In search of a consensual definition of organizational spirituality: A systematic literature review and validation with managers

IF 1.5 Q3 MANAGEMENT
Hakim Lahmar, Farid Chaouki, Florence Rodhain
{"title":"In search of a consensual definition of organizational spirituality: A systematic literature review and validation with managers","authors":"Hakim Lahmar, Farid Chaouki, Florence Rodhain","doi":"10.3233/hsm-230141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND: The concept of spirituality is gaining popularity in the business world. However, its definition remains a topic of debate within the scientific community due to variations in scope and dimensions depending on the approach used. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to identify the fundamental properties necessary for comprehending Organizational Spirituality (OS). The primary objective is to propose a consensual definition of OS. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify prior approaches that have touched upon the concept of OS. Subsequently, we performed a combinatorial analysis to identify varied levels of comprehension of spirituality in the workplace, and to provide an additional interpretation to the definition of OS by corroborating it with the perspectives of managers. RESULTS: We have identified two levels of spirituality in organizational contexts: the individual level and the organizational level. We thereafter suggested a consensual definition of OS which was confirmed by professionals’ testimonies. CONCLUSIONS: Research on the subject of OS is constrained by the insufficient conceptual development and divergent interpretations in current literature. Objective facts indicate that organizations cannot attain transcendence; however, their spirituality manifests in their vision, goals, and values.","PeriodicalId":13113,"journal":{"name":"Human systems management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human systems management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/hsm-230141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The concept of spirituality is gaining popularity in the business world. However, its definition remains a topic of debate within the scientific community due to variations in scope and dimensions depending on the approach used. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to identify the fundamental properties necessary for comprehending Organizational Spirituality (OS). The primary objective is to propose a consensual definition of OS. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify prior approaches that have touched upon the concept of OS. Subsequently, we performed a combinatorial analysis to identify varied levels of comprehension of spirituality in the workplace, and to provide an additional interpretation to the definition of OS by corroborating it with the perspectives of managers. RESULTS: We have identified two levels of spirituality in organizational contexts: the individual level and the organizational level. We thereafter suggested a consensual definition of OS which was confirmed by professionals’ testimonies. CONCLUSIONS: Research on the subject of OS is constrained by the insufficient conceptual development and divergent interpretations in current literature. Objective facts indicate that organizations cannot attain transcendence; however, their spirituality manifests in their vision, goals, and values.
寻找组织灵性的共识定义:系统性文献回顾和管理人员验证
背景:灵性的概念在商界越来越受欢迎。然而,由于使用的方法不同,其范围和维度也不尽相同,因此其定义在科学界仍是一个争论不休的话题。目的:本文旨在确定理解组织灵性(OS)所需的基本属性。主要目的是提出一个关于组织灵性的共识性定义。方法:我们进行了系统的文献综述,以确定之前涉及 OS 概念的方法。随后,我们进行了组合分析,以确定工作场所中对灵性理解的不同层次,并通过与管理人员的观点相互印证,为操作系统的定义提供额外的解释。结果:我们确定了组织环境中灵性的两个层面:个人层面和组织层面。随后,我们提出了 "操作系统 "的共识定义,并得到了专业人士的证实。结论:由于概念发展不充分以及当前文献中的解释存在分歧,有关 OS 的研究受到了限制。客观事实表明,组织无法实现超越;但是,组织的精神性体现在其愿景、目标和价值观中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
30.40%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: Human Systems Management (HSM) is an interdisciplinary, international, refereed journal, offering applicable, scientific insight into reinventing business, civil-society and government organizations, through the sustainable development of high-technology processes and structures. Adhering to the highest civic, ethical and moral ideals, the journal promotes the emerging anthropocentric-sociocentric paradigm of societal human systems, rather than the pervasively mechanistic and organismic or medieval corporatism views of humankind’s recent past. Intentionality and scope Their management autonomy, capability, culture, mastery, processes, purposefulness, skills, structure and technology often determine which human organizations truly are societal systems, while others are not. HSM seeks to help transform human organizations into true societal systems, free of bureaucratic ills, along two essential, inseparable, yet complementary aspects of modern management: a) the management of societal human systems: the mastery, science and technology of management, including self management, striving for strategic, business and functional effectiveness, efficiency and productivity, through high quality and high technology, i.e., the capabilities and competences that only truly societal human systems create and use, and b) the societal human systems management: the enabling of human beings to form creative teams, communities and societies through autonomy, mastery and purposefulness, on both a personal and a collegial level, while catalyzing people’s creative, inventive and innovative potential, as people participate in corporate-, business- and functional-level decisions. Appreciably large is the gulf between the innovative ideas that world-class societal human systems create and use, and what some conventional business journals offer. The latter often pertain to already refuted practices, while outmoded business-school curricula reinforce this problematic situation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信