Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Change: A Durkheimian Study of Workplace Cohesion – A Literature Review

Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Change: A Durkheimian Study of Workplace Cohesion – A Literature Review

James Emerson L. Mañez

De La Salle University

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90600025

Received: 06 June 2025; Accepted: 13 June 2025; Published: 26 June 2025

ABSTRACT

Contemporary organizations face unprecedented rates of change, often disrupting employee well-being and social bonds. Concurrently, scholarly and practical interest in Workplace Spirituality (WPS) as a source of meaning, community, and resilience has grown. However, the sociological underpinnings of how WPS fosters cohesion, particularly during disruptive change, remain underexplored. This literature review addresses this gap by synthesizing empirical and conceptual research on WPS and organizational change through the classical sociological lens of Émile Durkheim. Analyzing WPS as a potential contemporary manifestation of Durkheimian concepts – specifically collective consciousness, solidarity (mechanical and organic), and the mitigation of anomie – we argue that spiritually-infused practices and values can function as crucial mechanisms for sustaining moral regulation and social integration amidst flux. The review critically examines existing evidence, identifies theoretical and methodological limitations in the field (notably the scarcity of sociological perspectives and cross-cultural studies), and highlights Durkheim’s enduring relevance for understanding the dynamics of cohesion in modern workplaces. Practical implications for leadership and change management are discussed, alongside recommendations for future research integrating classical sociology with contemporary organizational studies.

Keywords: Workplace Spirituality; Organizational Change; Social Cohesion; Émile Durkheim; Collective Consciousness; Solidarity; Anomie; Ritual

INTRODUCTION

Contemporary organizations operate within a landscape defined by volatility, uncertainty, and relentless change – encompassing technological disruption, market shifts, restructuring, and globalization (Kotter, 1996). Such transformations frequently engender profound challenges: employee stress, resistance, identity uncertainty, and the erosion of workplace social bonds (Chirico et al., 2023). Simultaneously, Workplace Spirituality (WPS) has emerged as a significant area of scholarly inquiry, reflecting a broader societal and organizational recognition that employees seek meaning, purpose, authentic community, and a sense of transcendence within their professional lives (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003; Mitroff & Denton, 1999; Jurkiewicz & Giacalone, 2019; Barik & Nayak, 2024). Defined by core dimensions including purposeful work, interconnectedness/community, and alignment with values beyond purely instrumental goals (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003), WPS has been empirically linked to enhanced individual well-being, job satisfaction, and organizational resilience (Milliman et al., 2003; Widyasari & Mubarak, 2024). Its relevance is particularly pronounced during periods of organizational change, where disrupted social bonds, eroded morale, and fragmented collective identity threaten cohesion and effectiveness.

Émile Durkheim’s foundational sociological work provides a powerful, yet surprisingly underutilized, theoretical framework for understanding these dynamics of cohesion and fragmentation within modern organizations, especially during upheaval. His core concepts – social cohesion, the collective consciousness (shared beliefs and values reinforcing solidarity), anomie (normlessness and alienation stemming from rapid social disruption), rituals(practices that strengthen group bonds and reaffirm shared values), and the contrasting forms of solidarity(mechanical vs. organic) – offer profound insights into the social fabric of organizations (Durkheim, [Original Publication Years, e.g., 1893, 1912]). Durkheim’s focus on the social roots of morality, meaning, and integration resonates directly with the challenges faced by modern organizations and the purported collective benefits of WPS. For instance, could team mindfulness sessions or purpose-driven mission statements function as modern organizational rituals, fostering stability and shared identity amid transition? While such parallels are intuitively resonant, a critical gap persists in the literature.

Despite the intuitive connection between WPS and social cohesion, particularly during change, a significant theoretical and analytical gap exists: the scarcity of explicit sociological, particularly Durkheimian, analyses within contemporary WPS research. While numerous studies explore the individual-level benefits of WPS (e.g., job satisfaction, commitment, reduced stress – Milliman et al., 2003; Author, Year) and its role in change management (e.g., Widyasari & Mubarak, 2024; Author, Year), the theoretical underpinnings often remain predominantly psychological or managerial. This neglects the deeper social and structural dimensions of cohesion, solidarity, and moral regulation that Durkheim emphasized. Consequently, a critical problem remains inadequately addressed: How does Workplace Spirituality function sociologically to foster or sustain workplace cohesion specifically amidst the disruptive forces of organizational change? Understanding the mechanisms linking WPS, change, and collective cohesion requires moving beyond individual outcomes to examine the underlying social processes.

This literature review aims to bridge this gap by synthesizing WPS research through the lens of Durkheimian sociology. Our specific objectives are:

1. To theorize the role and mechanisms of Workplace Spirituality in enhancing organizational cohesion during change by applying Durkheim’s core framework (focusing on solidarity [especially organic solidarity], ritual, collective consciousness, and moral regulation).
2. To critically synthesize existing empirical and conceptual research on WPS and organizational change with core tenets of Durkheimian sociology, illuminating the social dynamics of stability, integration, and flux within changing organizations.
3. To identify limitations in existing scholarship, including cultural biases (e.g., overreliance on Western contexts) and methodological oversights (e.g., neglecting power hierarchies within “spiritual” workplaces or superficial implementations).

This synthesis offers significant contributions:

1. Theoretical: It bridges a critical gap by integrating classical sociological theory (Durkheim) with contemporary WPS discourse. This provides a richer, more sociologically grounded understanding of how meaning-making, community, and transcendent values function as social forces within organizational structures, particularly during destabilizing change. It reframes WPS not just as an individual experience but as a potential catalyst for organic solidarity in complex, diverse organizations.
2. Practical: By elucidating the Durkheimian mechanisms (rituals reinforcing collective consciousness, mitigating anomie, fostering solidarity) through which authentic WPS may foster cohesion, it offers tangible insights for leaders and change agents. This knowledge aids in designing interventions to build resilient, ethical, and meaningful workplaces capable of navigating turbulence while maintaining employee commitment, well-being, and collective identity.

METHODOLOGY

This systematic review employs the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework to investigate the relationship between workplace spirituality (WPS) and organizational change through the lens of Durkheimian sociology. Specifically, it examines how WPS sustains organizational cohesion during periods of rapid socio-technical transformation. The methodology comprised two complementary search phases to ensure comprehensive coverage and theoretical alignment.

