment has been defined differently by different people, but at the heart of the concept is the idea of creating an environment where others are equipped and encouraged to make decisions in autonomous ways and to feel that they are in control of the outcomes for which they have accepted responsibility (Heathfield, 2006; Page & Czuba, 1999; Honold, 1997, p. 203). It is not what one person does to other people, but a climate that is produced when the leadership, members, and organizational structure cooperate to produce an empowering context.

Empowerment is vital in today’s world of uncertainty and change because it draws out the creative potential that lies hidden in the people who make up the organization. In this way, it expands the competency of the entire organization.

Empowerment is not merely a symbolic gesture intended to make people “feel” empowered. While feeling empowered is important, it will be a short-lived feeling if the associate discovers that there are organizational structures or leadership behaviors that prohibit true ownership of one’s work. Empowerment is a genuine sharing of power. By opening the door for real dissent and encouraging the introduction of innovative ideas, you also avoid the problem of groupthink (Janis, 1971).

Organizations that do not empower others are like a parking lot where all the cars have dead batteries or faulty alternators. The manager has to run around with his jumper cables getting others started. Decisions are continuously passed up the hierarchy for resolution. Valuable time is lost and creativity is stifled.

Questions for Reflection

(1) In what ways can organizations sometimes turn a campaign to empower their employees into “just another fad” or worse? (2) What spiritual qualities are needed in the leader that would enable him or her to empower others? (3) Can you think of other metaphors to describe an organization that fails to empower its people? (4) In what ways would an empowering context benefit the organization?

Post a Reply

Works Cited

Heathfield, S. M. (2006). Employee empowerment. Human Resources: About, Inc. Accessed November 1, 2006 from http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossarye/a/empowerment_def.htm

Honold, L. (1997) A review of the literature on employee empowerment. Empowerment in Organisations 5(4), 202-212. Retrieved November 24, 2006, from Emerald Journals

Janis, I. L. (1997). Groupthink. In·Vecchio, R. P. (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding the Dynamics of Power & Influence in Organizations. (pp. 163-76). University of Notre Dame. (Original worked published 1971).

Page, N. & Czuba, C. E. (1999) Empowerment: What is it? Journal of Extension 37(5), . Retrieved November 1, 2006, from http://www.joe.org/joe/1999october/comm1.html

Harper, Douglas. (November 2001). “delegate.” Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved October 24 from http://www.etymonline.com

WHAT IS THE MISSING INGREDIENT in the corporate world that does not allow true participation and empowerment to fully develop? I believe that what’s missing is a higher authority, one that is above the CEO and even above the organization. I am referring to a direct personal spiritual Presence, Who directs the organization, pulls the disparate parts into a cohesive whole, establishes overall direction and purpose, and is consistently available for those who will listen. Confidence that such a higher authority exists would enable the leadership to trust the empowering system because they know that it is directed from a higher source. The Scriptures provide a description of how this works in its record of the establishment and growth of the early Christian church.

One of the most astonishing phenomena of history is the organizational life of the early church. These early Christians experienced true participative systems because they understood that Jesus Christ was their Chief Executive Officer. This organizational model is depicted in the New Testament metaphor of the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12; Romans 12; Ephesians 4). According to this model, each member of the organization has a direct and living linkage with the Head, who is Christ. No human member occupies the role of head. All members recognize that light and wisdom can bubble up from any other member.

Obviously, there were leaders in the early church as seen in texts such as Ephesians 4:11 where the Apostle Paul affirms that Christ gave “some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers.” But these were functional roles more that positional titles. What is important is the fact that Christ gave these roles “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ” (v. 12). The leadership function within the early church was always carried out by a team that saw each member as equally pertaining to the category of SERVANT under the lordship of Christ and that was committed to empowering the church’s new members to also discover their unique gift and function within the body.

The Christian Church has the capacity of fulfilling one of our deepest and most persistent longings, the desire to experience what it’s like to belong to a truly participative organization, one that is governed by a community of servants, and one that allows the light of insight to bubble up from all of its members because of the conviction that its true Head exercises direct, tangible, administrative direction over the whole body.

