Introduction
This paper is based on findings related to one core category in an Australian constructivist grounded theory study that aimed to explore how participants experienced spirituality in the workplace. A total of 40 professionals and/or managers were interviewed from a variety of organisational contexts. Analysis of the data revealed that spiritual self-disclosure and judgments about its risks and benefits, was a critical mechanism for understanding how individuals experience spirituality in Australian organisations. The findings suggest that in the workplace experience of participants, spiritual self-disclosure was largely regarded as taboo. Identified risks of spiritual self-disclosure included, property damage, resignations, dismissal, abusive emails, co-worker aggression, repugnance, shunning and ridicule, often communicated through hostile humour. These risks are all captured in the concept of being on the outer, a metaphor denoting marginalisation and stigma from the social, cultural and spiritual identity of the organisation. Spiritual self-disclosure was perceived as more likely to occur in ‘safe’, inclusive organisational cultures where hurt and rejection were not tolerated. The author concludes that spirituality can be stigmatising in the workplace and operates in ways similar to disclosure about other personal aspects of identity.
Self-Disclosure: The Broad Terrain
Self-disclosure is a concept that acknowledges the power of words; when to speak them and when it seems wiser, not to. It is the principle way individuals communicate personal information about themselves to others but making decisions about what, how much and to whom information is shared is a complex process that merits careful consideration. This paper begins by drawing on the broad terrain of the literature to explain the nature of self-disclosure, the potential risks and benefits involved and finally, to explore the concept of spiritual self-disclosure as an issue of relevance to managers.
Social scientists (Tardy & Dindia, Reference Tardy and Dindia2006: 229; Gordon, Reference Gordon2011: 72) have pursued this line of enquiry since seminal work brought it into academic focus half a century ago (Jourard & Lasakow, Reference Jourard and Lasakow1958; Jourard, Reference Jourard1971; Cozby, Reference Cozby1972; Chelune et al., Reference Chelune, Archer, Kleinke, Rosenfeld, Civikly, Herron, Taylor, Derlega, Grzelak, Doster, Nesbitt and Waterman1979). Self-disclosure has primarily been explored as a communication issue (see, Hargie, Dickson, Mallett, & Stringer, Reference Hargie, Dickson, Mallet and Stringer2008; Chen & Nakazawa, Reference Chen and Nakazawa2009; Croucher, Faulkner, & Long, Reference Croucher, Faulkner and Long2010; Diverniero & Hosek, Reference Diverniero and Hosek2011; Jiang, Bazarova, & Hancock, Reference Jiang, Bazarova and Hancock2011; Tian, Reference Tian2011) but has also attracted interest in a variety of other disciplines including psychotherapy and social psychology (see, Jourard & Lakasow, Reference Jourard and Lasakow1958; Jourard, Reference Jourard1971; Chelune et al., Reference Chelune, Archer, Kleinke, Rosenfeld, Civikly, Herron, Taylor, Derlega, Grzelak, Doster, Nesbitt and Waterman1979: 2; Doster & Nesbitt, Reference Doster and Nesbitt1979; Kelly & McKillop, Reference Kelly and McKillop1996; Petronio, Reeder, Hecht, & Ros-Mendoza, Reference Petronio, Reeder, Hecht and Ros-Mendoza1996; Omarzu, Reference Omarzu2000; Antaki, Barnes, & Leudar, Reference Antaki, Barnes and Leudar2005; Derlega, Winstead, Mathews & Braitman, Reference Derlega, Winstead, Mathews and Braitman2008: 115; Gelso & Palma, Reference Gelso and Palma2011). The underlying assumption of works from psychology and psychotherapy has been that self-disclosure is healthy or therapeutic and that repressing personal feelings is not (Antaki, Barnes, & Leudar, Reference Antaki, Barnes and Leudar2005; Pasupathi, McLean, & Weeks, Reference Pasupathi, McLean and Weeks2009: 92). Despite some work that has begun to explore the role of self-disclosure in organisational settings (Tardy & Dindia, Reference Tardy and Dindia2006; Dalgin & Bellini, Reference Dalgin and Bellini2008; Ragins, Reference Ragins2008; Phillips, Rothbard, & Dumas, Reference Phillips, Rothbard and Dumas2009; Gordon, Reference Gordon2011: 72) self-disclosure in the context of the workplace remains under researched (Maij-de Meij, Kelderman, & van der Flier, Reference Maij-de Meij, Kelderman and van der Flier2005).