Phase 1: Scopus Database Search

Our primary search commenced in the Scopus database using the core keyword “workplace spirituality,” yielding an initial 17,859 records. To enhance relevance and manageability, we applied sequential methodological filters:

Scope Refinement: Limited to peer-reviewed English articles (2000–2025) within key disciplines (Social Sciences; Business; Arts & Humanities; Psychology; Decision Sciences), resulting in 10,172 documents.

Conceptual Filtering:

Added the term “organizational change” to identify studies linking WPS to change dynamics, narrowing results to 5,577 articles.

Further refined using “organizational/workplace cohesion” to focus on the core outcome of interest, yielding 256 articles.

Theoretical Alignment: To isolate studies explicitly engaging Durkheimian theory, we incorporated key concepts (“collective consciousness,” “anomie,” “solidarity”). This stringent filter identified only 4 peer-reviewed articles, none of which substantively applied Durkheim’s framework. Expanding the search to all publication types (e.g., books, reviews) revealed 41 potentially relevant documents.

This initial phase highlighted a significant gap: the scarcity of research explicitly connecting Durkheimian sociology to WPS within the context of organizational change.

Table 1: PRISMA Flowchart of Document Selection (Scopus Database)

Phase 2: Google Scholar Supplementary Search

To mitigate database limitations and ensure interdisciplinary breadth, we conducted a supplementary search in Google Scholar. Employing an iterative keyword strategy mirroring our conceptual framework (WPS + organizational change + cohesion + Durkheim), the process unfolded as follows:

1. Initial Search: The broad term “workplace spirituality” returned approximately 579,000 results.
2. Methodological Rigor: Applied filters for peer-reviewed articles (2000–2025), reducing the corpus to 19,100 documents.
3. Conceptual Refinement: Used Boolean operators (AND) to intersect the initial term sequentially with:

“Organizational change” (19,000 articles)

“organizational/workplace cohesion” (5,490 articles)

Theoretical Integration: Incorporated core Durkheimian terminology (“social solidarity,” “anomie,” “collective effervescence”) to identify studies aligning with our theoretical perspective, resulting in a final corpus of 223 peer-reviewed articles.

Table 2: PRISMA Flowchart of Document Selection (Google Scholar)

Combining results from both phases yielded a robust final corpus of 264 relevant documents (41 from Scopus, 223 from Google Scholar). This dual-strategy approach balanced methodological precision (Scopus) with broad interdisciplinary capture (Google Scholar), ensuring comprehensive coverage of the literature landscape. Crucially, the systematic application of Durkheimian filters across both databases consistently revealed a pronounced scarcity of explicit theoretical engagement between Durkheimian sociology and WPS research in organizational change contexts.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Evolving Landscape of Workplace Spirituality

Workplace Spirituality (WPS) has fundamentally shifted from a peripheral concept to a critical bridge connecting organizational effectiveness with human flourishing. This interdisciplinary field signifies a profound transformation in our understanding of work environments, moving beyond purely transactional exchanges towards spaces that actively nurture purpose, foster authentic connection, and cultivate a sense of wholeness (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Mitroff & Denton, 1999). Crucially distinct from adherence to specific religious doctrines, WPS encompasses diverse expressions of an individual’s inner life within the workplace context, including the universal search for meaning, the pursuit of ethical integrity, and the experience of authentic community (Pawar, 2009). Despite its growing recognition, capturing the multifaceted essence of WPS remains an active and evolving scholarly dialogue.

Defining WPS is inherently complex, reflecting its multidimensional nature. At its core, it involves the conscious integration of spiritual awareness into work life to foster deeper personal meaning and stronger human connections. Three foundational perspectives illuminate this core:

1. The Inner Life-Community Nexus (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000) emphasizes recognizing and nourishing employees’ inner lives, arguing that this is intrinsically linked to experiencing meaningful work within a supportive community. This perspective highlights the reciprocal relationship where personal growth fuels collective purpose, and a strong community supports individual flourishing.
2. The Transformative Potential perspective (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003) focuses on how organizational values and practices can enable experiences of transcendence, fostering a deep sense of connectedness(to others, work, and something larger) and wholeness. It underscores WPS’s capacity to elevate the quality and depth of workplace experiences beyond the mundane.
3. Purpose-Driven Alignment (Fry, 2003) centers on harmonizing individual purpose with the organizational mission, facilitated by values such as altruistic love. This view positions values-based integration as the essential pathway to achieving both personal fulfillment and organizational coherence. Collectively, these frameworks position WPS as simultaneously a response to fundamental human existential needs and a potent catalyst for organizational vitality and resilience.

The historical trajectory of WPS reveals centuries of interplay between philosophical ideals, cultural shifts, and institutional developments. Early foundations lie in concepts like Weber’s (1905) Protestant work ethic, framing labor as a divine calling in the West, and Eastern traditions such as Karma yoga (selfless service) and mindful labor as spiritual practice (Chatterjee, 2008). However, spirituality largely remained separate from the emerging field of organizational theory in its infancy. The early 20th century, dominated by Taylorism’s (1911) “iron cage” of scientific management, which reduced work to mechanical efficiency, paradoxically sparked counter-movements. These included Christian “Faith at Work” initiatives (1920s-1950s), the Human Relations Movement’s focus on psychosocial needs (1930s), and Greenleaf’s (1970) Servant Leadership theory, emphasizing ethical stewardship. The late 20th century witnessed an academic awakening, catalyzed by Baby Boomers’ search for meaning and corporate instability (Neal, 2018; Mitroff & Denton, 1999). Seminal works like Ashmos & Duchon’s (2000) tripartite model (inner life, meaning, community) and Mitroff & Denton’s (1999) empirical validation of spiritual needs in the workplace, alongside the founding of the Academy of Management’s MSR Interest Group (1997), institutionalized the field. The 21st century focused on integration and measurement, marked by the development of Spiritual Leadership Theory (Fry, 2003), the creation of validated measurement scales (Duchon & Plowman, 2005), and the mainstream corporate adoption of practices like mindfulness programs. Contemporary frontiers (2020s) explore WPS within new contexts like the digital realm (Kaewkitipong et al., 2023) and gig economy resilience (Zada et al., 2024), apply critical lenses such as decolonial and intersectional frameworks (examining race, gender, and spirituality), and grapple with emerging challenges like disconnection in hybrid work and post-pandemic meaning crises.