Has the Church always followed this model? NO! One would be hard-pressed to find a Christian congregation that is practicing bubble-up empowerment. Most congregations have fallen into the same hierarchical patterns that reign in the corporate world. For some churches, all the decision-making power is reserved for the senior pastor who is the functioning CEO. For others, every decision must be made by a board of elders who plan, strategize, and then command and control. Most mega-churches are severely staff-driven, and provide little opportunity for God to introduce a new direction or ministry through the channel of a normal member of the church. Ministries are designed at the top of the hierarchy and then efforts are made to recruit workers. When was the last time a worker was permitted to initiate the idea for a new ministry and then receive the training, resources, and support from the leadership to carry it out?

Hierarchical centralization tends to make leaders feel more in control. But in seeking that sense of control, we lose something that was vital to the early church’s phenomenal growth and spiritual power; we lose the sanctified chaos that we find in the Book of Acts. The Christian movement “ends up turning into a machine . . . and sadly at times ends up a monument, living off of past victories” (Krajacic, 2005). The Head is not allowed to lead His church through the Spirit. Organizational structures do not allow the true CEO to exercise His rightful function as Head of the body.

When church leaders begin again to trust the biblical model, empowerment and participative systems will be restored. The Head will indeed function as the church’s Chief Executive Officer “from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love” (Ephesians 4:16).

Questions for Reflection

(1) Do you believe it is possible to conduct a business today under the guidance of a “higher authority” as described in this post? (2) Why do you think the Church has generally followed the same patterns of the corporate world? (3) What are some ways that church members might be empowered to do “the work of service”? (4) What are some structural bottle-necks that might make it difficult for the Holy Spirit to direct His Church today?

Post a Response

Works Cited

All Bible references are from the New American Standard Bible. (1995). La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

Krajacic, Denny. (January 28, 2005). Life Cycle. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University E-mail forum for the School of Leadership Studies.

Photo by Rachel Montiel (July 16, 2007). Punch_Bowl_Hiking_2007_103.jpg. Accessed October 21, 2007 from http://www.morguefile.com/archive/?display=171991&

THE TOPICS OF PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS and Employee Empowerment have generated a persistent interest among organizational leaders for more than 40 years (Senge, 2006; Spreitzer, 1996; Ashkenas, et al., 2002). The reasons cited for this enthusiasm are pragmatic and philosophical. Pragmatists contend that participative systems work better. Argyris (1955) argued that participative management (1) increases group cohesiveness, (2) gives employees a broad understanding of the organization, (3) decreases conflict, (4) improves interpersonal relationships, (5) decreases worker turnover, and (6) increases creativity. The philosophical approach sees participative management systems as treating workers with the dignity that is due them as creative human beings. This reasoning is perhaps best captured in John Dewey’s definition of political democracy as:

faith in human nature, faith in human intelligence, and the power of pooled and collective experience. . . . Not that these things are complete but that if given a show, they will grow and generate the knowledge and wisdom needed to guide collective wisdom (Cited in Kovach, et al., 1981).

To say it another way, it is widely believed that participative systems are not only right, but that they also work. Yet, very few organizations are able to embed participative systems in a lasting and substantive form (McCaffrey, et al., 1995; Argyris, 1998). Even organizations that have made deliberate and comprehensive efforts to restructure according to the more participative models usually end up over time adding command-and-control back into the system. Oticon, a Danish firm that manufactures hearing aids, was touted as a model of the way corporations of the future would look, with no permanent desks, filing cabinets that were pushed on wheels from project to project, no permanent structures, and creative ideas that “bubbled up” from the workers (Ewing, 2007). Creativity thrived in this fluid organizational environment; yet, even Oticon had to eventually capitulate to the forces that drive companies toward hierarchy. Included among these driving forces was the desire of the workers themselves for more structure. Today, at Oticon, “everyone has a boss to whom they report and they no longer have total freedom to choose projects.” Ewing’s conclusion is that “a degree of freedom sparks creativity, but workers also crave leadership.”

There seems to exist in the human psyche a powerful pull toward participative management models that we know would be more effective than the old mechanistic hierarchical systems. We long to be a part of an organization where those who are qualified are not only allowed but encouraged and equipped to develop the full potential of their leadership and decision-making capabilities, an organization where hierarchy and power structures are not obstacles to individual development. In a word, we long to work within a community of equals.