Some basic understandings about self-disclosure have been consistently upheld. Early studies established that it involves revealing personal information, not otherwise generally known (Jourard, Reference Jourard1971; Chelune et al., Reference Chelune, Archer, Kleinke, Rosenfeld, Civikly, Herron, Taylor, Derlega, Grzelak, Doster, Nesbitt and Waterman1979; Croucher, Faulkner, & Long, Reference Croucher, Faulkner and Long2010: 31) using the first person singular pronoun (I) (Derlega & Grzelak, Reference Derlega and Grzelak1979: 152). Self-disclosure focusses on inter-personal interaction so intra-personal reflections such as writing a personal diary, for example, do not constitute self-disclosure (Omarzu, Reference Omarzu2000: 175; Croucher, Faulkner, & Long, Reference Croucher, Faulkner and Long2010: 31). Self-disclosure is also generally regarded as a complex process (Farber, Reference Farber2006; Tardy & Dindia, Reference Tardy and Dindia2006: 229) that occurs on an intentional, discretionary/voluntary basis (Chelune et al., Reference Chelune, Archer, Kleinke, Rosenfeld, Civikly, Herron, Taylor, Derlega, Grzelak, Doster, Nesbitt and Waterman1979; Rosenfeld, Civikly, & Herron, Reference Rosenfeld, Civikly and Herron1979: 80; Hargie, Saunders, & Dickson, Reference Hargie, Saunders and Dickson1994; Omarzu, Reference Omarzu2000). Self-disclosed information can be about feelings, experiences, facts (Tardy & Dindia, Reference Tardy and Dindia2006: 231; Croucher, Faulkner, & Long, Reference Croucher, Faulkner and Long2010: 31) or indeed falsity (Hargie, Saunders, & Dickson, Reference Hargie, Saunders and Dickson1994: 226). Mood (Tardy & Dindia, Reference Tardy and Dindia2006: 229), personality (Jourard, Reference Jourard1971; Chaikin & Derlaga, Reference Chaikin and Derlaga1974), previous experiences of discrimination following self-disclosure (Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell, Reference Ragins, Singh and Cornwell2007: 1107), risk aversion (Chelune et al., Reference Chelune, Archer, Kleinke, Rosenfeld, Civikly, Herron, Taylor, Derlega, Grzelak, Doster, Nesbitt and Waterman1979: 6; Clair, Beatty, & Maclean, Reference Clair, Beatty and Maclean2005: 88), the need for social approval, loneliness (Omarzu, Reference Omarzu2000) or social anxiety (Tian, Reference Tian2011) can influence the nature and extent of self-disclosure.
Socially orientated research tends to pursue questions about whether individuals are more likely to disclose to certain types of people or whether some groups disclose more than others (Rosenfeld, Civikly, & Herron, Reference Rosenfeld, Civikly and Herron1979: 81). These studies have revealed that attraction (Archer, Reference Archer1979: 42; Hargie et al., Reference Hargie, Dickson, Mallet and Stringer2008: 799) and common interests (Derlega et al., Reference Derlega, Winstead, Mathews and Braitman2008: 122) also play a part in decision-making around self-disclosure. Although associations between culture and self-disclosure have not been explored extensively, researchers appear to concur that culture does influence the way individuals and groups approach disclosure (Jourard & Lasakow, Reference Jourard and Lasakow1958; Jourard, Reference Jourard1971; Derlega & Grzelak, Reference Derlega and Grzelak1979: 152; Diaz-Peralta Horenstein & Downey, Reference Diaz-Peralta Horenstein and Downey2003; Chen & Nakazawa, Reference Chen and Nakazawa2009: 78). Social scientists, more recently, have also begun to consider how social software and computer-mediated communication influences self-disclosure (see, Diverniero & Hosek, Reference Diverniero and Hosek2011; Jiang, Bazarova, & Hancock, Reference Jiang, Bazarova and Hancock2011; Tian, Reference Tian2011). These kinds of studies are particularly relevant as organisations become increasingly connected to global stakeholders in virtual contexts.
Some work pursues the role of disclosure in initiating, developing and maintaining human relationships (see, Chelune et al., Reference Chelune, Archer, Kleinke, Rosenfeld, Civikly, Herron, Taylor, Derlega, Grzelak, Doster, Nesbitt and Waterman1979: 16; Healey, Reference Healey1990: 19; Collins & Miller, Reference Collins and Miller1994: 470; Farber, Reference Farber2006: 12; Tardy & Dindia, Reference Tardy and Dindia2006; Chen & Nakazawa, Reference Chen and Nakazawa2009: 93). Even though individuals may self-disclose to complete strangers under certain circumstances, self-disclosure is more likely to occur between individuals who know each other well (Hargie, Saunders, & Dickson, Reference Hargie, Saunders and Dickson1994: 223; Derlega et al., Reference Derlega, Winstead, Mathews and Braitman2008: 119–120). In addition, self-disclosure strengthens social bonds because it is usually reciprocated (Jourard & Lasakow, Reference Jourard and Lasakow1958; Diaz-Peralta Horenstein & Downey, Reference Diaz-Peralta Horenstein and Downey2003) and for this reason has been associated with social exchange theory (Omarzu, Reference Omarzu2000: 176) that explores reciprocal exchange through contextual factors surrounding relationships (Thibaut & Kelley, Reference Thibaut and Kelley1959; Altman & Taylor, Reference Altman and Taylor1973: 56). Since friendships involving self-disclosure appear to enhance intrinsic motivation at work (Mao, Hsieh, & Chen, Reference Mao, Hsieh and Chen2012), there would seem to be good reasons for managers to foster environments where friendships and close relationships can flourish. However, hierarchical status will influence self-disclosure between employees (Farber, Reference Farber2006: 3; Tardy & Dindia, Reference Tardy and Dindia2006; Phillips, Rothbard, & Dumas, Reference Phillips, Rothbard and Dumas2009) because self-disclosure is perceived to be ‘safer’ amongst those of equal status or from low to high status but may be viewed as ‘risky’ by managers, concerned with losing face in disclosing to juniors (Hargie, Saunders, & Dickson, Reference Hargie, Saunders and Dickson1994: 225).
