Cortina, Cortina, and Cortina (Reference Cortina, Cortina and Cortina2019) have summarized the main issues facing academic institutions in balancing the right of individual expression and the need for civility in all such conversations. In this commentary, we extend their focal article to note that the issues they raise also play out in other organizations (nonacademic) and involve free expression of various forms of beliefs and not just free speech on controversial topics. Organizations and HR departments have to grapple with religious expressions (or expressions of faith) by employees. Furthermore, public organizations must be careful about organizational support of religious expressions. Unfortunately, scholarly behavioral science literature, particularly industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology literature, is mostly silent about how such expressions of faith in work contexts affect employee attitudes and behaviors.
Multiple surveys (Gallup, 2013; PEW Internet Research, 2015) have shown that for many individuals, their religion plays an important role in defining their identity. The rapid pace of workplace and societal changes have also generated high levels of uncertainty, and in the face of such uncertainty many employees find comfort in religion (Gebert et al., Reference Gebert, Boerner, Kearney, King, Zhang and Song2014; King & Williamson, Reference King and Williamson2012). Additionally, in this digital age, many employees carry work to their home and perform work-related tasks beyond the traditional 9-to-5 timeframe. The boundary between work and life blurs in many instances, and the “always-on employee” is frequently encountered (Manapragada & Viswesvaran, Reference Manapragada and Viswesvaran2018). These trends bleed into individuals’ expressions of their religious faiths, not only in the workplace, but also in work-related interactions that take place off-site.
There have been several high-profile incidents reflecting the clash between individual desire to express one’s religious beliefs and conflicting coworkers’ (or other stakeholders’) beliefs on appropriate expressions of faith. Consider the case of Kim Davis, former chief deputy clerk of Rowan County in Kentucky, who believed she was exercising her right to freedom of religion/expression by refusing to recognize marriage licenses issued to gay couples because it conflicted with her religious beliefs. As another example, consider the case of Hobby Lobby CEO David Green and Chick-fil-A President/COO Dan Cathy, who both became objects of public attention when it became known their religious identity was part and parcel of their business practices (De Vogue, Reference de Vogue2014; Jeltsen, Reference Jeltsen2012). As a final example, consider Charita D Chalmers v. Tulon Company of Richmond (1996). Here, Ms. Chalmers, a supervisor in a manufacturing plant, wrote letters to her co-workers asking them to repent for their sinful acts or face eternal judgment—an act that was considered as creating a hostile work environment for her coworkers (cf. Berg, Reference Berg1998).
Although such high-profile cases are interesting, of more concern are the (more) pervasive but micro expressions of religion that may result in perceptions of incivility and inferences of inhospitable organizational culture. In our previous research (Beane, Ponnapalli, & Viswesvaran, Reference Beane, Ponnapalli and Viswesvaran2017), we surveyed two samples of college students (N = 453 and N = 299) on what religious displays they could encounter in an organization and indicate how their rating of organizational attractiveness would change when such displays are encountered. Common displays included “wearing a cross around neck,” “religious themed wall papers,” “religious music playing on computer,” “saying amen in response to a question,” “having pictures of their graduation from a religious institution,” “son or daughter’s baptism or first communion pictures,” and so on. In this research, we found that common displays of faith at work can be broadly grouped into three categories each with its varying levels of offensiveness: visual cues (wearing a cross, having religious themed wall papers), audio cues (playing religious music, saying amen), and displays of shared experiences (baptism pictures, framed photo of a diploma from a religious institution). As these examples illustrate, many religious expressions are not as dramatic as the high-profile cases mentioned above but nevertheless may be more pervasive across organizations and can give offense to some organizational members and stakeholders (e.g., saying amen in response to a query, Hindu symbols of Holy Ash or red kumkum powder on the forehead, wearing a turban). Private organizations and their HR need to balance individual rights of expression with coworkers’ (and other stakeholders’) rights and freedom of expression. Governmental organizations have the added burden of ensuring that their members’ expressions of faith are not misconstrued as establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religious freedoms. The first amendment of the Bill of Rights states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Expressions of religion may or may not be construed to be offensive or uncivil. In the strictest sense, such displays and expressions are protected by the law of the land.
