Spiritual Climate and Its Impact on Learning in Teams in Business Organizations

Abstract

Learning in an organization takes place at the individual, group and organizational levels. There is an upsurge of interest among researchers in issues of collective learning. Spirituality at work, also a multi-level phenomenon, manifests at both the individual and the collective levels. Spirituality at work is about search for meaning or higher purpose, connectedness and transcendence. Spirituality is recognized as a major factor in learning at the individual level. However, the expression and impact of spirituality need to be examined at the collective level. The present research addresses this conceptual and empirical gap using the concept of spiritual climate and examines its impact on learning in teams. This relationship is proposed based on theories of learning in teams, flow, social learning and levels of learning. Various aspects of spiritual climate are found to have positive association with learning in teams in the present study. These findings have theoretical and practical implications on organization development, corporate social responsibility and learning at workplace.

Keywords

Learning in team spiritual climate

Introduction

Learning is an iterative process of designing, carrying out, reflecting upon and modifying action (Dewey, 1922 in Edmondson, 1999). Learning in an organization takes place at the individual, group and organizational levels (Casey, 2005; Marsick & Watkins, 2003). Spirituality at work is about search for meaning or higher purpose, connectedness, inner life and transcendence (Miller & Ewest, 2013; Petchsawang & Duchon, 2012). Like learning, spirituality at work also interpreted at both the individual and the collective levels (Kolodinsky, Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2008; Pawar, 2008).

The role of spirituality is studied to some extend at individual-level learning (e.g., Dirkx, 2013; Tisdell, 2008). However, association between spirituality and learning is not examined at the team level in business organization. With growing emphasis on team-based structure in organizations and remarkable upsurge in the interest in issues of collective learning among researchers (Bunderson & Reagans, 2010), it is important to conduct the study of spirituality and learning at the level of work teams.

Teams, the unit of analysis in this study, are defined as work groups that exist within the context of an organization where the members share responsibility for a product or service (Hackman, 1987). Spirituality at group level is expressed as spiritual climate. Spiritual climate is the collective perception of the employees about the workplace that facilitates harmony with ‘self’ through meaningful work, transcendence from the limited ‘self’ and operates in harmony with social and natural environment with a sense of interconnectedness within (Pandey, Gupta & Arora, 2009).

The article is focused on association of spiritual climate and learning in teams and is divided into five sections. After the introduction, the second section provides a literature review and explains the construct of spiritual climate and learning in teams and association between the two. The third section focuses on association between learning in teams and spiritual climate is referring to the foundational theories on learning. The fourth section presents the objectives and rationale of the research study. Next to that are the sections on method, analysis, findings and conclusions.

Review of Literature

An exhaustive review of learning in teams and spirituality in management is beyond the scope of this article. However, in this section, we present the aspects of literature on learning in teams and spiritual climate at workplace, the most relevant for the present study.

Learning in Teams

Research in both the fields of research, that is, organizational learning and team learning, has complemented each other and has originated from the same assumption that the collectives can be said to learn (Edmondson, Bohmer & Pisano, 2001). ‘Team learning’ and ‘learning in teams’ are used interchangeably in the current study and refer to a group process—rather than as a group or team outcome. Similar to the work of Edmondson (1999, 2008), in the current study, the concept of learning in teams has its roots in the work of educational philosopher John Dewey (1938), who described learning as a process of inquiry and reflection. Edmondson (2008) proposed three perspectives of learning in teams: outcome improvement, task mastery and group process. The central concern of group process perspective is what drives learning-oriented behaviours and processes in organizational work groups. The present study is conducted in this perspective. Edmondson (2002) created learning in team inventory with group process perspective. Ramnarayan (1996) identified the key challenges in building the learning capability in Indian managers. He identified blocks of learning (such as functional myopia, lack of urge for change, etc.) in Indian organizations and ways to address them in the team context (such as clear focus on objectives, plans for internal integration, concern for development of capabilities, etc.). Marsick and Watkins (2003) gave an inventory for learning in organization at all the three levels: organization, group and individual. There is a significant overlap in the conceptualizations of learning in teams in the above-mentioned works. Items in learning in team inventory were drawn from these three sources. A duly modified inventory was administered on the group of 124 executives in India with both the sexes. An exploratory analysis of the inventory brought forth a two-factor structure of the construct. Factor 1 is named as mutuality and Factor 2 is named as collective reflection and experimentation. Mutuality in the team-learning context refers to members having functional and personal concerns towards each other. Collective reflection and experimentation refers to members participating/engaging in open conversations among themselves about failures, successes, possibilities, etc. during the functioning of teams. Appendix A gives the final inventory with sub-variables and their respective items on learning in teams.