The benefits and risks of self-disclosure in the workplace
Little is known about the circumstances influencing decision-making and disclosure (Pasupathi, McLean, & Weeks, Reference Pasupathi, McLean and Weeks2009: 90) but it seems clear that even those who are not prone to naiveté or paranoia (Ragins, Reference Ragins2008: 211), make decisions about what, how and to whom they will self-disclose, largely by evaluating the likely rewards and risks (Omarzu, Reference Omarzu2000; Farber, Reference Farber2006: 1; Derlega et al., Reference Derlega, Winstead, Mathews and Braitman2008: 115; Diverniero & Hosek, Reference Diverniero and Hosek2011). When an individual decides not to self-disclose for fear of negative consequences, some have argued that he or she chooses instead to lead a double life that separates the private and the personal (Clair, Beatty, & Maclean, Reference Clair, Beatty and Maclean2005: 82) while others interpret non-disclosure as simply presenting a more limited aspect of personal identity to others (Phillips, Rothbard, & Dumas, Reference Phillips, Rothbard and Dumas2009).
Trust has also been linked to self-disclosure and intimacy (Taylor Reference Taylor1979; Healey, Reference Healey1990: 19; Myers & Johnson, Reference Myers and Johnson2004; Farber, Reference Farber2006: 12; Derlega et al., Reference Derlega, Winstead, Mathews and Braitman2008: 115). Trust relationships between in and out groups (see, Hargie et al., Reference Hargie, Dickson, Mallet and Stringer2008) influence assessments of the risks and benefits of self-disclosure. Niu and Rosenthal’s finding shows (Reference Niu and Rosenthal2009: 501) that socially dominant groups are generally trusted more than subordinate groups reveals particular risks, therefore, from the perspective of a subcultural group member. However, a discloser from a subcultural group can enjoy the benefit of feeling that they have contributed to social change by challenging existing norms (Clair, Beatty, & Maclean, Reference Clair, Beatty and Maclean2005) that have hitherto appeared to inhibit an open and inclusive environment in an organisation. Other benefits of self-disclosure include a sense of well-being, personal affirmation, renewed energy and relief from the pressure of concealment (Goffman, 1963/Reference Goffman1990; Derlega & Grzelak, Reference Derlega and Grzelak1979: 154; Taylor, Reference Taylor1979; Clair, Beatty, & Maclean, Reference Clair, Beatty and Maclean2005: 79; Ragins, Reference Ragins2008: 200).
Self-disclosure is linked to how personal identity is defined, communicated and managed but little research explains in any detail how this relationship actually operates (Omarzu, Reference Omarzu2000; Hargie et al., Reference Hargie, Dickson, Mallet and Stringer2008; King & Botsford, Reference King and Botsford2009). Some work suggests that when colleagues enjoy close relationships that facilitate self-disclosure, an employee’s sense of identity with the organisation is likely to be strengthened (Mao, Hsieh, & Chen, Reference Mao, Hsieh and Chen2012) because he or she learns about organisational values (Tardy & Dindia, Reference Tardy and Dindia2006: 245) and develops organisational commitment through shared goals and expectations (Swann, Johnston, & Bosson, Reference Swann, Johnson and Bosson2009).
Not unnaturally, individuals tend to disclose information that promotes a positive public and private image and avoid disclosures that create a negative image (Pasupathi, McLean, & Weeks, Reference Pasupathi, McLean and Weeks2009: 91–92); that individuals identify in ways that are self-enhancing is a central assumption of social identity theory (Frandsen, Reference Frandsen2012: 4) that has been applied as a theoretical lens to understand self-disclosure (see, Hargie et al., Reference Hargie, Dickson, Mallet and Stringer2008). However, deciding whether to disclose an identity at work that is not immediately apparent to colleagues but is nevertheless an important part of an employees private life can be complex, problematic and stressful (Clair, Beatty, & Maclean, Reference Clair, Beatty and Maclean2005: 78).
Stigma theory helps to explain why individuals choose to conceal devalued identities or indeed how they may ultimately decide to disclose and to whom (King & Botsford, Reference King and Botsford2009: 2). Like social identity theory, stigma theory assumes that individuals derive their self-concepts through social identification through group membership (Frandsen, Reference Frandsen2012: 4). The concept of ‘stigma’ is arguably socially constructed (Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell, Reference Ragins, Singh and Cornwell2007: 1104), like the process of self-disclosure itself (Farber, Reference Farber2006: 4). Perceived stigmas discussed in the literature include, sexuality (Rosenfeld, Civikly, & Herron, Reference Rosenfeld, Civikly and Herron1979; Petronio et al., Reference Petronio, Reeder, Hecht and Ros-Mendoza1996), invisible disabilities (Dalgin & Bellini, Reference Dalgin and Bellini2008), epilepsy (Sanjeev & Aparna, Reference Sanjeev and Aparna2011), mental illness (Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell, Reference Ragins, Singh and Cornwell2007: 1103) or in some workplace contexts, pregnancy (King & Botsford, Reference King and Botsford2009). Critical to inter-personal workplace relationships are decisions about whether, when and how to disclose a particular stigmatised identity or to ‘pass’ oneself off (referred to as ‘passing’ by Goffman, 1963/Reference Goffman1990) as embracing an identity that is presumed to be acceptable to a certain dominant group (Clair, Beatty, & Maclean, Reference Clair, Beatty and Maclean2005). Misjudgements in disclosure can be ‘risky’ and potentially damaging to workplace relationships (Phillips, Rothbard, & Dumas, Reference Phillips, Rothbard and Dumas2009), giving rise to a gamut of negative consequences. They include, being socially discounted and discredited (Goffman, 1963/Reference Goffman1990) and viewed by colleagues as ‘undesirable’, ‘deviant’, ‘repulsive’ or ‘maladjusted’ (Weisel & King, Reference Weisel and King2007; Ragins, Reference Ragins2008: 196). Inappropriate self-disclosure can lead to rejection, social isolation, physical assaults, verbal harassment, job discrimination, the loss of personal reputation, hurt feelings and arguments, all of which intensify a sense of shame and embarrassment (Tardy & Dindia, Reference Tardy and Dindia2006: 253; Derlega et al., Reference Derlega, Winstead, Mathews and Braitman2008; Ragins, Reference Ragins2008: 201). It is a matter of no surprise, therefore, that employees are cautious about disclosing a perceived social stigma (Clair, Beatty, & Maclean, Reference Clair, Beatty and Maclean2005; Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell, Reference Ragins, Singh and Cornwell2007: 1103) and will be focused rather on managing information control (King & Botsford, Reference King and Botsford2009). Some reluctance to self-disclose has to be overcome, however, by those who have a disability that is not immediately apparent to others but nevertheless requires access to necessary support from the organisation in order to carry out their work to their full potential (Derlega et al., Reference Derlega, Winstead, Mathews and Braitman2008). While physical or cognitive disabilities may give rise to seeking out this kind of support from employers, it is also relevant to individuals who practise a particular faith in a practical sense, for example, where quiet spaces are needed for prayer throughout the day.