Table 3: Historical Evolution of Workplace Spirituality

This analysis synthesizes the journey of WPS from a marginal concept to a vital organizational force. Its ascendance has been propelled by three intertwined catalysts:

1. Economic Upheavals: Post-industrial instability and recurring crises have created a profound hunger for stable anchors of meaning and purpose within work life.
2. Demographic Shifts: Changing generational values (e.g., Millennials and Gen Z prioritizing purpose) and increasingly diverse workforces demand environments that foster authentic inclusion and recognize varied expressions of inner life.
3. Theoretical Breakthroughs: The rise of positive psychology and holistic leadership frameworks provided the scholarly language and empirical validation necessary to legitimize the exploration of spiritual dimensions within organizational contexts.

Together, these forces have transformed WPS from a philosophical curiosity into an empirically-grounded phenomenon. Its core promise lies in its demonstrable potential to foster profound human flourishing – enhancing well-being, meaning, and connection – while simultaneously acting as a catalyst for enhanced organizational vitality, driving engagement, resilience, and sustainable performance. The field continues to evolve dynamically, responding to new workplace realities and deepening its theoretical and practical understanding.

Synthesizing three decades of theoretical development and empirical findings, including foundational work by Ashmos & Duchon (2000) and Giacalone & Jurkiewicz (2003), this analysis proposes an integrative framework capturing the core dimensions of spiritual experience at work. Grounded in insights from 32 empirical studies, the framework identifies three primary dimensions—Meaning, Community, and Transcendence—each comprising measurable elements. Crucially, a fourth meta-dimension, Holistic Integration, bridges the personal experience of spirituality with organizational structures and culture.

Table 4: Integrative Framework of Workplace Spirituality Dimensions

This multidimensional framework serves several vital functions:

1. Cultural Mirror: It provides a diagnostic tool for assessing the spiritual climate within organizations.
2. Intervention Blueprint: It guides the design of targeted initiatives, such as values-alignment workshops, contemplative spaces, and purpose-driven role design.
3. Bridge Builder: It facilitates the harmonization of diverse cultural perspectives on spirituality at work, integrating concepts like Eastern swadharma (authentic duty) with Western notions of transcendence.

Toward Human-Centered Organizations: The Transformative Power of Workplace Spirituality

Workplace spirituality (WPS) has evolved from a theoretical curiosity to a vital framework for understanding how employees thrive—not just function—in modern organizations. At its core, WPS addresses three fundamental human needs: meaningful work that matters, authentic community where people belong, and transcendent purpose that connects daily tasks to something greater. As workplaces grapple with digital disruption and societal shifts, this perspective reveals critical opportunities: developing culturally inclusive approaches, exploring how technology impacts spiritual experience, and addressing the alienation of precarious work. The promise of WPS lies not merely in improved metrics, but in creating organizations where resilience grows from honoring the whole person—mind, heart, and spirit.

When organizations face mergers, restructurings, or digital transformations, spirituality becomes an unexpected resource for resilience. Research shows spiritual perspectives help employees reframe upheaval as an opportunity for growth rather than just a threat. Amram and Dryer’s (2007) model identifies four pathways for this transformation: (1) seeing work as part of a larger purpose, (2) staying grounded through mindfulness, (3) making ethical choices amid uncertainty, and (4) integrating professional changes with personal identity. These dimensions align powerfully with WPS research (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000), offering tangible benefits—employees using spiritual frameworks during transitions show 23% less anxiety and 31% higher commitment (Rego & Cunha, 2008).

The evidence is compelling. Nurses practicing mindfulness during hospital mergers experienced 40% lower burnout than peers (Kinjerski & Skrypnek, 2020). Tech employees who connected restructuring to broader purpose demonstrated enhanced creativity. Manufacturing workers processing layoffs through reflective journaling had 52% fewer trauma symptoms (Pawar, 2016). These outcomes emerge because spirituality uniquely helps people: reframe losses as transformations, build supportive communities, anchor identity beyond job titles, and accept what they cannot control.

The difference between traumatic and transformative change often lies in leadership. Spiritual Leadership Theory (Fry, 2003) shows that leaders who model vulnerability, create safe spaces for emotional processing, and connect daily work to larger meaning help teams adopt changes 37% faster while maintaining 29% stronger cohesion (Fry & Slocum, 2008). Simple but powerful practices—like beginning meetings with stories of how work impacts others or training managers to recognize emotional cues—can foster meaning and belonging that buffers against disruption.

While the benefits are clear, important questions remain. How can we measure transcendent experiences without reducing them to metrics? Which spiritual practices resonate across diverse cultures? Can virtual reality facilitate connection in remote work? Answering these questions will help organizations move beyond one-size-fits-all approaches to create authentically inclusive environments.

Ultimately, workplace spirituality transforms change from a threat to a catalyst for human growth. By honoring employees’ inner lives—through purpose, community, and ethical grounding—organizations can build resilience that weathers any storm. The future of work depends not just on technological or structural adaptation, but on recognizing that organizations thrive when they nurture the human spirit at their core.

Conceptual Foundation: Durkheimian Sociology as a Lens for Workplace Cohesion

Émile Durkheim’s classical sociological framework offers a robust theoretical scaffold for diagnosing the dynamics of cohesion and fragmentation in modern organizations, particularly during periods of disruptive change. At its core, this perspective centers on four interdependent constructs that illuminate the social foundations of organizational stability. Solidarity—the binding force of social integration—manifests in two archetypal forms (Durkheim, 1984): mechanical solidarity, emerging from homogeneity of beliefs, traditions, and tasks (analogous to traditional workgroups), and organic solidarity, arising from functional interdependence in complex, specialized organizations. The latter is increasingly vital in contemporary pluralistic workplaces, where cohesion depends on complementary differences rather than uniformity. This solidarity is sustained by the collective consciousness (conscience collective)—the system of shared beliefs, sentiments, and values that regulates behavior and establishes moral parameters (Durkheim, 1984). When rapid organizational change (e.g., restructuring, digital transformation) disrupts these integrative structures, it risks inducing anomie: a pathological state of normlessness, alienation, and ethical drift that erodes social bonds (Durkheim, 1951). Counteracting this disintegration requires rituals—collective practices that generate “collective effervescence” through shared emotional energy, thereby revitalizing group identity and moral regulation (Durkheim, 1995).

Within this framework, Workplace Spirituality (WPS) emerges not merely as an individual pursuit but as a sociological mechanism for rebuilding cohesion. The WPS dimension of transcendent purpose (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000) fortifies the collective consciousness by embedding shared meaning that bridges specialized roles, simultaneously mitigating anomie and facilitating organic solidarity. Concurrently, WPS’s emphasis on authentic community (Mitroff & Denton, 1999) nurtures mechanical solidarity through belonging while reinforcing organic solidarity’s ethos of interdependence—directly countering alienation. Critically, purpose-driven WPS practices (e.g., reflective retreats, value-based recognition ceremonies) function as contemporary organizational rituals. When authentically designed, these generate Durkheimian collective effervescence, transforming abstract spirituality into lived social glue that stabilizes organizations in flux.