This dream, however, readily pulls away from our grasp. Participative decision making becomes the cliché of a motivational speaker rather than a truly embedded organizational system as employees realize that the power to make the important decisions still rests in the hands of the few. McCaffrey, Maerman, and Hart (1995) attribute the failure to realize the dream to deeply embedded social principles that are valued more highly than are the benefits to be derived from participative systems. Included among these principles, are “dispositions against cooperation with prior adversaries, the costs of collaboration in complex social and political systems, the difficulties of engaging deep conflicts, and the concrete leadership incentives favoring control” (p. 605). The drive to control and hoard the decision making power is simply stronger than the drive to share it. As Argyris (1998) put it, “Managers love empowerment theory, but the command-and-control model is what they trust and know best” (p. 98). As a more recent observer put it, “If it’s human nature for workers to seek freedom, it’s also human nature for bosses to withhold it” (Coy, 2007).

Works Cited

Argyris, C. (1955) Organizational leadership & participative management. The Journal of Business 28(1), 1-7. Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://links.jstor.org/journals/00219398.html

Argyris, C. (1998, April 30). Empowerment: The emperor’s new clothes. Harvard Business Review, 98-105. Accessed October 20, 2007, from EBSCOhost Research Databases/Business Source Premier

Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T. & Kerr, S. (2002). The boundaryless organization: Breaking the chains of organizational structure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Coy, P. (2007, August 20). Cog or co-worker? Business Week, 58-60. Accessed October 19, 2007, from http://web.ebscohost.com

Ewing, J. (2007, August 20). No-cubicle culture. Business Week, 60. Accessed October 19, 2007, from http://web.ebscohost.com

Kovach, K. A., Sands, B. F. J. & Brooks, W. W. (1981) Management by whom? — Trends in participative management. Advanced Management Journal 46(1), 4-14. Retrieved October 20, 2007, from EBSCOhost Research Databases

McCaffrey, D. P., Faerman, S. R. & Hart, D. W. (1995) The appeal & difficulties of participative systems. Organization Science 6(6), 603-627. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from EBSCOhost Research Databases

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization (Revised ed.). New York: Currency/Doubleday. (Original work published 1996)

Spreitzer, G. M. (1996) Social structural characteristics of physchological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal 39(2), 483-504. Retrieved November 17, 2006, from ABI/Inform Global

Questions for Reflection

(1) How do our basic assumptions about human nature affect our management style? (2) In today’s pluralistic and global context, do you think it’s possible for organizations to function according to participative management systems? (3) What would it take to become a participative organization? (4) What are the dangers of participative systems?

Post a Response

In the next few posts, I want to explore the topic of participative organizational systems and the closely related topic of organizational empowerment. Though empowerment has a much broader meaning, I am here using it specifically to refer to decision-making authorization. McMahon (1976) was one of the first to research the relationship of participative management and power equalization with organizational effectiveness. Though closely related, there are some significant differences between these two approaches to organizational management. Participative systems, according to McMahon, include people at all levels of the organization in the decision-making process, but they don’t necessarily give decision-making power to those who occupy the lower levels of the organizational structure. Power equalization, on the other hand, implies that those who occupy the lowest levels of the structure are given power to make real-time decisions, which pushes the decision-making power out to the place where the actual work is taking place.

While no organization can distribute power equally in the absolute sense, an organization is said to be a power equalizing organization (”empowering,” to use the more prevalent term today) if its culture and processes effectively raise the degree of decision-making power for those occupying the lower levels.

Why would anyone want to share power with others? Why go to the trouble of including others in the decision making process, when it is much easier and faster just to make the decisions yourself? Because, in the long run, making decisions by decree is not the easiest way to do things; it sets into motion a corporate culture of apathy that ultimately affects the bottom-line productivity of the organization. McMahon found a clear link between participative and empowering management systems and organizational effectiveness. More importantly, he found that the best results are to be seen when both participation and empowerment are combined. He writes,

Perhaps the most significant finding is the enhanced prediction offered by the interaction effect of the two variables [participation and power-equalization]. First-level managers in systems characterized by both participation and power equalization report significantly favorable measures on the dependent variables of job satisfaction, performance rating, general bureaucracy dysfunctions, cost reduction, plant bureaucratic dysfunctions, autonomy, and top management support. Specifically, the plants which were both participative and power equalized are superior to those which are characterized by only one of these attributes (p. 301).