Most individuals are aware on some level that it is not advisable (or necessary) to disclose all personal information indiscriminately at work (Farber, Reference Farber2006: 16). In situations where they suspect the potential for discrimination by colleagues, employees may well take into account the likelihood that an organisation will afford protection against discrimination when deciding to disclose a spiritual or other identity, or not (Hargie, Saunders, & Dickson, Reference Hargie, Saunders and Dickson1994; Clair, Beatty, & Maclean, Reference Clair, Beatty and Maclean2005). Employees may well make assessments about the advisability of self-disclosure by degrees, gauging whether a disclosure will be received positively or negatively (Farber, Reference Farber2006: 16; Tardy & Dindia, Reference Tardy and Dindia2006: 241; Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell, Reference Ragins, Singh and Cornwell2007: 1105; Ragins, Reference Ragins2008). For example, they may refer to a stigmatised identity casually or jokingly (Kelly & McKillop, Reference Kelly and McKillop1996: 459), or by dropping hints or leaving clues about that aspect of themselves, perhaps non-verbally (Clair, Beatty, & Maclean, Reference Clair, Beatty and Maclean2005).
Spiritual self-disclosure
The research study presented here is probably best understood in the context of spirituality in the workplace literature that encompasses a number of disciplines including management (Liu & Robertson, Reference Liu and Robertson2010). The observation of Driscoll and Wiebe (Reference Driscoll and Wiebe2007: 333) that the concept of workplace spirituality has commanded considerable attention from managers and management academics is now perhaps a cliché. Spirituality in the workplace, otherwise referred to as ‘workplace spirituality’ explores how individuals experience spirituality, sometimes felt or expressed in the literature in terms of meaning, community, connectedness or transcendence (Badrinarayan, Reference Badrinarayan2009). Spirituality, can be understood and defined in very different ways depending upon personal ontological and epistemological assumptions (Franz & Wong, Reference Franz and Wong2005: 247; Steingard, Reference Steingard2005) but for the purpose of this paper, spirituality is conceptualised as an individually constructed, unsystematised and private experience (see, Speck, Reference Speck2005; Houston & Sokolow, Reference Houston and Sokolow2006) as distinguished from religion as an institutionalised, public process that draws on sacred texts (such as the Bible, the Torah, the Quran), rituals and practices (see, Crossman, Reference Crossman2003: 504; Lazar, Reference Lazar2009; Aburdene, Reference Aburdene2010). Other authors have explored the interpretations of concepts like spirituality and religion and their relation to one another in more detail, some that are consistent with the definition in this paper, cited above and some that run counter to it. For example, further discussion may be found in Mandhouj, Aubin, Amirouche, Perroud, and Huguelet (Reference Mandhouj, Aubin, Amirouche, Perroud and Huguelet2014); Houston and Sokolow (Reference Houston and Sokolow2006); Speck (Reference Speck2005) and Worthington, Hook, Davis, and McDaniel (Reference Worthington, Hook and McDaniel2011).
The term, ‘spirituality’ has been adopted throughout this paper to denote a broad and inclusive concept that encompasses religion. Specific references to a particular religion will be made where context and analysis suggest it is necessary and relevant to do so. Thus, ‘New Age’ beliefs, tree hugging, psychometry or walking in the park at lunchtime may all be constructed as spiritual (and indeed were by participants in this study) but they do not generally have a single, commonly accepted, sacred text that guides rituals associated with those activities or experiences.
The lion’s share of empirical and conceptual papers on workplace spirituality have been generated in the United States with far fewer studies having been undertaken in Australia (Bell, Rajendran, & Theiler, Reference Bell, Rajendran and Theiler2012: 68). It has long since been established that spirituality, including religious belief, is intertwined with culture and research tends to support the view that self-disclosure is not universal among religious groups and cultures (Jourard, Reference Jourard1971: 53; Altman & Taylor, Reference Altman and Taylor1973: 31; Croucher, Faulkner, & Long, Reference Croucher, Faulkner and Long2010). Thus, it seems likely that spiritual self-disclosure and how it is experienced and managed in North American and Canadian workplaces may differ in some way from how it is experienced and managed in Australia.