Spiritual Climate: Variables and Definition

Perceptions of the work environment constitute organizational climate (Rousseau, 1988). Pandey et al. (2009) presented the conceptualization and the details of empirical validation process of spiritual climate inventory. In line with the other works on climate (e.g., innovation climate by Anderson & West, 1998 and climate for inclusion by Nishii, 2014), the concepts of shared perceptions were applied to understand the spiritual climate of work groups. A broad definition of spirituality is employed in developing the construct of spiritual climate. Variables Swadharma and Lokasangraha along with authenticity and sense of community form the construct of spiritual climate.

A brief description and operational definitions of sub-constructs of spiritual climate are as follows:

Swadharma: In the Indian worldview, dharma is the key concept and it is defined both cognitively and behaviourally as values that guide one’s behaviour in life (Bhawuk, 2011). The word dharma constitutes the core of the message of India to humanity (Suda, 1970). Etymologically, the word ‘dharma’ has micro as well as macro meaning. In micro-perspective, ‘धार्यते इतत धर्यः’, that which is held or followed (by an individual) is called as dharma. However, macro-perspective of dharma is ‘धारर्तत इतत धर्यः’, the thing which holds (the existence) is dharma. In simple term, the principles laid down for the welfare of the society can be termed as dharma.

Oxford Dictionary defines dharma as ‘dharma is seen as the cosmic law both upheld by the gods and expressed in right behaviour by humans, including adherence to the social order’ (Oxford Dictionary, 2015). In Bhagavad Gita, the word dharma appears several times, where it means duty of an individual (Agarwal, 1997; Bhawuk, 2011; Sebastian, 2003; Tilak, 1915, 2015). The word ‘swadharm’ is the combination of two terms: swa and dharma (‘swa’ means self and ‘dharma’ derives from the root √dhṛ, which means to bear, to support and to uphold). Swadharma is the action in accordance with one’s nature. It is acting in accordance with one’s skills and talents, one’s own nature (swabhava) and that which one is responsible for (karma). In the contemporary literature, two constructs capture the essence of Swadharma (Pandey et al., 2009): meaningful work and meditative work. Meaningfulness refers to work done for life not only for livelihood (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000). Meditative work is an experiential aspect of spirituality that is deeper than cognition, involving the affective, behavioural part of self. It refers to the experience of being absorbed in work, losing sense of self and becoming one with the activity (McCormick, 1994).

Sense of community: This facet of spiritual climate refers to interconnectedness and interdependence among employees (Jurkiewicz & Giacalone, 2004) and being comfortable with the world (Morgan, 1993). It is signified by and operationally defined as collaborative problem-solving.

Authenticity: Authenticity is socially situated phenomenon of which the genuineness and openness are the central parts. It is integral to inner life, which is nourished through self-reflection and meditation (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May & Walumba, 2005). This aspect is operationally defined as the alignment of people’s actions and behaviours with their core, internalized values and beliefs.

Lokasangraha: Bhagwad Gita presents the model of universal interconnectedness. It states that all the creatures of this nature are interconnected (verse 3.14). Idea of Lokasangraha is first presented in the verse 3.20. Loka (लोक) means society (people) and cosmic system (nature). Sangraha (संग्रह) means to gather, protect, nourish, regulate, etc. (Tilak, 1915, 2015). Lokasangraha means binding people together, protect them to achieve the welfare of the society and lead them on the self-realization path. The notion of Lokasangraha involves well-being of all the people (Chakraborty, 2006), welfare of society as whole and humanity (Sebastian, 2003; Sharma, 1999) and concern for social and natural environment (Pandey et al., 2009). Rastogi and Pati (2014) have termed the concept of Lokasangraha as ‘service consciousness’ in their article. In this arena of Lokasangraha, every individual has his own duty to be performed and contribute to the maintenance of world order. Thus, Krishna asks Arjun to appreciate the fact that he is not merely an individual having limited egocentric needs, but the part of this universe and its social system. Krishna instructs Arjun to perform action to serve that the greater social system is the essentially self-transcendence at work. Radhakrishnan (2009, p. 141), one of the most reputed scholar in the Indian philosophy and wisdom literature, defined Lokasangraha as ‘working for world maintenance’.¹