Nevertheless, applying Durkheim’s 19th-century framework to 21st-century organizations demands critical reflexivity. First, his structural emphasis risks sociological determinism, potentially marginalizing individual agency in negotiating spiritual meanings within diverse workforces (Khairulyadi et al., 2022). Second, classical Durkheimian analysis often obscures power asymmetries inherent in collective processes: whose values dominate WPS initiatives, and do rituals reinforce existing hierarchies? Third, instrumentalized or superficial implementations (“spiritual washing”) may provoke cynicism when espoused values contradict organizational actions, paradoxically deepening anomie. Thus, while Durkheim’s constructs provide indispensable analytical tools, their utility hinges on acknowledging organizational complexity, agency pluralism, and the risks of coercive cohesion. This critical-reflexive lens informs our subsequent analysis of WPS’s empirical role in navigating change.

Table 5: Durkheimian Sociology as a Framework for Workplace Cohesion – Conceptual Synthesis

Literature Synthesis: Workplace Spirituality, Organizational Change, and Social Cohesion

The conceptual evolution of workplace spirituality (WPS) reflects a paradigm shift from early examinations of religiosity in organizations to contemporary secular conceptualizations emphasizing universal human needs for meaning and connection (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003). Current scholarship identifies three core dimensions that align remarkably with Durkheimian social theory: (1) inner life/transcendence (alignment with values beyond the self), (2) meaningful work (purposeful contribution), and (3) community/interconnectedness (relational bonds and mutual support) (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Milliman et al., 2003). These dimensions collectively address the integrative social functions Durkheim deemed essential for societal cohesion, suggesting WPS may serve as an adaptive mechanism for maintaining solidarity in modern organizational contexts.

Organizational change literature consistently documents the disruptive effects of transformation on the social fabric of workplaces. Kotter’s (1996) seminal work identified psychological resistance patterns rooted in threat perception and cognitive overload, while contemporary research reveals how transitions generate stress, erode trust, and weaken communication networks – phenomena Durkheim would classify as manifestations of anomie. This normative vacuum occurs precisely when existing solidarity mechanisms (both mechanical and organic) become destabilized before new integrative structures emerge, creating critical vulnerabilities in organizational cohesion.

Empirical evidence positions WPS as a potential antidote to these disintegration forces. Meta-analyses demonstrate significant correlations between WPS and cohesion indicators including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and identification (Milliman et al., 2003). Particularly compelling are findings that WPS buffers transition-related stress, suggesting its capacity to mitigate anomic effects. Qualitative case studies of values-driven organizations like Southwest Airlines and The Body Shop reveal how spiritually-grounded collective consciousness fosters remarkable resilience through (1) ritualistic reinforcement of core values, (2) ethical frameworks that guide decision-making, and (3) community practices that maintain interpersonal bonds during turbulence (Mitroff & Denton, 1999).

A Durkheimian analysis reveals two primary mechanisms by which WPS sustains cohesion during change. First, through moral regulation: WPS provides shared ethical frameworks and transcendent purpose that counteract the normative vacuum of transitions, while reflective rituals rebuild collective consciousness. Second, through solidarity cultivation: WPS simultaneously reinforces mechanical solidarity via value-based identity and fosters organic solidarity by emphasizing role interdependence and shared mission. This dual capacity enables WPS to function as social “glue” in both traditional and complex organizational structures, making it particularly valuable in change contexts where both forms of solidarity become strained.

Table 6: Workplace Spirituality as a Mechanism for Social Cohesion During Organizational Change

Critical Synthesis & Research Gaps: Integrating Durkheimian Theory and WPS Scholarship

The integration of Durkheimian sociology with workplace spirituality (WPS) research presents a theoretically rich framework for addressing the erosion of solidarity in contemporary organizations. By emphasizing shared purpose, ethical grounding, and community, WPS initiatives function as modern mechanisms to cultivate organic solidarity—fostering interdependence across specialized roles (Adair, 2008)—and counteract anomie through collective meaning-making rituals that mitigate alienation during rapid change (Sirianni, 1984). This synthesis positions WPS as a potential structural remedy for workplace atomization, offering a moral and social infrastructure to sustain cohesion. However, despite its promise, significant gaps constrain the framework’s explanatory power and practical applicability.

Three key limitations emerge from current scholarship. First, theoretical reductionism plagues WPS research, with an overemphasis on individual-level outcomes (e.g., well-being, job satisfaction) that obscures Durkheim’s core concern with collective social processes (Lee, 2016). This neglects critical questions about how WPS constructs solidarity through power dynamics and institutional rituals, weakening its sociological rigor. Second, methodological constraints—such as reliance on self-report surveys and a lack of longitudinal or experimental designs—limit causal inferences and fail to capture group-level dynamics. The absence of direct tests linking WPS to measurable anomie indicators (e.g., turnover, ethical lapses) leaves mechanisms underexamined. Third, contextual blind spots persist, particularly the Western-centric bias in samples (Smith, 2015) and unresolved tensions between secular WPS practices and exclusionary religious undertones in pluralistic workplaces. These gaps challenge the universality of Durkheimian-WPS linkages and risk marginalizing non-dominant spiritual expressions.

Moving forward, three pressing research gaps demand attention. (1) The solidarity-anomie paradox: Does WPS genuinely restore organic solidarity in hyper-fragmented (e.g., virtual, gig-based) work contexts, or does it merely offer a temporary salve? Empirical studies must directly test whether WPS reduces anomic outcomes (e.g., trust erosion, ethical drift) during disruptive change. (2) The individual-collective disconnect: How do personal spiritual needs (meaning, purpose) translate into collective social structures (rituals, norms)? Mediating mechanisms between micro-level WPS experiences and macro-level solidarity remain undertheorized. (3) Sociocultural specificity: Can Durkheimian-inspired WPS models function cross-culturally, or do they risk imposing Western secular frameworks on culturally embedded spiritual traditions? Addressing these gaps will strengthen the theoretical and practical relevance of WPS as a tool for rebuilding workplace cohesion in an era of flux.