As discussed, much work has been conducted in the area of disclosure more generally with very little occurring specifically in spiritual self-disclosure, described by Bobkowsi and Kalyanaraman (Reference Bobkowsi and Kalyanaraman2010: 457) as a ‘distinct disclosure category’. For this reason, the findings about spiritual self-disclosure discussed in this paper respond to a perceived gap in the literature. Some evidence suggests similarities in the nature, benefits and risks of spiritual self-disclosure with other self-disclosure contexts. For example, the benefit of experiencing a feeling of authenticity and honesty is noted in relation to spiritual self-disclosure (Healey, Reference Healey1990: 23) just as it has elsewhere in disclosure literature (see, Farber, Reference Farber2006: 13). Non-disclosure of personal spiritual belief at work may also give rise to some discomfort just as it does with other invisible aspects of personal identity (see, Clair, Beatty, & Maclean, Reference Clair, Beatty and Maclean2005: 82; Ragins, Reference Ragins2008; Phillips, Rothbard, & Dumas, Reference Phillips, Rothbard and Dumas2009). Croucher, Faulkner, and Long’s (Reference Croucher, Faulkner and Long2010: 30) assertion that self-disclosure and spiritual belief is critically connected to social identity also resonates with the literature on disclosure and identity referred to earlier in this paper. Finally, spiritual self-disclosure has also, in a limited way, been associated with stigma (Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell, Reference Ragins, Singh and Cornwell2007: 1103).
If indeed the management of religious diversity has become ‘one of the defining problems of the 20th century’ (Bouma, Reference Bouma1999: 283) then consideration of the broader concept of spiritual diversity is arguably all the more complex. As a result of globalisation, managers in contemporary organisations commonly recruit from highly diverse labour markets (Crossman & Clarke, Reference Crossman and Clarke2009). For this reason, they will need to navigate the territory of spiritual diversity with sensitivity where individuals from a variety of traditions work together (Delbecq, Reference Delbecq2005) and where according to the principle of homophily, spiritual like-mindedness and difference may influence how spiritual disclosure is likely to be received by colleagues (Bobkowsi & Kalyanaraman, Reference Bobkowsi and Kalyanaraman2010).
Although the dissimilar expression of religious beliefs can negatively impact cooperation between team members (Swan, Johnson, & Bosson, Reference Swann, Johnson and Bosson2009: 98), being sensitive to spiritual diversity should not suggest that repressing spiritual disclosure is advisable. When individuals resist disclosure at work, it can cultivate a culture of unhealthy hidden agendas (Canda & Furman, Reference Canda and Furman1999: xviii) and psychological strain that can impact job attitudes, performance and career outcomes (Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell, Reference Ragins, Singh and Cornwell2007: 1103–1104). In addition, although employees may be inclined to suppress revealing information that identifies them as potentially at variance with the organisational culture and norms, the less they feel the need to do this, the more positive they are likely to feel about an organisation (King, Bell, & Lawrence, Reference King, Bell and Lawrence2009: 47). Thus, fostering identity congruence by recruiting those with identities that match the values, beliefs and assumptions of the organisation (Swan, Johnson, & Bosson, Reference Swann, Johnson and Bosson2009) is unlikely to reap some of the benefits associated with diversity.
Managers and other professionals need to understand both the risks and the benefits of spiritual self-disclosure and how to cultivate environments where any positive outcomes can be gained. Reaping the benefits of diversity in terms of group performance cannot occur unless the ways in which individuals are diverse are disclosed. The manager’s role in facilitating an organisational culture of intimacy and trust, where disclosure is more likely to take place, is therefore crucial (Clair, Beatty, & Maclean, Reference Clair, Beatty and Maclean2005: 90). In addition, since self-disclosure tends to elicit reciprocated disclosure (Jourard & Lasakow, Reference Jourard and Lasakow1958; Collins & Miller, Reference Collins and Miller1994: 457; Omarzu, Reference Omarzu2000: 176; Tardy & Dindia, Reference Tardy and Dindia2006: 230), the spiritually self-disclosing manager may learn more about a subordinate’s values, provided that the hierarchical factors in disclosure, referred to earlier in the paper, are considered carefully.
Methodology
The broad aim of the study was to explore how spiritual issues manifested in the workplace experience of participating managers and professionals. Constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, Reference Charmaz2000) was selected as an appropriate methodology because it enables researchers, through an interpretive paradigm, to engage with the lived and subjective experiences of individuals and the meanings they bring to them (Lincoln & Guba, Reference Lincoln and Guba1985; Patton, Reference Patton2002; Charmaz, Reference Charmaz2006; Hatch & Yanow, Reference Hatch and Yanow2008; Merrigan & Huston Reference Merrigan and Huston2009). In addition, since very little empirical research about workplace spirituality has been conducted in Australia (Bell, Rajendran, & Theiler, Reference Bell, Rajendran and Theiler2012: 68) or elsewhere, according to Benefiel (Reference Benefiel2010), the capacity of constructivist grounded theory to break new ground in how concepts and relationships are constructed suggested its serviceability. Data was analysed using constant comparative analysis, an integral feature of grounded theory that generates concepts categories and properties as outcomes (Glaser & Strauss, Reference Glaser and Strauss1967; Bryman, Reference Bryman2004; Charmaz, Reference Charmaz2006).