In other words, real, bottom-line benefits can be accrued by spreading the decision making process and power throughout all levels of the organization. Senge (2006) agrees, attributing successful change initiatives in large part to a “genuine effort to redistribute control and deal with the threats of giving up unilateral control” (p. 101). Several reasons for this increased effectiveness have been identified, including the fact that participation and empowerment serve to build quality employees and leaders. Francis Cairncross describes leadership in tomorrow’s companies in this way:

Managers [will] define context and standards at every level of the company and then give people the freedom to act and innovate, developing leadership throughout the organization. The company of the future will be built on the intelligence, knowledge, and understanding of its employees (Cited in Daft, 2004, p. 27, emphasis added).

Participative and empowering management has also been associated with greater clarity of work processes, consensus building, encouraging follower self-direction, and encouraging higher achievement through peer motivation (House, 1996, p. 327).

To fully understand participative and empowering management, we have to include the spirit of those leading the organization as a key element of the system. If that spirit is plagued by cynicism about human nature or narcissistic fears of losing one’s place in the world, then those leaders will find it very difficult to release power, in spite of the bottom-line benefits. During His final supper with his closest followers (what we might call His top management team), Jesus did something unprecedented for the leader of a fledgling movement. He knelt down, took his towel and washed his disciple’s feet. By this act, which was the job of the lowliest servant, Jesus was showing them the path to great leadership. He was telling them that true leadership is first and foremost a life of service to others. How could He do this? How could he leave the decision making power in the hands of these precarious leaders? The recorder of this event, John the Apostle, gives us a glimpse into the mind of Jesus to show us how He was able to do this. John tells us that Jesus, “knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God, got up from supper . . .” (John 13:3). In other words, Jesus had an internal security that reached beyond this world. His relationship with the heavenly Father enabled him to do what was best for His organization. Leaders today desperately need this inner link with the eternal before they will be able and willing to empower others to any significant degree.

Works Cited

Daft, R. L. (2004). Organization Theory and Design (8th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.

House, R. J. (1996) Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, & reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly 7(3), 323-352. Retrieved January 31, 2005, from ScienceDirect

McMahon, J. T. (2001). Participative & power-equalized organizational systems. In·Natemeyer, W. E. & McMahon, J. T. (Eds.), Classics of Organizational Behavior. 3rd ed. (pp. 294-302). Long Grove, IL: Waveland. (Original worked published 1976).

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization (Revised ed.). New York: Currency/Doubleday. (Original work published 1996)

Questions for Reflection

(1) To what degree do you think your organization is participative and empowering? (2) Predictions that future organizations would be more participative and empowering have been around for at least 30 years, do you think we are moving that direction? Why or why not? (3) Have you ever worked in an empowering organization? What was that like? (4) Have you ever felt disempowered? What did that feel like and how did it affect the quality of your work?

Post a Reply

My previous post introduced the idea of spirituality from the perspective of human nature. It is an integral component of what makes us uniquely human. Because of that nature, we can, at some level, relate to anyone spiritually. Another way the word “spiritual” is used is to describe a particular quality that is reflected in an individual’s life. In this second sense, it is not true to say that all people are spiritual. In fact, in comparison with the great masses of the world, probably only a small group learn to live truly spiritual lives (Matthew 7:14). In this post, I will try to define this qualitative meaning of spirituality.

It’s All About a Relationship
The qualitative kind of spirituality is about knowing God personally. One of the clearest mental pictures that comes to mind to illustrate this concept is the relationship that Tevye has with God in the classic 1971 movie and Broadway hit, Fiddler on the Roof. Tevye walks down the road, driving his mule-powered wagon to deliver milk to the townspeople, while looking to heaven and talking with God as though He were his personal friend and companion. He even argues with God, as in the classic dialogue that leads up to the song, If I Were a Rich Man, though always showing a deep respect for God.