In contemporary management literature, Lokasangraha is echoed in terms of transcendence, which means ‘connection to something greater than oneself’ (Ashforth & Pratt, 2003; Dehler & Welsh, 1994; Sheep, 2004); this can be ‘other people, cause, nature, or a belief in a higher power’. Operational definition of Lokasangraha is concern for social and natural environment (see Appendix A for the questionnaire).

Association of Spiritual Climate and Learning in Teams

In this subsection, we review the scattered research finding on different variables of spiritual climate and learning in teams. Swadharma is the combination of meaningful and meditative work. Meaningfulness increases procedural justice, decision control, task commitment and task performance responses in the learning process (Hunton & Price, 1997). Finding one’s work meaningful reduces distractions and enhances the goal-directedness (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Understandably, people in a group who find their work meaningful are likely to have interactions focused on the group objectives. Meditative experience at the workplace can reduce dysfunctional interactions and enhance openness for collective reflection and collaboration. Hence, we hypothesize positive relationship between different aspects of spiritual climate and learning in teams. The theory of ‘flow’ (absorption and merging of awareness with action) is inherently related to learning and connected to creating engaged learners and an optimal learning environment (Shernoff, Csikszentmihalyi, Schneider & Shernoff, 2003).

Learning as a process involves a social and community dimension (Bandura, 1986). A social group learns and thereby changes the group’s collective beliefs, social norms and values (Yang, 2004). The essential role of community in learning processes is affirmed and the role of spirituality at the workplace is revealed in the phenomenological study of Gallagher, Tonette and Hilary (2007). The positive connection is reported between collaborative problem-solving and learning in team climate (Engeström et al., 1995). Authenticity enables learners to make choices and reflect on their learning both individually and socially (e.g., Myers, 1993).

Transcendence or lokasangraha, that is, doing work for world maintenance, is another aspect of spiritual climate. The research evidence (e.g., Colby, Sippola & Phelps, 2002; Ruiz-Quintanilla & England, 1996) suggests that many employees draw the purpose of their work in terms of making a positive impact on the beneficiaries of their efforts.

Spirituality is about the enhancement of one’s frame of reference, identity and ego self (Maslow, 1971, 1996, in Chandler, Holden & Kolander, 1992). With the expansion of frame of reference, new thoughts and ideas that change beliefs or even value sets arise. Beliefs and value sets are governing variables of behaviour and change in the same is described as double-loop learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978). People define work ranging from burden/control to social contribution (Ruiz-Quintanilla & England, 1996). Double-loop learning takes place when people transcends from personal needs to contribution to the larger society. Opportunity and willingness to contribute to something ‘larger than self’ and positive accomplishment at work contribute to positive energy and motivation to learn. Duchon and Plowman (2005) reported that the connection of employees to the larger good enhances their satisfaction and performance.

Research Objectives and Rationale of the Study

In light of the literature, this study is conducted with the broad objective of probing the association between different variables of spiritual climate and learning in teams. To meet this broad objective, the study also aimed at two minor objectives: to revalidate the scale of spiritual climate using cross-sectional data and to develop ‘learning in teams’ inventory using research findings in Indian context.

This study intends to extend the research in four key ways. First, it provides a much nuanced description and empirical operationalization of the construct of spiritual climate. This construct is developed with synthesis of contemporary notions and ideas drawn from Eastern wisdom tradition. In doing so, we respond to the call of Gelfand, Leslie and Fehr (2008) to incorporate global voices in discourse of organizational psychology. Spirituality is mentioned as a human potential in the Positive Psychology literature. The second rationale for the study comes from the recognition of spirituality as a human potential in positive organizational behaviour (OB). The study responds to calls for empirical research on the impact of positive OB constructs at group level. Third, in doing so, it extends existing research on learning in groups by being among the first studies to improve understanding of how spiritual climate can have differential effects on learning in teams. Finally, this study makes a business case for spirituality at the workplace and presents the theoretical and practical implications of the findings.