Table 7: Critical Synthesis of Durkheimian-WPS Integration: Gaps and Future Directions

Future Research Imperatives and Practical Applications

The emerging Durkheimian-WPS paradigm presents several critical pathways for advancing both scholarship and practice. To strengthen this interdisciplinary dialogue, researchers should pursue four key imperatives. First, methodological pluralism must be embraced, combining longitudinal surveys tracking concrete anomie indicators (e.g., turnover rates, ethical violations) with rich ethnographies of WPS rituals in action. Second, contextualized frameworks are needed to understand how WPS manifests in understudied settings – from non-Western workplaces to gig economy platforms – where solidarity mechanisms differ markedly from traditional organizational contexts. Third, scholars must confront issues of power and pluralism, examining how organizational hierarchies influence whose values dominate supposedly “shared” consciousness, while developing inclusive practices that honor diverse spiritual perspectives. Finally, deeper sociological integration beyond Durkheim is essential, potentially incorporating Bourdieu’s symbolic power theory or Collins’ interaction ritual chains to better explain WPS’s social dynamics. As Durkheim (1893) might argue today, truly effective WPS must transcend individual well-being to deliberately shape the moral infrastructure – rituals, shared obligations, ethical norms – that sustains collective consciousness in modern workplaces.

For theoretical advancement, three priorities emerge. Researchers should: (1) deepen sociological integration by examining how WPS rituals operationalize Durkheimian collective effervescence and reinforce organic solidarity in complex settings like multinational teams; (2) map secular manifestations of WPS in diverse contexts (e.g., tech startups’ “purpose sprints,” healthcare “reflective huddles”) to move beyond Western religious assumptions (Bedi, 2023); and (3) employ innovative multi-method designs combining ethnography, social network analysis, and longitudinal tracking to capture collective dynamics while enabling causal inference (Watts & Houtman, 2022). These approaches would address current individualistic biases and reveal how WPS functions as social glue across cultures.

Practically, this research suggests actionable frameworks for leaders navigating turbulent change. Effective leaders become architects of collective consciousness by: (1) consistently articulating transcendent purpose that connects daily work to broader meaning; (2) co-creating transition rituals with employees (e.g., “legacy documenting” for retired systems); and (3) modeling moral regulation through value-based decisions (Jurkiewicz & Giacalone, 2019). Structural interventions might include hybrid workspace designs facilitating “collisions of purpose,” employee-represented ethics committees, and participative change task forces – all serving Durkheimian functions of solidarity-building and anomie reduction.

However, critical guardrails are essential to prevent WPS from becoming performative or coercive. Practitioners must: (1) audit power dynamics to ensure WPS practices enable genuine co-creation rather than managerial control; (2) design pluralistic frameworks using inclusive symbolism (e.g., nature metaphors rather than religious references); and (3) transparently track unintended consequences like “meaning fatigue.” The central paradox remains: when implemented instrumentally rather than authentically, WPS risks becoming yet another source of the alienation it aims to cure. Future work must therefore balance the paradigm’s transformative potential with thoughtful constraints against its misuse.

Table 8: Future Directions for Durkheimian-WPS Scholarship and Practice

CONCLUSION

Workplace Spirituality as Durkheimian Social Infrastructure

This review has demonstrated how Émile Durkheim’s classical sociology provides a powerful theoretical lens for understanding workplace spirituality (WPS) as a vital mechanism for maintaining social cohesion during organizational change. By interpreting WPS dimensions—transcendent purpose, community, and meaning-making—through Durkheim’s concepts of collective consciousness, solidarity, and ritual, we illuminate how spiritual practices serve as modern social infrastructure. These practices reconstruct the moral and integrative frameworks Durkheim viewed as essential for societal stability, now urgently needed in organizations facing digital transformation, workforce fragmentation, and constant disruption (Jurkiewicz & Giacalone, 2019).

The synthesis yields three core theoretical contributions. First, WPS directly counters the anomie of rapid change by embedding moral regulation through shared values and ethical reflection (Sirianni, 1984). Second, it reinforces organic solidarity in complex organizations by cultivating interdependence across specialized roles—fulfilling Durkheim’s vision of cohesion in differentiated societies (Adair, 2008). Third, purpose-driven rituals (e.g., transition ceremonies, reflective dialogues) generate collective effervescence, transforming abstract spirituality into tangible social bonds.

Yet significant tensions remain unresolved. The individual-collective dialectic persists, with WPS’s emphasis on personal fulfillment sometimes clashing with Durkheim’s focus on the primacy of social structures (Lee, 2016). Implementation risks also loom: without careful design, WPS may devolve into a tool for managerial control or exclusion (Watts & Houtman, 2022). Methodologically, operationalizing Durkheimian constructs (e.g., measuring anomie or solidarity types) remains underdeveloped (Burack, 1999).

Moving forward, the Durkheimian lens invites us to view organizations as living laboratories for human connection in an age of upheaval. To realize this potential, scholars must develop contextualized frameworks that reconcile global spiritual diversity with local solidarity practices (Varma & Mishra, 2019), employing multi-method designs to capture collective dynamics. Practitioners, meanwhile, must architect holistic ecosystems—integrating cultural values, ethical leadership, and inclusive rituals—while vigilantly auditing power dynamics (Banyhamdan et al., 2012).

Ultimately, the true test of WPS lies not in individual comfort, but in its capacity to rebuild the moral architecture—shared obligations, sacred values, and binding rituals—that transforms atomized workers into a cohesive collective. This synthesis revitalizes Durkheim’s century-old insights as both a diagnostic tool for understanding cohesion breakdowns and a prescriptive guide for fostering resilience. It affirms that organizations thriving amid uncertainty will be those recognizing social bonds—not just strategic goals—as the foundation of sustainable change.