The New Testament uses the common family image of sitting down to dinner to describe this relationship. “Behold,” says the risen Christ, “I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and open the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me” (Revelation 3:20). Spirituality is about sitting at the dinner table and conversing with God. It’s about being consciously and immediately in His presence.

Bringing Order to our Inner Chaos
Spirituality is also about living a life of meaning and purpose. The biblical record describes the early development of the physical universe as being formless and void, or what we might describe as “chaos” (Genesis 1:1-2). This is an apt description of many people’s lives today. They sense no meaning or purpose. They feel they are on an endless treadmill with no end in sight. They have a job, but they have no idea what their real calling in life is. They see no relationship between their internal world and the external context of their jobs (Cartwright & Holmes, 2006, p. 206). They don’t know where they belong, how they connect with others, or what their unique contribution is to the whole.

According to the Scriptures, what gives form and substance to the chaos is the Spirit of God (Genesis 1:2). Spirituality, therefore, is the sense-making power of the Spirit; it transforms chaos into meaning. An individual cannot be said to be “spiritual,” in this qualitative sense, until the interior desolation of his or her spirit is given order by the Spirit of God.

Putting Things into Proper Perspective
Third, spirituality is the proper arrangement of life. God created the human race to function within the parameters of a hierarchical arrangement of priorities. At the apex of this hierarchy is our spiritual nature, in the middle our emotional and psychological nature and at the base lies our physical nature. When we function according to this hierarchy, giving personal priority to the spirit–nurturing and protecting it–then it can be said that we are spiritual people.

The problem is that we have inverted the pyramid, giving top priority to the materialistic needs and desires, and second to our emotional states. The opposite of the spiritual person is the person of the “flesh” (to use the biblical term). This is the individual whose whole existence is defined by this present, visible, tactile world that is either appealing or repulsive to the physical and emotional senses. No other criteria are permitted to enter into the equation.

Switching to a Renewable Energy Source
Finally, spirituality in the qualitative sense has to do with a constantly renewable source of personal energy. Jesus said, “He who believes in Me . . . from his innermost being will flow rivers of living water” (John 7:38). A spiritual man or woman will find a supernatural, inexplicable source of renewable energy available to meet the demands of life. They will find joy where one would expect despair, forgiveness where one would expect vengeance, peace where one would expect anxiety, kindness where one would expect harshness, goodness where one would expect corruption, and faithfulness where one would expect compromise.

To conclude this brief series where I have attempted to define spirituality, I refer you to a story that is related in Dallas Willard’s book, The Divine Conspiracy (1998). Dr. Willard tells of the scientists in the old Soviet Union who preserved the brains of famous communist leaders, scientists and artists (p. 75). The idea was to study slices of their brain tissue in the hopes of finding the key to their genius. Of course, they found no clue to the personal greatness of these individuals because they were looking in the wrong place. Spirituality cannot be explained by reference to the chemical and electronic circuitry of the brain.

In the qualitative sense, spirituality is the result of a lifetime dedicated to living in relationship with God, allowing Him to organize and give meaning to our lives, giving priority to the invisible dimensions of our lives, and experiencing the direct influence of God as He transforms us from within. One thing is certain; we cannot make ourselves into spiritual people. It takes the intervention of God that begins when we respond to His invitation.

Works Cited

Cartwright, S. & Holmes, N. (2006) The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining employee engagement & reducing cynicism. Human Resource Management 16(2), 199-208. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from ScienceDirect College Edition

Willard, D. (1998). The divine conspiracy: Rediscovering our hidden life in God. San Francisco: HarperCollins.

Questions for Reflection

(1) Why do you think it is so difficult for us to live spiritually? (2) How can we encourage healthy spirituality in the workplace? (3) What are some of the societal trends that have contributed to the sense of meaninglessness and inner desolation that people feel at their jobs? (4) What one thing could you do right now to help you develop a healthier spiritual life?

Post a Reply

WHAT IS SPIRITUALITY? This question can have a variety of answers depending on the way the word “spiritual” is used. It can refer either to the nature of man or to the character of an individual person. This is an important distinction because it helps us to understand how spirituality can be applied in a diverse workplace setting where people have very different starting points and convictions about religion and spirituality.