The study adopted purposeful sampling, commonly used in qualitative research (Bryman, Reference Bryman2004) and a snowballing technique (Patton, Reference Patton2002) that enabled recruitment to occur by capitalising on the networks of participants. Criteria for being included in the study were that participants had to be over 18 and in professional and/or managerial roles. Thus, blue collar workers were excluded.
A total of 40 managers and professionals operating in a range of contexts, including the law, publishing, the military, mining, public service, the arts, aged care, banking, the media, the wine industry, medicine and healthcare, participated in the study. The relevant university ethics committee approved the design and protocols of the study; 10% were aged between 18 and 29 years, 42.5% were aged between 30 and 45 years, 22.5% were aged between 46 and 64 years and 10% were aged 65 years or more. In all, 57.5% were males and 42.5% were females. Demographic data on ethnicity and religion were not collected. Participants were asked in the interviews to explain what spirituality meant to them as individuals and very few specified a religious affiliation as a single, exclusive expression of their spiritual beliefs.
Data were collected from in-depth face-to-face, semi-structured, recorded and transcribed interviews lasting about an hour by the researcher and author of this paper. Using an interview guide, questions explored (1) the way in which participants constructed spirituality personally, (2) any ways in which they brought those personal spiritual constructions to the workplace experience, (3) how spiritual issues manifested in the workplace and (4) how they were managed.
The analysis identified spiritual self-disclosure as a core category. Properties and concepts underpinning the core category included, the concept of ‘taboo’, artefacts, constructions of risks and benefits of self-disclosure, characteristics of spiritually inclusive organisations, fitting in to an organisation, Being on the outer of an organisation (including stigma), evangelism and testing the water, a construct around making assessments of the advisability of self-disclosure. The relationships between these concepts and properties were refined until they formed the basis of the following findings, summarised in the first paragraph of the next section.
Findings and Discussion
In summary, the findings suggested that in the workplace experience of participants, spiritual self-disclosure was unusual and indeed religion was largely perceived as taboo. ‘Safe’, inclusive organisational cultures were perceived as those most conducive to spiritual self-disclosure. However, it was clear that spiritual self-disclosure presented a number of perceived risks including, property damage, resignations, dismissal, abusive emails, co-worker repugnance, shunning and ridicule, often through hostile humour. These risks become intensified when individuals were regarded as evangelical and can be captured in the concept of being on the outer, denoting marginalisation and stigma where individuals are viewed as a poor ‘fit’ with an organisational culture. Given the risks involved, employees tend to adopt strategies to test the waters that involved making assessments about how spiritual self-disclosure might be received, based on progressive levels of disclosure on a continuum from little personal ownership of highly general remarks to highly personalised disclosure where the pronoun ‘I’ is adopted. These findings will now be discussed in more detail, drawing on existing literature and in vivo data (in quotation marks) to inform the discussion.
Being on the outer
Analysis of the data revealed that spiritual self-disclosure was rare in the workplace experiences of participants. In other words, participants themselves did not often speak about their spiritual beliefs and observed that it was also unusual for others in their workplace to share this information. Illustrative remarks included ‘I don’t hear spirituality referred to ever …’, ‘I have never heard anyone talk about their beliefs’, ‘Talking about spirituality is not encouraged’, and ‘No. Very, very, rarely … you probably wouldn’t bring [spirituality] up directly in the workplace’. Indeed, spirituality was frequently referred to as a workplace ‘taboo’, rationalised on the basis of the perceived secularity of the Australian culture where its people shun the spiritually ‘profound’ having ‘drifted’ away from religion and become ‘embarrassed by it’.
The concept of taboo tended to be raised in relation to religion rather more than to other forms of spirituality broadly associated with well-being or perceived exoticism, resonating with other recent findings (Liu & Robertson, Reference Liu and Robertson2010: 35). For example, a senior publishing manager noted that while religion may not be discussed, topics like meditation and yoga, as ways of dealing with workplace stress, were viewed as acceptable in his organisation. Similarly, Ana explained how the topic of religion was rarely raised at the radio station where she worked but the spiritual experiences of someone who went ‘away for 12 months and [returned] with long hair and started eating tofu instead of chicken’ would be.
Given a prevailing perception of taboo around spirituality, including religion, self-disclosure presented some clear risks in that it had the potential to identify individuals whose values were not entirely consistent with participant perceptions of those of the organisational culture where they worked. This process was encapsulated by one senior manager as being ‘on the outer’ or elsewhere in the data simply as ‘being different’. Being on the outer could refer to (1) being spiritual in a secular environment, (2) being secular/agnostic/atheist in a spiritual or religious environment, or (3) being spiritual in ways most colleagues are not. Lianne, for example, felt a little ‘uncomfortable’ as a non-Christian in a workplace where ‘the management all knew each other [from church]’ and as a result, said very little to colleagues about her own more eclectic spiritual beliefs. Another participant referred to how she felt about spiritual self-disclosure as a non-Christian working in a Christian non-government organisation:
I didn’t overtly say, ‘I am not Christian’ but I didn’t say that I was either, as I am not but I didn’t want to say that I wasn’t … all the values were very Christian and basically I wouldn’t fit in or belong working there because if you are not Christian then what are you? You must be the devil!