Method

This study is based on the positivist paradigm of social science. The deductive procedure of falsifying hypotheses is adopted as a cognition process. Two constructs between which a positive relationship is proposed are assumed to be constituted of several sub-constructs or variables. Both constructs being of macro-level, the unit of observation was the work group. A questionnaire-based cross-sectional survey design was employed, which according to Rubin and Babbie (2001) suits the aim of describing and measuring a large population.

Sample, Procedures and Measurement of the Empirical Model

Data for the present analysis were collected in 2014 from 38 teams in 18 business organizations operating in manufacturing, banking, telecommunication and airline sectors. The size of organizations ranged from less than 100 to over 10,000 employees. Most organizations and teams were contacted through the reference of the participants of open and in-house management development programmes offered by the first author. The criterion was that a team should have at least four members and the team should have been operational for a minimum of three months at the time of data collection. The teams were involved in functions of production, testing, marketing and human resources. The respondents were employed full-time at their work organizations. The questionnaire administered was in English. In line with the procedure followed by Ashmos and Duchon (2000), it was insisted that at least more than four-fifths of the members should take the inventory for the team to be included in the study. Only those respondents who indicated that they had no difficulty in understanding English text in the study questionnaire were included in the sample for analysis. In the sample, 5 per cent of the respondents had the lowest education level of a diploma (typically 3 years of education beyond high school or matriculation); 84 per cent had completed a bachelor’s degree; and 11 per cent had a master’s degree or higher. Of the 92 per cent respondents that revealed gender information, 78 per cent were males.

The spiritual climate inventory developed by Pandey et al. (2009) was employed in this study. The four sub-constructs in the inventory were Swadharma, sense of community, authenticity and Lokasangraha. A five-point Likert format with responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was employed. The reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) of the scale was 0.858.

The team learning behaviour scale was based on the work of Edmondson (1999) and Ramnarayan (1996). Since we do not have any theoretical or intuitive reason to justifiably disbelieve correlation among the factors, we performed principle axis factoring with oblique rotation and derived two dimensions in team learning and labelled them as ‘mutuality’ and ‘collective reflection and experimentation’. The reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) of the scale is 0.892.

Empirical model of the study is given in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Source: Author’s own.

Table 1.

Standard Deviation and Reliability Coefficients (Cronbach’s Alpha) Correlation of Different Variables

		Mean	SD	RC	Correlation
		Mean	SD	RC	1	2	3	4	5	6
1 Swadharma	4.03	0.51	0.919
2 Sense of Community	3.81	0.46	0.802	0.647
3 Authenticity	3.57	0.55	0.888	0.381	0.358
4 Lokasangraha 1 (concern for social environment)	3.55	0.71	0.935	0.653	0.640	0.595
5 Lokasangraha 2 (concern for natural environment)	3.66	0.66	0.903	0.680	0.690	0.578	0.580
6 Mutuality	3.75	0.61	0.933	0.569	0.413	0.624	0.668	0.678
7 Collective Reflection and Experimentation	3.77	0.46	0.962	0.705	0.438	0.568	0.636	0.706	0.844

Source: Authors’ own.

Data Aggregation

Both spiritual climate and learning in teams are group-level phenomena and the proposed hypotheses are targeted at the group level of analysis, consistent with other climate-based research on aggregation of perception of team members (e.g., Edmondson, 2002; Schneider, 2000). In the present study, intra-class correlations (ICCs) (Bliese, 2000) are utilized. These are commonly used to justify aggregation and test the within-group similarity. The ICC(2) values provide an estimate of the reliability of the group means. They are typically estimated with the use of mean squares from a one-way random effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) that range from 0.54 to 0.89 for different teams.

Discriminant validity was examined through factor analysis, as the antecedent and outcome sections for a/the team yielded distinct factors with the number of eigenvalues being greater than 1. These results demonstrate that the team survey was not hampered by excessive common method variance. The descriptive statistics, inter-scale correlations and levels for scales are reported in Table 1.