Cortina et al. (Reference Cortina, Cortina and Cortina2019) in their focal article summarize the jurisprudence of free speech in the workplace and the legal rights for individual employees to freely express their views, including religious ones. Further, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and guidelines from Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on religious nondiscrimination, although helpful to organizations in developing policies, leave many questions unanswered, so much so that it may be one reason why many US organizations either do not have a policy or fail to communicate a clear policy to their employees on religious displays (Borstorff, Reference Borstorff2011). Organizations and HR managers need to balance accommodating employee religious expression while not offending other employees (or stakeholders).
This issue of individual free expression of religious identity versus offense highlights the need for organizations to have a clearly articulated philosophical framework. The specific details of any HR policy/guideline that organizations need to communicate to their employees (Borstorff, Reference Borstorff2011) should be guided by that overarching philosophy. Basically, this overarching philosophy needs to address the “fairness” of organizational and HR policies to all stakeholders. We posit that organizations can adopt one of four general philosophies: unqualified expression, qualified expression, proportional expressions, null/zero expressions.Footnote 1
In the unqualified expression framework, organizations (and academic institutions) should allow free expressions of religious displays (all types of speech, including the “faculty j********y” mentioned in the focal article; Cortina et al., Reference Cortina, Cortina and Cortina2019, p. 373). No complaints should be entertained on emotional distress to any member of the audience (coworkers or other stakeholders). Similarly, claims of such expressions resulting in physical and material harm should not be entertained. Clearly, this is a stand that many organizations and segments of the general public are unlikely to accept.
In qualified expression, organizations and HR managers need to determine and communicate what is acceptable free expression in work settings. For religious displays, this will also depend on the power and position of the expressor (a display from a senior manager is more potent than from a junior employee), the type of organization (an American Company, a multinational corporation from China, Europe, or Japan recruiting for a US location or for a position abroad), and so on. The perceived fairness is also likely to be influenced by individual differences in openness to experience and personal views on religion (cf. King & Williamson, Reference King and Williamson2010). In short, adopting this framework will result in a constant negotiation of what is acceptable among the different stakeholders, and the contours of any guideline are likely to be dynamic over time.
Proportional expressions’ “fairness” framework would balance expressions of different faiths (e.g., if you play religious music of one faith in the cafeteria one day, another’s music will be played on another day, changing/displaying symbols for different religions on different days, etc.). This approach has the advantage of built-in multiculturalism. However, with over 4000 religions and spiritual traditions worldwide, feasibility may be an issue.
Finally, in a null/zero expressions framework, organizations can adopt a stand where all religious expressions are barred in the workplace. The trouble with this final framework will be in defining what religious expressions are. It would require a clear delineation between accommodations required by the EEOC (i.e., time off for a religious holy day, dress code exemptions, or time to pray) and social expressions (verbal, nonverbal, and so on) that are not There would also be a need for delineation between religious expression and everyday social expression (i.e., making a distinction between inviting a coworker to see a movie or to attend a prayer meeting).
Cortina et al. (Reference Cortina, Cortina and Cortina2019) provide illustrative scenarios (e.g., the uncivil job talk attendee) to provoke discussion of the conflicting demands between civility and free speech. We will conclude with this scenario. You are attending a job interview and the interviewer closes the interview with “God bless you, we will be in touch soon.” What will your reaction be? If instead of “God bless you,” the interviewer closes with “Jesus loves you,” what will your reaction be? If the interviewer closes the interview with “May Allah be with you,” what will your reaction be? Finally, in the last instance, if the interview is for a financial analyst position (located in New York) with a boutique investment firm that has a specific niche for handling investments from Middle Eastern oil tycoons, and the interview was conducted by Sheik of Abu Dhabi, what will your reaction be? Would your reaction differ from someone of the opposite sex or a different ethnicity or national origin?