Paul also recalled how uncomfortable he felt about being an atheist in a Christian professional context and how it influenced his decision-making with regard to self-disclosure:
… it took a long time before I was able to come out of the closet on that question [his atheism] at X College … as a Board member, you were expected to participate in the spiritual life and I felt really uncomfortable … because I couldn’t participate with any genuine … it just wasn’t there with me even though … I liked the people.
Some years later, Paul moved on to an ‘environment where … religion would be almost totally absent’ and it was here that he felt his atheism would not be an issue since others shared his view. He commented, ‘… in the last few years, I have been unafraid to say …, ‘I have the views of an atheist’.’ Thus, Paul had moved from operating as someone on the spiritual ‘outer’, fearful about disclosing his atheism, to a context where, by virtue of sharing the values of the dominant group, he could feel comfortable about disclosing his non-belief. Spiritual self-disclosure, therefore, tended to occur where an individual’s identity and values were largely consistent with the dominant culture of the organisation.
Identifying others with the same perceived stigma can lead to disclosure, personal affirmation and support (Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell, Reference Ragins, Singh and Cornwell2007: 1106). Finding like-minded colleagues as members of organisational value subcultures where spiritual self-disclosure presented fewer risks and more opportunities for identification, was important for those who might otherwise feel marginalised. James, for example, interpreted the behaviour of a colleague who placed spiritual leaflets in staff mail boxes as a way of seeking out ‘someone else [to] agree with his ideas [in order to] make him feel more [part] of a community or able to relate to people on the same issue …’. Others adopted more cautious, discriminating strategies to identify spiritually like-minded colleagues or supportive subcultures. As Gillian suggested, ‘You have to find someone to connect with who has the same values, who thinks the same way, so you can talk about these things’. Georgina too explained that while like-minded Christians in the military may share perspectives about Christ or the Bible with known members of that subculture, spiritual self-disclosure would ‘not openly’ occur beyond it, within the wider organisation.
When an individual employee’s spiritual beliefs and identity does become ‘an issue’ that places him or her on the outer, it can be framed essentially as a conflict between personal identity and the identity of an organisation or profession. When Suki believed that if she spoke about her beliefs as a Christian at work, ‘[p]eople would think that [she was] weird’, she was illustrating a conflict between her spiritual identity and the workplace culture. A similar conflict arose in an account describing how uncomfortable a Mormon employee felt in being expected to participate in a colleague’s birthday celebration at work.
The risks of spiritual self-disclosure
Spiritual self-disclosure can expose individuals to a range of risks or potential consequences. Perceived risks, based on self-reported experiences and observations included property damage, resignation, dismissal, abusive emails, co-worker repugnance or shunning, costly legal cases and damage to career progression through management and co-worker ‘bias’, ‘ridicule’, ‘prejudice’, ‘baggage’, ‘stereotyping’ and ‘preconceived ideas’. Attracting ‘ridicule’ or being ‘mocked’ was invariably associated in the data with negative humour. Negative or ‘hostile’ humour, according to Weinstein, Hodgins, and Ostvic-White (Reference Weinstein, Hodgins and Ostvik-White2011) refers to statements intending to cause severe social censure, expressed indirectly and subtly because doing so is more socially acceptable than outright aggression. The finding that attracting negative humour may present a risk for the spiritual self-discloser has not been identified elsewhere in the literature although some work has been undertaken in the relationship between spirituality and humour more generally (e.g., Johnson, Reference Johnson2002; Saroglov, Reference Saroglov2004).
Illustrations of hostile humour ran through the data. Georgina, for example, described her own experience, ‘The little comments … Don’t tell Georgina! She is a Christian! … a ‘bible basher’. Louise felt that ‘born again’ Christians were perceived as ‘a joke’, generating laughter in the office. Perpetrators of hostile humour assumed their views were shared amongst group members. Repeated references to hostile humour as joking, ‘behind the backs’ of spiritual groups suggested that hostile humour was a semi-covert activity, where the target is excluded, operating on the outer. Determining who is an insider or on the outer is crucial to the functioning of negative humour. However, since spiritual belief is not physically observable, misjudgements could occur so that what might be assumed to be a shared joke amongst like-minded individuals may not prove to be so. Juhaini recalled disclosing that she was a Muslim in a meeting where staff were ‘having a bit of a laugh’ about Islam. She noted that those present became ‘embarrassed’ and a little ‘scared’ by the potential ramifications of their ‘inappropriate’ comments and the assumption that ‘no one there was a Muslim’.
For James, it is the responsibility of managers to ensure that spiritual self-disclosure did not give rise to a workplace culture where ‘talking … behind other people’s backs’ was tolerated. When an employee was ‘push[ed] over the edge’ and resigned as a result of negative humour around a spiritual self-disclosure, the organisation faced all the costs associated with advertising, rehiring and training, for example. Even after these expenses, in his view, there were no guarantees that ‘new people with new values [wouldn’t] cause other problems with people [in the organisation]’ so the issue of spiritual diversity was perceived to require sustainable solutions.
Thus, misjudgements even for ‘insiders’ could lead to negative consequences where insensitive remarks disclosed dark prejudices. The consequences of ill-considered remarks of a spiritual nature could be severe:
A joke email … got sent around- like a chain email at work and it was … a bit offensive and there were some swear words and some using the Lord’s name in vain … the girl that sent it around actually got fired for it last week … My senior manager, she mentioned that we have some Catholics here and this didn’t sit very well at all and they were very upset about it.