Analysis

Fit indices for different factor solutions within Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for the construct of spiritual climate were in acceptable limits (CFI: 0.952, Tucker–Lewis Index [TLI]: 0.928, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA]: 0.064) and confirmed the five-factor structure of the construct. The two-factor solution drawn through in exploratory study for learning in teams was also found to be the best-fit model for learning in teams (CFI: 0.941, TLI: 0.930, RMSEA: 0.075).

To check the same source bias, we checked the multicollinearity statistics. Multicollinearity between the antecedent and consequent constructs as well as between formative indicators of those constructs was assessed using Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and was found to be less than 3.5. According to the criterion suggested by Hair et al. (2003) and Diamantopoulos, Riefler and Roth (2008), a VIF less than 10 between the constructs shows the absence of multicollinearity.

Based on the purpose of the research, namely, to analyze causal relationships between spiritual climate and learning in teams, Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was adopted. Structural Equation Modelling allows the researcher to consider the relationships among multiple independent and dependent variables, simultaneously. Partial Least Squares (PLS), an SEM technique, is used for hypothesis testing. The PLS approach has several characteristics, which makes it attractive (Cassel, Hackl & Westlund, 1999; Vinzi, Trinchera & Amato, 2010). Partial Least Squares is suitable when little confirmed knowledge is available. Hence, it is used for both theory development and theory testing. It is equally suitable for a large number of variables and a small sample size. In addition, PLS does not require that the input data follow normal distribution. Partial Least Squares is able to handle both reflective and formative constructs.

Table 2.

Statistics Showing the Strength of Different Proposed Relationships

Relationship	Path Coefficient	t-Statistic	Hypothesis Supported
Swadharma ➝ Mutuality	0.38	7.51	Yes
Swadharma ➝ Collective Reflection and Experimentation	0.33	5.07	Yes
Authenticity ➝ Mutuality	0.23	3.70	Yes
Authenticity ➝ Collective Reflection and Experimentation	0.10	1.48	No
Sense of Community ➝ Mutuality	0.24	4.42	Yes
Sense of Community ➝ Collective Reflection and Experimentation	0.12	2.23	Yes
Lokasangraha 1 ➝ Mutuality	–0.02	0.36	No
Lokasangraha 1 ➝ Collective Reflection and Experimentation	0.01	0.37	No
Lokasangraha 2 ➝ Mutuality	0.23	3.35	Yes
Lokasangraha 2 ➝ Collective Reflection and Experimentation	0.46	8.19	Yes

Source: Authors’ own.

The R² of the general model was 0.73 for two dimensions of learning and five variables of spiritual climate. The majority of the path coefficients were greater than 0.1, suggesting that the model adequately fits the data. Thus, the model fits the data moderately well according to the criterion suggested by Chin (1998). Bootstrap analysis was performed to test the statistical significance of path coefficient. Path coefficient represents the strength of the relationships between dependent and independent variables. It is represented in Table 2.

It was found that Swadharma, sense of community and Lokasangraha 2 (concern for natural environment) have a causative effect on both the aspects of learning in teams (t statistics ≥ 2). Authenticity was found to be affecting mutuality aspect of learning but not collective reflection and experimentation. Lokasangraha 1 (concern for society) was not found to be affecting either of the aspects of learning in teams. Strongest impact on learning came from Swadharma on mutuality and Lokasangraha 2 (concern for natural environment) on collective reflection and experimentation.

Conclusions

Development and operationalization of the construct of spiritual climate combining the notions present in the wisdom tradition and the contemporary management literature is a relatively uncommon practice in management scholarship. Era of modernity thrived on negating most of the notions of traditions for lack of objective verifiability. In the management scholarship as well, the analytical paradigm or objective-functionalist paradigm has been dominant thus far. Analytical approach brings precision and interaction of different variables and largely follows a mechanistic worldview. Many concepts in traditional wisdom are based on more organic, integral and systemic worldview (e.g., Gaia, Ubuntu and Kyosei). Given the fact that systems thinking and stakeholder’s perspective are attaining prominence in the present management thinking, the concepts and constructs present in wisdom traditions can enlighten the management scholarship. If the concepts present in wisdom traditions are subjected to systematic scientific inquiry and empirical validation, the ones that are validated could enrich the management discourse. Our attempt in the current research has been in the direction of building a secular narrative on the constructs identified from the text in the wisdom traditions.