You have
Access
Cortina, Cortina, and Cortina (Reference Cortina, Cortina and Cortina2019) have summarized the main issues facing academic institutions in balancing the right of individual expression and the need for civility in all such conversations. In this commentary, we extend their focal article to note that the issues they raise also play out in other organizations (nonacademic) and involve free expression of various forms of beliefs and not just free speech on controversial topics. Organizations and HR departments have to grapple with religious expressions (or expressions of faith) by employees. Furthermore, public organizations must be careful about organizational support of religious expressions. Unfortunately, scholarly behavioral science literature, particularly industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology literature, is mostly silent about how such expressions of faith in work contexts affect employee attitudes and behaviors.
Multiple surveys (Gallup, 2013; PEW Internet Research, 2015) have shown that for many individuals, their religion plays an important role in defining their identity. The rapid pace of workplace and societal changes have also generated high levels of uncertainty, and in the face of such uncertainty many employees find comfort in religion (Gebert et al., Reference Gebert, Boerner, Kearney, King, Zhang and Song2014; King & Williamson, Reference King and Williamson2012). Additionally, in this digital age, many employees carry work to their home and perform work-related tasks beyond the traditional 9-to-5 timeframe. The boundary between work and life blurs in many instances, and the “always-on employee” is frequently encountered (Manapragada & Viswesvaran, Reference Manapragada and Viswesvaran2018). These trends bleed into individuals’ expressions of their religious faiths, not only in the workplace, but also in work-related interactions that take place off-site.
There have been several high-profile incidents reflecting the clash between individual desire to express one’s religious beliefs and conflicting coworkers’ (or other stakeholders’) beliefs on appropriate expressions of faith. Consider the case of Kim Davis, former chief deputy clerk of Rowan County in Kentucky, who believed she was exercising her right to freedom of religion/expression by refusing to recognize marriage licenses issued to gay couples because it conflicted with her religious beliefs. As another example, consider the case of Hobby Lobby CEO David Green and Chick-fil-A President/COO Dan Cathy, who both became objects of public attention when it became known their religious identity was part and parcel of their business practices (De Vogue, Reference de Vogue2014; Jeltsen, Reference Jeltsen2012). As a final example, consider Charita D Chalmers v. Tulon Company of Richmond (1996). Here, Ms. Chalmers, a supervisor in a manufacturing plant, wrote letters to her co-workers asking them to repent for their sinful acts or face eternal judgment—an act that was considered as creating a hostile work environment for her coworkers (cf. Berg, Reference Berg1998).
Although such high-profile cases are interesting, of more concern are the (more) pervasive but micro expressions of religion that may result in perceptions of incivility and inferences of inhospitable organizational culture. In our previous research (Beane, Ponnapalli, & Viswesvaran, Reference Beane, Ponnapalli and Viswesvaran2017), we surveyed two samples of college students (N = 453 and N = 299) on what religious displays they could encounter in an organization and indicate how their rating of organizational attractiveness would change when such displays are encountered. Common displays included “wearing a cross around neck,” “religious themed wall papers,” “religious music playing on computer,” “saying amen in response to a question,” “having pictures of their graduation from a religious institution,” “son or daughter’s baptism or first communion pictures,” and so on. In this research, we found that common displays of faith at work can be broadly grouped into three categories each with its varying levels of offensiveness: visual cues (wearing a cross, having religious themed wall papers), audio cues (playing religious music, saying amen), and displays of shared experiences (baptism pictures, framed photo of a diploma from a religious institution). As these examples illustrate, many religious expressions are not as dramatic as the high-profile cases mentioned above but nevertheless may be more pervasive across organizations and can give offense to some organizational members and stakeholders (e.g., saying amen in response to a query, Hindu symbols of Holy Ash or red kumkum powder on the forehead, wearing a turban). Private organizations and their HR need to balance individual rights of expression with coworkers’ (and other stakeholders’) rights and freedom of expression. Governmental organizations have the added burden of ensuring that their members’ expressions of faith are not misconstrued as establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religious freedoms. The first amendment of the Bill of Rights states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Expressions of religion may or may not be construed to be offensive or uncivil. In the strictest sense, such displays and expressions are protected by the law of the land.