Let’s consider the first usage that sees spirituality as an inherent aspect of human nature. Genesis records that God “formed man of the dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being” (2:7). The writer of Ecclesiastes refers to death as the time when “the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it” (12:7). This is the ontological view of spirituality; spirit is part of the stuff of which we are made. It is “the part of you that survives when you eliminate the flesh and bones” (Chappell, 1996, p. ix).

This means that all people–regardless of their faith, religion, or philosophical foundation–have a spiritual side. This is true, whether or not they acknowledge this spiritual dimension. This truth gives us a space for spirituality, even in today’s diverse organizational environments. In other words, if we know that our workplace associates have a spiritual side, we can address that dimension by treating one another with dignity, honoring each other’s autonomy, reminding one another that we are part of a community and have mutual responsibilities, recognizing each individual as having a unique purpose and calling, and appealing to one another’s sense of true value and vision for a better world. As Hyler Bracey, president of Atlanta Consulting Group, points out, “When you start talking about value and mission–and from whence those things come–you quickly get beyond the rational and logical to what lies deepest inside the individual. Their deepest ideas come from the spirit” (Cited in Ottaway, 2003, pp. 30-31).

Any time we address this deeper side of ourselves and our associates, we are engaging at the level of the spirit. Our greatest insights derive from the spirit because “the principles of creativity are buried as seeds within all life, but humans, in particular, possess a dynamic talent toward creativity, in the likeness of our Creator” (Andrejev, 2004). Leaders and organizations also have a dark side the source of which is also in the spirit. In The Paradox of Success, John O’Niel (1993) speaks of this dark side as “the shadow.” “The basic questions we encounter when we look deeply into the shadow are spiritual questions” (p. 177). What is our purpose in life? Why do we exist in the first place? What is the meaning of our work? The resolution of these inner struggles provides the creative potential that can rejuvenate our leadership capacity and provide direction for the entire organization.

Works Cited

Andrejev, V. (2004) Creativity & the meaning of ‘image’ from the perspective of the Orthodox icon. Theology Today 61(1), 53-66. Retrieved January 30, 2006, from eLibrary

Chappell, T. (1996). The soul of a business: Managing for profit & the common good. New York: Bantam.

O’Neil, J. R. (1993). The paradox of success: When winning at work means losing at life. New York: G. P. Putman’s Sons.

Ottaway, R. N. (2003) Defining spirituality of work. International Journal of Value-Based Management 16(1), 23-35. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from ABI/Inform Global

Questions for Reflection

(1) How can we relate to our co-workers at the level of the spirit when there are so many different religious conceptions about the spirit dimension? (2) What does it look like when spirit is ignored or denied in the workplace? (3) What are the dangers of overemphasizing the spirit to the neglect of the emotional and physical side of human nature? (4) Why do you think people are more open to consider spirituality in the workplace?

Post a Reply

SPIRITUALITY HAS BECOME A HOT TOPIC. Since Thomas Moore’s publication of Care for the Soul in 1994, more than 800 books have been published with the word “soul” in the title. An Amazon.com search for books with the word “spirit,” “spiritual,” or “spirituality,” in the title yielded 39,181 results. I did the same with Google.com–searching only in the titles of web pages–and came up with 3,380,000 hits!

The problem, however, is that there is no consensus about what everyone is talking about. Referring to the word “spirit,” H. Grady Davis wrote in Design for Preaching:

“It is one of the most treacherous terms in the preacher’s vocabulary. It cannot be trusted to convey any definite meaning. . . . a vague, ragged, ambiguous word. . . what Rudolph Flesch calls ‘gobbledygook,’ what every intelligent listener recognizes as ‘jargon, or ‘lingo’ or even ‘cant.’”

Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary numbers 14 distinct meanings for the word spirit, ranging from God himself all the way down to a volatile liquid. Yet, the need for spirituality is greater than ever. Parker Palmer (1993) writes: “There is an illness in our culture; it arises from our rigid separation of the visible world from the powers that under gird and animate it” (p. 10). So, the question I would like to attempt to answer in this and the next posts is: “What does it mean to be a spiritual individual? What is spirituality? To do this, I have to first address some common myths about spirituality.