Gupta (1996) asked, ‘Is there a place for sacred in organizations and their development?’ After about two decades since this question is asked we see increasing recognition of spirituality in management research. The quest for meaning or higher purpose, social connectedness, inner life and transcendence at the workplace are widely recognized as the aspects of spirituality at work (Benefiel, Fry & Geigle, 2014).

Employees working in business organizations, besides looking for monetary and financial returns, seek satisfaction of their spiritual needs, that is, meaning and purpose in their work (Swadharma) and the opportunity to contribute to the larger social and natural environments (Lokasangraha). Sharma (2002) also mentioned ‘lokasangraha’ or enlightened collective interest and not the self-interest as one of the prominent concepts of Indian model of management and leadership. The core research finding of the present study is that groups with higher sense of swadharma and lokasangraha demonstrate higher propensity to learn in comparison to the group with lower spiritual climate. By examining spiritual climate at the team level, this study found general support for its impact on learning in teams.

In the list of different positive outcome of spirituality at work, such as engagement, customer service, etc., team learning can also be considered based on the present study. Through this study, we aimed at contributing towards scrubby body of group-level empirical studies of spirituality at work and its impact on learning.

Limitations

This study suffers the natural limitations of analytical paradigm with a hypothetico-deductive survey-based research design. It brings forth the connection between spiritual climate and learning through quantitative methods, but the generative mechanism of interaction of antecedent and consequent variables can be understood better through a qualitative research design under the interpretative paradigm. Since this study incorporates a sample from varied industries and organizations, it does not throw light on nuances of the proposed relationships in specific sectors or levels of the organization. This model is also silent on the applicability of the same under extreme conditions of work or when team’s membership is not bounded and stable for some period.

Future Direction of Research

Within the scope similar to the present study, the future research studies may fall into different categories. First, the inherent mechanism of the relationship between spiritual climate and learning in team needs further elaboration. Connection of spiritual climate can be examined further with other collective-level constructs, such as climate for inclusion, ethical climate, service quality, etc. This can provide interesting insights on group dynamics. Learning patterns in the groups may be actively managed by a group leader and/or a facilitator (Edmondson et al., 2001). In the field of spirituality at workplace and learning in teams, a fruitful area of inquiry is the impact of leader’s spiritual orientation to work on the learning process in teams. Reflective practices are reported to have a positive impact on learning (Matsuo, 2012). Team-based reflective processes and reflective dialogue on the mission and larger purpose and its impact on learning in teams can be an interesting area for future research studies.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This article is a revised and expanded version of an article entitled ‘Spiritual Climate and Learning in Teams in Business Organization’ presented during the Academy of Management Meeting, Philadelphia, 1–5 August 2014. The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees of the journal for their useful suggestions to improve the quality of the article.

Learning in Teams Questionnaire (adapted from Edmondson [2002],Watkins and Marsick [2003] and Ramnarayan [1996])

Spiritual Climate Inventory ( Pandey et al.,2009 )

Note

References

Agarwal

S.P.

(1997). The social role of the Gita: How and why. India: Motilal Banarsidass Publications.

Anderson

, & West

M.A.

(1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 235–258.

Argyris

, & Schön

D.A.

(1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ashforth

B.E.

, & Pratt

M.G.

(2003). Institutionalized spirituality: An oxymoron? In Giacalone

R.A.

& Jurkiewicz

C.L.

(Eds), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 93–107). NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Benefiel

, Fry

, & Geigle

(2014). Spirituality and religion in the workplace: History, theory, and research. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 6(3), 175–187. doi: 10.1037/a0036597

Bhawuk

D.P.S.

(2011). Spirituality and Indian psychology. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Bliese

P.D.

(2000). Within-group agreement, non-interdependence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein

K.J.

& Kozlowski

S.W.

(Eds), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bunderson

J.S.

, & Reagans

R.E.

(2010). Power, status, and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 22(5), 1182–1194. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0590

10.

Casey

(2005). Enhancing individual and organizational learning: A sociological model. Management Learning, 36(2), 131–147. doi: 10.1177/1350507605052555

11.