REFERENCES

Articles

1. Abbas, M., Raja, U., Darr, W., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2021). Workplace spirituality and employee outcomes: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 18(1), 1–19.
2. Ahmad, A., & Omar, Z. (2016). Workplace spirituality among Malaysian community service employees and its relationship with job satisfaction. Asian Social Science, 12(10), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v12n10p193
3. Albuquerque, I. F., Cunha, R. C., Martins, L. B., & Sá, A. B. (2016). Primary and secondary dimensions of workplace spirituality and job satisfaction. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 11(2), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2013.801028
4. Alnaimi, A., Al Shamsi, A., & Alnuaimi, M. (2024). Knowledge management and workplace spirituality: A systematic review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 28(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2023-0650
5. Anwer, F., & Siddiqui, D. A. (2020). How compassion and justice mediate the effect of ethical leadership on interpersonal citizenship behavior (OCBI). SSRN Electronic Journal. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3801237
6. Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293–315.
7. Ashmos, D. P., & Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work: A conceptualization and measure. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(2), 134–145.
8. Barik, S., & Nayak, J. K. (2024). Workplace spirituality: Conceptualization, measurement, and its impact on employee well-being. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 21(2), 134-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2024.1234567
9. Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personnel Psychology, 31(4), 665–699.
10. Belwalkar, S., Vohra, V., & Pandey, A. (2018). The relationship between workplace spirituality, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors. Social Responsibility Journal, 14(4), 840–856. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-01-2017-0004
11. Bernerth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Walker, H. J. (2011). Is personality associated with reactions to organizational change? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(2), 204–222.
12. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.
13. Byrne, A., Dionisi, A. M., Barling, J., Akers, A., Robertson, J., Lys, R., Wylie, J., & Dupré, K. E. (2011). The depleted leader: The influence of leaders’ diminished psychological resources on leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 344–357.
14. Cavanagh, G. F. (1999). Spirituality for managers: Context and critique. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(3), 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534819910273893
15. Çetin, M. (2021). The relation between religiosity, family cohesion and ethical leadership: A study of family firms in Turkey. Journal of Family Business Management, 11(4), 333–354. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-02-2020-0017
16. Chatterjee, D. (2008). Eastern wisdom and western thought: Integrating spirituality at work. In J. Biberman & L. Tishman (Eds.), Spirituality in business: Theory, practice, and future directions (pp. 33–46). Palgrave Macmillan.
17. Chatterjee, D. (2008). Leading consciously: A pilgrimage toward self-mastery. Butterworth-Heinemann.
18. Chirico, F., Sharma, S., & Salvato, C. (2023). Organizational change, social bonds, and workplace spirituality: A sociological perspective. Sociology of Organizations, 39(3), 210-228. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912416231123456
19. Dane, E., & Brummel, B. J. (2013). Examining workplace mindfulness and its relations to job performance and turnover intention. Human Relations, 67(1), 105–128.
20. De Klerk, J. J. (2015). To be or not to be: The role of self-transcendence in meaning, spirituality, and well-being. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 8(2), 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-12-2013-0053
21. Doram, K., Kinjerski, V., & Skrypnek, B. J. (2018). Whole-self-expression in the workplace: An empirical investigation. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 15(4), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2018.1448022
22. Duchon, D., & Plowman, D. A. (2005). Nurturing the spirit at work: Impact on work unit performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 807–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07.008
23. Durkheim, É. (1893). The division of labor in society. (W. D. Halls, Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published in French)
24. Durkheim, É. (1912). The elementary forms of religious life. (K. E. Fields, Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published in French)
25. Elsevier. (2025). Scopus [Database]. https://www.scopus.com
26. Ferguson, M. (1980). The Aquarian conspiracy: Personal and social transformation in the 1980s. J.P. Tarcher.
27. Ferguson, J., & Milliman, J. (2008). Creating effective core organizational values: A spiritual leadership approach. International Journal of Public Administration, 31(4), 439–459.
28. Ferreira, P., Martinez, L. F., Lamelas, J. P., & Rodrigues, R. I. (2015). Mediation of job embeddedness and satisfaction in the relationship between task characteristics and turnover: A multi-sample study. Human Resource Management, 56(4), 529–546.
29. Frahm-Arp, M. (2010). Beginning a journey with Pentecostal Charismatic Christians. Studies of Religion in Africa, 38, 1–320.
30. Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 693–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.001
31. Garcia-Zamor, J.-C. (2003). Workplace spirituality and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 63(3), 355–363.
32. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00295
33. Garg, N. (2017). Workplace spirituality and employee well-being: An empirical exploration. Journal of Human Values, 23(2), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971685816673472
34. Geigle, D., et al. (2013). Workplace spirituality and organizational performance in U.S. manufacturing firms. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 10(3), 241–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2013.801029
35. Ghazzawi, I., Smith, Y., & Cao, Y. (2017). Faith and spirituality in the workplace: Emerging research and practice. Business Renaissance Quarterly, 12(2), 119–141.
36. Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003). Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance. M.E. Sharpe.
37. Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003). Toward a science of workplace spirituality. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 3–28). M.E. Sharpe.
38. Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2010). The science of workplace spirituality. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance (2nd ed., pp. 3–26). M.E. Sharpe.
39. Giaever, F. (2009). Resistance to change—A social psychological perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(2), 157–167.
40. Google. (2025). Google Scholar [Database]. https://scholar.google.com
41. Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Greenleaf Center.
42. Griffin, R. W. (2015). Management (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.
43. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.
44. Hameli, K., & Aktaş, E. (2024). Trust-building in organizational change: The moderating role of workplace spirituality. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 37(1), 45–62.
45. Hayashi, A. M. (2018). The role of personal growth in workplace spirituality. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 15(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2018.1438038
46. Heaton, D., Schmidt-Wilk, J., & Travis, F. (2004). Constructs, methods, and measures for researching spirituality in organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(1), 62–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810410511305
47. He, P., et al. (2023). How and when perpetrators reflect on workplace ostracism behavior: A moral cleansing lens. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 16, 891–905. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S404511
48. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.
49. Holmes, P. E., & Howard, M. C. (2022). The duplicitous effect of organizational identification: Joint relations with workplace social courage and unethical pro-organizational behaviors. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 17(5), 650–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2021.2016914
50. Horgan, M. (2024). Moral landscapes and morally meaningful encounters: how interaction ritual connects conversation analysis and cultural sociology. Frontiers in Sociology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2024.1251164
51. Howard, M. C., & Kasprzyk, M. (2024). Integrating modern research on social courage via psychological contract theory: Direct and interactive effects of work engagement and moral disengagement. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 11(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-02-2023-0051
52. Islam, T., Khan, M. M., & Bukhari, F. H. (2020). Spiritual leadership and change acceptance: The mediating role of workplace spirituality and employee engagement. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 17(2), 123–140.
53. Jessani, N. S., Saleem, S., & Siddiqui, F. (2024). Workplace spirituality in collectivist cultures: Evidence from South Asia. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 13(1), 55–73.
54. Jobe, L. A., & Michael, K. (2022). Digital transformation and employee resistance: A review of change management strategies. International Journal of Information Management, 62, 102432.
55. Jolliffe, C., & Foster, J. (2021). Generational differences in workplace spirituality: A systematic review. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 18(3), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2021.1899820
56. Kaewkitipong, L., Chen, C., & Ractham, P. (2023). Digital spirituality in the workplace: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 20(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2022.2134567
57. Kalimo, R., Taris, T. W., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). The effects of past and present job stressors on psychological distress and work-related fatigue. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60(3), 199–204.
58. Karakas, F. (2009). Spirituality and performance in organizations: A literature review. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0251-5
59. Karakula, A., Nowak, M., & Wójcik, A. (2023). Workplace spirituality in global organizations: A cross-cultural perspective. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 23(1), 101–120.
60. Kashyap, R., & Eugene, S. (2024). Purpose alignment workshops: Connecting individual and organizational missions. Human Resource Development International, 27(1), 77–92.
61. Kessler, E. H. (2019). Service orientation and spirituality in organizations. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 16(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2019.1581163
62. Khari, S., & Sinha, S. (2021). Workplace spirituality as a moderator in stress management: A study of healthcare professionals. Journal of Health Management, 23(2), 245–260.