Cortina et al. (Reference Cortina, Cortina and Cortina2019) in their focal article summarize the jurisprudence of free speech in the workplace and the legal rights for individual employees to freely express their views, including religious ones. Further, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and guidelines from Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on religious nondiscrimination, although helpful to organizations in developing policies, leave many questions unanswered, so much so that it may be one reason why many US organizations either do not have a policy or fail to communicate a clear policy to their employees on religious displays (Borstorff, Reference Borstorff2011). Organizations and HR managers need to balance accommodating employee religious expression while not offending other employees (or stakeholders).
This issue of individual free expression of religious identity versus offense highlights the need for organizations to have a clearly articulated philosophical framework. The specific details of any HR policy/guideline that organizations need to communicate to their employees (Borstorff, Reference Borstorff2011) should be guided by that overarching philosophy. Basically, this overarching philosophy needs to address the “fairness” of organizational and HR policies to all stakeholders. We posit that organizations can adopt one of four general philosophies: unqualified expression, qualified expression, proportional expressions, null/zero expressions.Footnote 1
In the unqualified expression framework, organizations (and academic institutions) should allow free expressions of religious displays (all types of speech, including the “faculty j********y” mentioned in the focal article; Cortina et al., Reference Cortina, Cortina and Cortina2019, p. 373). No complaints should be entertained on emotional distress to any member of the audience (coworkers or other stakeholders). Similarly, claims of such expressions resulting in physical and material harm should not be entertained. Clearly, this is a stand that many organizations and segments of the general public are unlikely to accept.
In qualified expression, organizations and HR managers need to determine and communicate what is acceptable free expression in work settings. For religious displays, this will also depend on the power and position of the expressor (a display from a senior manager is more potent than from a junior employee), the type of organization (an American Company, a multinational corporation from China, Europe, or Japan recruiting for a US location or for a position abroad), and so on. The perceived fairness is also likely to be influenced by individual differences in openness to experience and personal views on religion (cf. King & Williamson, Reference King and Williamson2010). In short, adopting this framework will result in a constant negotiation of what is acceptable among the different stakeholders, and the contours of any guideline are likely to be dynamic over time.
Proportional expressions’ “fairness” framework would balance expressions of different faiths (e.g., if you play religious music of one faith in the cafeteria one day, another’s music will be played on another day, changing/displaying symbols for different religions on different days, etc.). This approach has the advantage of built-in multiculturalism. However, with over 4000 religions and spiritual traditions worldwide, feasibility may be an issue.
Finally, in a null/zero expressions framework, organizations can adopt a stand where all religious expressions are barred in the workplace. The trouble with this final framework will be in defining what religious expressions are. It would require a clear delineation between accommodations required by the EEOC (i.e., time off for a religious holy day, dress code exemptions, or time to pray) and social expressions (verbal, nonverbal, and so on) that are not There would also be a need for delineation between religious expression and everyday social expression (i.e., making a distinction between inviting a coworker to see a movie or to attend a prayer meeting).
Cortina et al. (Reference Cortina, Cortina and Cortina2019) provide illustrative scenarios (e.g., the uncivil job talk attendee) to provoke discussion of the conflicting demands between civility and free speech. We will conclude with this scenario. You are attending a job interview and the interviewer closes the interview with “God bless you, we will be in touch soon.” What will your reaction be? If instead of “God bless you,” the interviewer closes with “Jesus loves you,” what will your reaction be? If the interviewer closes the interview with “May Allah be with you,” what will your reaction be? Finally, in the last instance, if the interview is for a financial analyst position (located in New York) with a boutique investment firm that has a specific niche for handling investments from Middle Eastern oil tycoons, and the interview was conducted by Sheik of Abu Dhabi, what will your reaction be? Would your reaction differ from someone of the opposite sex or a different ethnicity or national origin?