Cassel

, Hackl

, & Westlund

A.H.

(1999). Robustness of partial least-squares method for estimating latent variable quality structures. Journal of Applied Statistics, 26(4), 435–446. doi: 10.1080/o2664769922322

12.

Chakraborty

S. K.

(2006). The “Nishkam Karma” Principle: Its Relevance to Effectiveness and Ethics. IIMB Management Review, 18(2), 115.

13.

Chandler

C.K.

, Holden

J.M.

, & Kolander

C.A.

(1992). Counseling for spiritual wellness: Theory and practice. Journal of Counseling and Development, 71(2), 168–175. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.1992.tb02193.x

14.

Chin

W.W.

(1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In Macoulides

G.A.

(Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

15.

Colby

, Sippola

, & Phelps

(2002). Social responsibility and paid work in contemporary American life. In Rossi

(Ed.), Caring and doing for others: Social responsibility in the domains of family, work, and community (pp. 463–501). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

16.

Dehler

G.E.

, & Welsh

M.A.

(1994). Spirituality and organizational transformation. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 9(6), 17–24.

17.

Diamantopoulos

, Riefler

, & Roth

K.P.

(2008). Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1203–1218. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.009

18.

Dirkx

J.M.

(2013). Leaning in and leaning back at the same time: Toward a spirituality of work-related learning. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15(4), 356–369. doi: 10.1177/1523422313498562

19.

Duchon

, & Plowman

(2005). Nurturing the spirit at work: Impact on work unit performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 807–833. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07.008

20.

Edmondson

A.C.

(1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 350–383.

21.

Edmondson

A.C.

(2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective. Organization Science, 13, 128–146.

22.

Edmondson

A.C.

A.C. (2008). The competitive imperative of learning. Harvard Business Review, 86 (7/8), 60–67.

23.

Edmondson

A.C.

, Bohmer

R.M.

, & Pisano

G.P.

(2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals, Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 685–716, doi: 10.2307/3094828

24.

Edmondson

A.C.

, Dillon

J.R.

, & Roloff

K.S.

(2007). Three perspectives on team learning: Outcome improvement, task mastery, and group process. Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 269–314. doi: 10.1080/078559811

25.

Engeström

, Engeström

, & Kärkkäinen

(1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and instruction, 5(4), 319–336. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(95)00021-6

26.

Gallagher

S.J.

, Tonette

S.R.

, & Hilary

(2007). A phenomenological study of spirituality and learning processes at work: Exploring the holistic theory of knowledge and learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(4), 457–480.

27.

Gardner

W.L.

, Avolio

B.J.

, Luthans

, May

D.R.

, & Walumba

F.O.

(2005). Can you see the real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343–372. doi: 10.1016/ j.leaqua.2005.03.003

28.

Gelfand

M.J.

, Leslie

L.M.

, & Fehr

(2008). To prosper, organizational psychology should adopt a global perspective, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(4), 493–517. doi: 10.1002/job.530

29.

Gupta

R.K.

(1996). Is there a place for the sacred in organizations and their development. Journal of Human Values, 2(2), 149–158.

30.

Hackman

J.R.

(1987). The design of work teams. In Lorsch

(Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

31.

Hunton

J.E.

, & Price

K.H.

(1997) Effects of the user participation process and task meaningfulness on key information system outcomes. Management Science, 43(6), 797–812.

32.

Jurkiewicz

C.L.

, & Giacalone

R.A.

(2004). A value framework for measuring the impact of workplace spirituality on organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(2), 129–142. doi: 10.1023/B:BUSI.00000 15843.22195.b9

33.

Kirkman

B.L.

, & Rosen

(1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58–74. doi: 10.2307/256874

34.

Kolodinsky

, Giacalone

, & Jurkiewicz

(2008). Workplace values and outcomes: Exploring personal, organizational, and interactive workplace spirituality. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 465–480. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9507-0

35.

Kozlowski

S.W.J.

, and Klein

K. J.

2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In Klein

K. J.

and Kozlowski

S.W.J.

(Eds), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions (pp. 3−90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

36.

Marsick

V.J.

, & Watkins

K.E.

2003, Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning culture: The dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 127–132. doi: 10.1177/1523422303251341

37.