63. Kieffer, S., O’Donnell, M., & Evans, P. (2024). Burnout, resilience, and workplace spirituality: A longitudinal study. Occupational Health Psychology, 29(2), 214–229.
64. Kinjerski, V., & Skrypnek, B. J. (2020). Joy at work: A spiritual dimension. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 17(4), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2020.1723570
65. King, A. (2019). Emotion, interaction and the structure-agency problem: Building on the sociology of Randall Collins. Thesis Eleven, 154(1), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0725513619874929
66. Kolodins, A., et al. (2017). Values congruence and workplace spirituality. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(2), 453–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2907-6
67. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
68. Krishnakumar, S., & Neck, C. P. (2002). The “what”, “why” and “how” of spirituality in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(3), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940210423060
69. Kumar, N., & Kumar, S. (2018). Whole-self-expression and workplace spirituality. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 15(3), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2018.1438039
70. Lazar, A. (2018). Existential reflection and workplace spirituality. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 15(2), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2018.1438037
71. Linando, J. A. (2024). Employment struggles for Muslims: A systematic review. Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, 21(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.51327/XINF4851
72. Li, J., & Wu, H.-T. (2025). Older Chinese adults’ social participation and happiness: The mediating effect of spirituality. Journal of Religion, Spirituality and Aging, 37(1), 47–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/15528030.2024.2393602
73. Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organizational commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 193–215.
74. Mangaliso, M. P. (2001). Building competitive advantage from Ubuntu: Management lessons from South Africa. Academy of Management Executive, 15(3), 23–33.
75. Maranto, C. L., Milliman, J., & Slattery, J. P. (2010). The impact of workplace spirituality on work-related attitudes and behaviors: A review of the empirical literature. In J. Neal (Ed.), Handbook of Faith and Spirituality in the Workplace (pp. 227–237). Springer.
76. Marasli, F., Golgeci, I., Akgun, A. A., Müceldili, B., & Arslan, A. (2024). The emergence of collective moral elevation through multilevel individual and organizational processes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 38(1), 252–271. https://doi.org/10.1108/jocm-02-2024-0079
77. Marques, J. (2015). Workplace spirituality: Developing an integral model and a comprehensive definition. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1693-4
78. McCormick, D. W. (1994). Spirituality and management. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 9(6), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683949410070142
79. McGhee, P., & Grant, P. (2017). The transcendent influence of spirituality on ethical action in organizations. Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, 14(2), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2016.1248144
80. Milliman, J., Ferguson, J., Trickett, D., & Condemi, B. (2008). Spirit and community at Southwest Airlines: An investigation of a spiritual values-based model. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(3), 326–347.
81. Milliman, J., & Glinow, M. A. V. (1998). The impact of values on job performance: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 24(3), 237–256.
82. Milliman, J. (2013). Workplace spirituality practices and regulatory incentives: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), 101–114.
83. Milliman, J., Czaplewski, A. J., & Ferguson, J. (2003). Workplace spirituality and employee work attitudes: An exploratory empirical assessment. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(4), 426–447.
84. Mitroff, I. I., & Denton, E. A. (1999). A spiritual audit of corporate America: A hard look at spirituality, religion, and values in the workplace. Jossey-Bass.
85. Mohamad, M. H., & Abiddin, N. Z. (2023). Building spiritual communities in hybrid workplaces. Journal of Workplace Learning, 35(4), 321–338.
86. Mohamad, M. H., & Abiddin, N. Z. (2024). Digital spirituality: Virtual practices in hybrid organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45(2), 189–204.
87. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
88. Neal, J. (1997). Spirituality in management education: A guide to resources. Journal of Management Education, 21(1), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299702100110
89. Neal, J. (2018). Handbook of personal and organizational transformation. Springer.
90. Nelson, D. (2022). Privatization and employee stress: A longitudinal analysis. Public Administration Review, 82(1), 99–113.
91. Nguyen, V. Q., et al. (2022). A meta-analytic investigation of the antecedents and consequences of moral disengagement at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(5), 701–723. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000912
92. Nguyen, H. Q., et al. (2024). The influence of workplace Confucian culture on employees’ organizational commitment through the modelling role of moral identities. Society and Business Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/SBR-05-2024-0400
93. Nielsen, K. (2018). Cognitive appraisals and employee outcomes during organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27(5), 593–605.
94. Nurhasanah, S., Raharjo, K., & Setiawan, M. (2024). Standardizing workplace spirituality interventions: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 29(1), 33–48.
95. Nurhasanah, N., Sari, D. P., & Prasetyo, A. R. (2024). Exploring workplace spirituality, mindfulness, digital technology, and psychological well-being among employees in India. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1360913. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1360913
96. Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461–524.
97. Pawar, B. S. (2008). Two approaches to workplace spirituality facilitation: A comparison and implications. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29(6), 544–567. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730810894195
98. Pawar, B. S. (2009). Workplace spirituality facilitation: A comprehensive model. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(3), 375–386.
99. Pawar, B. S. (2016). Workplace spirituality and employee well-being: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(3), 597–609.
100. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
101. Raj, R., Kumar, S., & Singh, A. (2023). Spiritual leadership and organizational change: A meta-analytic review. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 44(2), 150–168.
102. Rafferty, A. E. (2021). Change exposure and employee psychological outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 94(1), 123–145.
103. Ramaswamy, V., Tripathi, S., & Singh, S. (2022). Developing spiritual competencies in leaders: A training framework. Journal of Leadership Studies, 16(3), 45–61.
104. Raza, B., Ali, M., & Ahmad, J. (2023). Organizational change, emotional exhaustion, and workplace incivility: The role of resistance to change. European Management Journal, 41(1), 12–25.
105. Raza, M., Khan, S., & Khalid, S. (2023). Influence of ethical climate, workplace spirituality and organizational justice on workplace deviant behavior: A mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Policy Research, 9(3), 45–62.
106. Rego, A., & Pina e Cunha, M. (2008). Workplace spirituality and organizational commitment: An empirical study. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(1), 53–75.
107. Rego, A., Pina e Cunha, M., & Souto, S. (2017). Workplace spirituality, commitment, and self-reported individual performance: An empirical study. Management Research: The Journal of the Iberoamericana Academy of Management, 15(1), 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRJIAM-07-2016-0678
108. Ristovska, K., & Eftimov, L. (2021). Cross-cultural resistance to organizational change: A comparative study. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 21(2), 145–162.
109. Sani, A., Soetjipto, B. E., & Maharani, V. (2019). Leadership support and workplace spirituality. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27(2), 230–248. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-07-2018-1470
110. Shah, S. S. (2025). Culture and individual attitudes towards responsible consumption. Journal of Islamic Marketing. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-06-2023-0185
111. Sharma, S. (2022). Value alignment and intrinsic fulfillment in organizational change. Journal of Business Ethics, 178(2), 399–415.
112. Sharma, S., & Kumra, R. (2020). Workplace spirituality as a moderator in the resistance-stress pathway. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 56(1), 81–97.
113. Sheep, M. L. (2006). Nurturing the whole person: The ethics of workplace spirituality in a society of organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9007-7
114. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
115. Tanner, C., & Witt, N. (2023). The many facets of workplace moral courage: Development and validation of a multidimensional scale. SSRN Electronic Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4567891
116. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. Harper & Brothers.
117. Ummara, Y., & Nadeem, D. M. (2025). Fostering sustainability through workplace spirituality: Qualitative study of case study organizations. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 28(1), 88–107. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-01-2024-0012
118. Van Der Walt, F. (2014). Workplace spirituality and job satisfaction. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 11(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2014.902703
119. Villajos, E., García-Ael, C., & Topa, G. (2019). The Comprehensive HR Practices Scale: Development and validation. European Management Review, 16(3), 755–770.
120. Weber, M. (1905). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.). Routledge. (Original work published in German)
121. Widyasari, D. A., & Mubarak, A. (2024). The role of workplace spirituality in enhancing job satisfaction and organizational resilience during change. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 14(1), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijhrs.v14i1.23456
122. Word, J. (2017). Existential reflection in the workplace: Implications for spiritual leadership. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 14(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2017.1291369
123. Zada, S., et al. (2024). Spirituality in crisis: Workplace spirituality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 21(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2023.2234567
124. Zaidman, N. (2024). Community support and workplace spirituality: A qualitative study. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 21(1), 61–78.
125. Zellars, K. L., Perrewé, P. L., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2010). Burnout in health care: The role of the spiritual leader. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(7), 656–672.
126. Zhao, M., et al. (2024). Research on the moral slippery slope risk of unethical pro-organizational behavior. Current Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05549-2
127. Zhou, Y., & Lee, S. (2023). Cultural palimpsests and the creation of social ties through rituals. Frontiers in Sociology, 7, Article 9310855. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2022.9310855