THE MYTH OF RELIGIOUS RITUAL. The performance of religious rituals is often equated with spirituality, whether it is the lighting of candles, anointing with oil, or the recitation of a memorized prayer. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying that ritual has no place in spiritual development. It may be a useful tool to help us develop and express our spirituality. On the other hand, it can also become a lifeless substitute, a mechanical performance, a mere routine without meaning (See Isaiah 1:11-18). Instead of serving as a channel into real spiritual experience, ritual can usurp reality.

SEVERE SELF-DENIAL AND SACRIFICE. A friend of mine heard a worship leader tell the local church he was visiting: “I am dedicating this month to prayer and fasting. I want to fast 10 days. Brothers and sister, we need to sacrifice if we are to expect anything from the Lord.” I have also observed with my own eyes as an elderly woman walked across the rough stone floor of a large cathedral on her knees to beg the saints for a favor.

Both of these examples demonstrate a common error that sees spirituality as equivalent to sacrifice. There was a time in human history when such things as animal sacrifice and the austere treatment of the body were elements of the spiritual journey, but their purpose was to point to a better way. They were shadows of the real thing (Colossians 2:16-19). Such approaches to spiritual development have been replaced by a new way that involves a direct, personal relationship with God.

THE LIGHT OF SPIRITUALITY IS WITHIN. This approach to spirituality points to our inner selves as the source of knowledge about the spirit dimension. For example, W. C. Roof in A Generation of Seekers writes: “Spirituality gives expression to the being that is in us; it has to do with feelings, with the power that comes from within, with knowing our deepest selves and what is sacred to us” (p. 64).

This sounds enlightened and it does express an element of truth–particularly the recognition of the intangibility of the spirit dimension. It also misses the mark. At best, it is only a half-truth. Referring to this mistake, Chesterton (1991) writes:

“Of all horrible religions the most horrible is the worship of the god within. . . . Christianity came into the world firstly in order to assert with violence that a man had not only to look inwards, but to look outwards, to behold with astonishment and enthusiasm a divine company and a divine captain” (Chesterton, 1991, pp. 75-76).

In other words, a healthy spirituality must have a source of true north that is outside of oneself. True spirituality does not flow out from within; it flows in when invited.

ISOLATION IS THE PATH TO SPIRIT. This is a remnant of the Middle Ages when those who were committed to spiritual development isolated themselves from the world. Even today, the self-pronounced spiritually enlightened often come across as aloof and disengaged. Joseph Conrad (2006) in his classic novel, Heart of Darkness, referred to the Christian missionaries he came across in Africa with these words:

“You may be such a thunderingly exalted creature as to be altogether deaf and blind to anything but heavenly sights and sounds. Then the earth for you is only a standing place. . . . The earth for [most of] us is a place to live in, where we must put up with sights, with sounds, with smells too, by Jove!–breathe dead hippo so to speak and not be contaminated” (p. 49).

True spirituality has its feet firmly planted and is willing to smell the dead hippo. Jesus commanded His disciples: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation” (Mark 16:15).

CORRECT WORDS MEAN A CORRECT SPIRIT. Many religious people seem to think that a spiritual person is one who can verbalize correctly certain doctrinal beliefs. I’m not saying that correct words are a bad thing. They are better than confused or inaccurate words. However, if words and actions had to be prioritized, then correct action would have to be placed above correct words, orthopraxy above orthodoxy. As James, the brother of Jesus put it: “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (James 1:27).

These are some of the most common mistaken ideas about spirituality. In the next post I will attempt to describe the biblical perspective on spirituality.

Works Cited

Chesterton, G. K. (1991). Orthodoxy. New York: Image Books/Doubleday. (Original work published 1908)

Conrad, J. (2006). Heart of darkness. In P. B. Armstrong (ed.). A Norton Critical Edition: Joseph Conrad: A Heart of Darkness. London: W. W. Norton & Company. [Originally published 1899].