Matsuo

(2012). Leadership of learning and reflective practice: An exploratory study of nursing managers. Management Learning, 43(5), 609–623. doi: 10.1177/1350507612440413

38.

McCormick

D.W.

(1994). Spirituality and management. Journal of Management Psychology, 9(6), 5–8.

39.

Miller

D.W.

, & Ewest

(2013). The present state of workplace spirituality: A literature review considering context, theory, and measurement/assessment. Journal of Religious & Theological Information, 12(1/2), 29–54.

40.

Myers

(1993). A trial for Dmitri Karamazov. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 71–72.

41.

Nishii

L.H.

, & Rich

R.E.

(2014). Creating inclusive climates in diverse organizations. In Ferdman

& Deane

(Eds), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 205–228). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

42.

Oxford Dict. (2015). Definition of Dharma in English from Oxford Dictionary. Retrieved 25 July 2015, from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dharma

43.

Pandey

, Gupta

R.K.

, & Arora

A.P.

(2009). Spiritual climate of business organizations and its impact on customers’ experience. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2), 313–332.

44.

Pawar

B.S.

(2008). Two approaches to workplace spirituality facilitation: A comparison and implications. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 89(6), 544–567. doi: 10.1108/01437730810894195

45.

Petchsawang

, & Duchon

(2012). Workplace spirituality, meditation, and work performance. Journal of Management, Spirituality, & Religion, 9(2), 189–208. doi: 10.1080/14766086.2012.688623

46.

Radhakrishnan

(2009). The Bhagwadgita (27th Impression). New Delhi, India: HarperCollins.

47.

Ramnarayan

(1996). Measuring organizational learning capability in Indian managers and establishing firm performance linkage: An empirical analysis. The Learning Organization, 13(5), 416–433.

48.

Rastogi

, & Pati

S.P.

(2014). Towards a conceptualization of Karma Yoga (pp. 1–27). Second Pan IIM World Management Conference, IIM Kozhikode.

49.

Rousseau

D.M.

(1988). The construction of climate in organization research. In Cooper

C.L.

& Robertson

I.T.

(Eds), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 139–159). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

50.

Ruiz-Quintanilla

S.A.

, & England

G.W.

(1996). How working is defined: Structure and stability. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 515–540.

51.

Rubin

, & Babbie

E.R.

(2001). Research method for social work (4th Ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth, Inc.

52.

Schneider

(2000). The psychological life of organizations. In Ashkanasy

N.M.

, Wilderon

C.P.M.

& Peterson

M.F.

(Eds), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 17–21). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

53.

Sebastian

C.D.

(2003). The essential teachings of Bhagavad Gita. Jnanatirtha: International Journal of Sacred Scriptures, 3(2), 193–203.

54.

Sharma

(1999). Corporate Gita: Lessons for Management. Administration and Leadership. Journal of Human Values, 5(2).

55.

Sharma

(2002). Corporate rishi leadership model: An Indian model for corporate development & ethical leadership. In Pareek

Udai

, Osman-Gani

Aahad M.

, Ramanarayan

& Rao

T.V.

(Eds), Human resource development in Asia: Trends & challenges (pp. 291–296). New Delhi: Oxford & IBH.

56.

Sheep

M.L.

(2004). Nailing down gossamer: A valid measure of the person–organization fit of workplace spirituality (pp. B1–B6). Best Paper Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management.

57.

Shernoff

D.J.

, Csikszentmihalyi

, Schneider

, & Shernoff

E.S.

(2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158–176.

58.

Suda

J.P.

(1970). Dharma: Its nature and role in ancient India. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 31(4), 356–366.

59.

Tilak

B.G.

(1915). Shrimad Bhagavad Gita rahasya (26th ed.). Pune: Tilak Brothers.

60.

Tisdell

E.J.

(2008). Spirituality and adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 119(119), 27–36. doi: 10.1002/ace.303

61.

Vinzi

V.E.

, Trinchera

, & Amato

(2010). PLS path modeling: From foundations to recent developments and open issues for model assessment and improvement. In Vinzi

Esposito

. (Eds), Handbook of partial least squares (Springer handbooks of computational statistics) (pp. 171–193). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.