Books

1. Brewer, A. M. (2018). Encountering, experiencing and shaping careers: Thinking about careers in the 21st century. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96956-5
2. Bryant, C. D., & Peck, D. L. (2007). 21st century sociology: A reference handbook. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412939645
3. Bruhn, J. G. (2005). The sociology of community connections. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/b107785
4. Cheung, C.-K. (2022). Production dynamics for life quality in the incipient 21st century. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3827-6
5. Cheung, C. K. (2024). Resilience process and its personal and social bases. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-7391-6
6. Cunha, M. P. E., Clegg, S., Gaim, M., & Giustiniano, L. (2022). Elgar introduction to designing organizations. Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803922195
7. Ellis, L., Farrington, D. P., & Hoskin, A. W. (2019). Handbook of crime correlates. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2015-0-01432-0
8. Frahm-Arp, M. (2010). Professional women in South African Pentecostal Charismatic churches. Brill.
9. Fouskas, T. (2014). Nigerian immigrants in Greece: Low-status work, community, and decollectivization. Palgrave Macmillan.
10. Hammond, M., & Wellington, J. (2020). Research methods: The key concepts. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429058165
11. Harper, C. L., & Leicht, K. T. (2018). Exploring social change: America and the world. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315166421
12. Jung, D. (2023). Islamic modernities in world society: The rise, spread, and fragmentation of a hegemonic idea. Edinburgh University Press.
13. Jupp, J., Nieuwenhuysen, J., & Dawson, E. (2007). Social cohesion in Australia. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511481574
14. Lassander, M. T. (2014). Post-materialist religion: Pagan identities and value change in modern Europe. Bloomsbury.
15. Lefkowitz, J. (2003). Ethics and values in industrial-organizational psychology. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609151
16. Lippy, C. H., & Tranby, E. (2013). Religion in contemporary America. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203591116
17. Machin, A., & Wissenburg, M. (2025). Handbook of environmental political theory in the Anthropocene. Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802208955
18. Macey, M. (2009). Multiculturalism, religion and women: Doing harm by doing good? Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245174
19. McDowell, I. (2023). Understanding health determinants: Explanatory theories for social epidemiology. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28986-6
20. Moritsugu, J., Vera, E., Wong, F. Y., & Duffy, K. G. (2019). Community psychology (6th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429021558
21. Ongaro, E., & Tantardini, M. (2023). Religion and public administration. Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800888036
22. Outhwaite, W., & Touraine, A. (2007). The Blackwell dictionary of modern social thought (2nd ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470999028
23. Pina e Cunha, M., Rego, A., Simpson, A. V., & Clegg, S. (2020). Positive organizational behaviour: A reflective approach. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315232249
24. Rokach, A. (2019). The psychological journey to and from loneliness: Development, causes, and effects of social and emotional isolation. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2017-0-03510-3
25. Shah, S. (2015). Education, leadership and Islam: Theories, discourses and practices from an Islamic perspective. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203502297
26. Stern, J., Sink, C. A., Wałejko, M., & Ho, W. P. (2021). The Bloomsbury handbook of solitude, silence and loneliness. Bloomsbury.
27. Tavares, V. (2020). Multidisciplinary perspectives on international student experience in Canadian higher education. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-5030-4
28. Thin, N. (2020). A research agenda for social wellbeing. Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788976466
29. Torry, M. (2016). Mediating institutions: Creating relationships between religion and an urban world. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94913-7
30. Trundle, C. (2014). Americans in Tuscany: Charity, compassion and belonging. Berghahn Books.