Davis, H. G. (1958). Design for Preaching. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Palmer, P. J. (1993). To know as we are known: Education as a spiritual journey. San Francisco, CA: Harper. (Original work published 1983)

Roof, W. C., Greer, B. & Johnson, M., Leibson, Andrea. (1994). A generation of seekers: The spiritual journeys of the baby boom generation. San Francisco: Harper.

Questions for Reflection

(1) Why do you think people often substitute symbolism and ritual for real spirituality? (2) Why do you think C. K. Chesterton referred to the “inner light” concept as “the most horrible” of religions? Do you agree? (3) How can one carry on with the daily grind of work and other responsibilities and, simultaneously maintain a healthy spirituality? (4) What are the dangers of a misguided spirituality?

Post a Reply

SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO ME RECEIVED A MEMO from her supervisor today. I share this with you because I think it’s a great example of what it looks like when an organizational leader either has no understanding of or deliberately neglects the spiritual dimension of her employees. The memo was type-written on one of Microsoft Word’s basic templates, with the word Memo in thick black letters at the top left-hand side of the paper. It said: “based on your performance,” the full-time position that had been promised would not be available. It ended with, “I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.” The memo was left in the employee’s mailbox to be discovered at the end of the work day. There are several reasons why I say this was a leadership failure at the level of the spirit.

First, manifesting a transactional style of management of the worst kind, this supervisor did not have enough consideration to communicate this news to the employee in a face-to-face meeting. As Bass (1990) has pointed out, transactional leaders only respond when things go wrong. They spend their time watching and searching for deviations. When these occur, they activate. There is no attempt to encourage or develop people and no consideration for the individual. There is no effort to comprehend the spirit and calling of the employee. When viewed within this mechanistic framework, people are treated as parts of the organizational apparatus. Transformational leaders, on the other hand, “are individually considerate, that is, they pay close attention to differences among their employees; they act as mentors to those who need help to grow and develop” (Bass, pp. 320-321). This employee was not only new to the organization, but was also embarking on a completely new career. The failure of the supervisor to help her employee points more to the poor performance of the supervisor than to the poor performance of the employee.

Second, I know this person very well and I know that this organization is losing a high-quality individual. Any time an organization loses a high quality person simply because they do not initially perform well shows a fault in the organization itself, a failure to develop the hidden potential of their employees. Often organizations act this way because they see people in a one-dimensional framework that says: “If they don’t perform well in this task, then they are not useful to the organization.” The failure to see people as physical, emotional, and spiritual beings creates a blindness to other strategic intersections between the individual’s unique purpose and the purpose of the organization (Yorkovich, Waddell, & Gerwig, 2007).

Third, this supervisor demonstrates a static view of human nature by assuming that what she saw as poor performance was a problem with no possibility for resolution. There was no feedback; consequently, the employee leaves the organization without knowing what she did wrong. There was no attempt to mentor the employee, a function that Von Krogh, Ichijo, and Nonaka (2000) refer to as one of the “hallmarks of a caring organization” (p. 48). It is through mentoring that tacit knowledge about “how things work around here” can be passed on to new workers. This conviction that people can learn and grow is another fundamental characteristic of organizations that understand the spirit dimension of human nature.

So, according to my grading rubric, this supervisor gets an F. If she continues to treat her employees this way, she will end up costing the organization far more than it would cost to take the time and make the effort to look into the spirit of people, discover their innate potential, and develop that potential through mentoring, honest feedback, and encouragement.

Bass, B. M. (1997). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. In·Vecchio, R. P. (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding the Dynamics of Power & Influence in Organizations. (pp. 318-33). University of Notre Dame Press. (Original worked published 1990).

Yorkovich, S. A., Waddell, G. S. and Gerwig, R. K. (To be presented November 8, 2007). Competency-based assessment systems: Encouragement toward a more holistic approach. Central Connecticut State University: Northeast Business & Economics Association 34th Annual Conference.

Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K. & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation: How to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge & release the power of innovation. Oxford University Press.

Questions for Reflection:
(1) What does having an understanding of human spirituality have to do with one’s management style? (2) Where do supervisors acquire their attitudes toward their employees? (3) How might this situation have turned out differently if the supervisor had exercised a transformational style of leadership? (4) Why do we sometimes fail to release the full potential of our employees?

Post a Reply