Workplace spirituality: empirical evidence revisited

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to examine the current outcomes of the empirical research on workplace spirituality (WS) theory, that is, it provides an updated review about the knowledge of this managerial domain, as well as its limitations, problems and opportunities.

Design/methodology/approach

This study has searched for empirical articles of WS in the websites of relevant scientific publications such as Emerald, Sage, Taylor & Francis, as well as Google Academic, ProQuest and EBSCO. It has analyzed 882 published works, including books and book chapters. Overall, it has gathered 78 useful empirical studies.

Findings

Although WS theory is strongly linked to management studies, the research output has been published by a set of outlets from different domains. As a consequence, WS has made inroads through an interdisciplinary view. Findings indicated that quantitative method was the most preferred alternative by WS researchers, whereas qualitative and mixed-methods were less used. Data revealed the shortage of experimental studies in this area. As expected, the USA has been the most studied country in terms of the WS theory. Factor analysis is the most commonly utilized statistical technique followed by regression analysis. Data also suggested that Pearson correlation and structural equation modeling continue to be valuable statistic techniques for researchers in this area of knowledge. At last, the content analysis has identified five themes: positive effects, experiences/perceptions, uncertainties, measures and outcomes.

Originality/value

Unlike previous work, this study focuses exclusively on research output over a 16-year period (2000-2015). In doing so, it contributes to theory development by addressing the preferences of research designs, data collection methods, statistical techniques, countries surveyed, top journals of this field and major themes of research.

Citation

Vasconcelos, A.F. (2018), "Workplace spirituality: empirical evidence revisited", Management Research Review, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 789-821. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-07-2017-0232