From a management perspective, the need for sensitivity around spiritual beliefs and the potential for discrimination was also tied to concern about the possibility of costly, legal cases. In the view of one publishing executive, legislation around discrimination had led to workplaces becoming more conscientious about spiritual discrimination than society as a whole:
…intolerance; I mean it exists in society but in workplaces people are very wary … it can’t be tying it back to something like race or religion...if somebody found out that people thought negatively of them because of their race or their sexuality or their spirituality, you know, it is kind of a law case … I think now workplaces are more tolerant than societies as a whole … and I think a lot of that is the government legislation.
Data suggested that spiritual self-disclosure also risked damaging a professional or personal reputation and inter-personal relationships particularly if an individual was perceived to be dogmatic or evangelical:
I don’t want to be seen as preaching my religious belief system … because I’m a director. You don’t want a, ‘oh the director said I should go to his church’, you know. You’d never want that sort of comment made about you … So I try [not to be] overtly spiritual in the workplace.
Religious evangelism, described by Lips-Wiersma, Lund Dean, and Fornaciari (Reference Lips-Wiersma, Lund Dean and Fornaciari2009) as the ‘dark side’ of spirituality in the workplace, was considered ‘unacceptable’ in participant experiences of Australian workplaces. Moses opined, ‘I think … Australians are … sceptical of overt religion or being converted’ and Suki suspected that if she had ever tried ‘to convert people’ she would have been asked to go ‘for counselling’, suggesting an assumption that evangelism can be pathologised as a form of mental instability in some organisational cultures. Margaret’s account clearly communicated a collective disgust directed towards a colleague perceived as evangelical:
He was not liked because he was just so pushy and tried to flog stuff [his spiritual beliefs] the whole time, so he ended up leaving. So everybody thought that was so distasteful … if anybody mention[ed] his name, then everybody would go, ‘oh no!’- the horror of this person who was evangelical …
Where the dominating culture is not perceived to be conducive to spiritual self-disclosure, an individual may well draw on non-spiritual aspects of identity in order to connect with colleagues such as a pride in being Australian, or a love of sport. Although the law may protect individuals from having to disclose personal information not otherwise evident to others (Tardy & Dindia, Reference Tardy and Dindia2006: 246) some disclosure is, however, necessary to access accommodations such as responding to certain dietary requirements, providing prayer rooms and breaks or single hotel rooms when working away, to ensure privacy for early morning prayer.
Testing the water
Given the sensitivities surrounding spiritual self-disclosure, gauging when and to whom to disclose and to what extent, is critical. Testing the water is an analytical construct pertaining to employee assessments about the advisability of spiritual self-disclosure, based on progressive levels of disclosure from making general, non-committal, ambiguous remarks on spirituality involving little ownership or risk to highly personalised ones where the pronoun ‘I’ is adopted.
The metaphorical construct, testing the water is illustrated well by a logistics manager, who observed the strategy being used by a spiritual colleague:
Yeah … He was very subtle about it … Just testing the waters … then building up with people that didn’t knock him down from the start.
Testing the water might involve casual references to participating in religious services and community activities or making ambiguous remarks at work such as, ‘By God’s grace, I have good health’ that may or may not indicate religious faith. Thomas too recognises the caution inherent in a colleague’s reluctance to take ownership of his beliefs by saying, ‘I spiritually think this or that’. Thus, although Derlega and Grzelak (Reference Derlega and Grzelak1979) argued that the pronoun ‘I’ must be present for an activity to be defined as self-disclosure, general discussions in the third person clearly do play a part in spiritual self-disclosure as a process. While, testing the water as a strategy has also been identified in the process of revealing personal secrets (Kelly & McKillop, Reference Kelly and McKillop1996: 459) and in work around stigmatised identities (Goffman, 1963/Reference Goffman1990; Hargie, Saunders, & Dickson, Reference Hargie, Saunders and Dickson1994), no work has been identified that specifically links the concept to spiritual self-disclosure in the workplace.
This paper has highlighted how misjudgements in spiritual self-disclosure could give rise to a range of negative consequences and some strategies employees use in exercising caution in the process. It is only in ‘safe’ and ‘inclusive’ environments, however, that the potential benefits of self-disclosure can be realised in workplaces. Analysis of the data in this study is consistent with the conclusions of Lips-Wiersma and Mills (Reference Lips-Wiersma and Mills2002:183) that individuals do not always feel ‘safe’ in disclosing spiritual beliefs in the workplace, fearing marginalisation. Participants in this study constructed the ‘safe’ organisation as one capable of ‘enhancing performance’ by cultivating an ‘inclusive’ environment where employees felt ‘comfortable and accepted’, ‘working together’ as ‘part of a team’ and ‘fitting in’ by fostering ‘inclusive’, ‘respectful’, ‘open-minded’ organisations. Safe organisations are, ‘free of victimisation’, ‘hurt’ and ‘rejection’.
Concluding Remarks
Based on the perspective of the participants in this study, spiritual self-disclosure is unusual in Australian workplaces and religion is largely perceived as taboo. Decision-making about disclosure is predominantly concerned with an assessment of perceived risks that appear to be powerful and divisive, potentially giving rise to co-worker conflict, repugnance and shunning or manifesting in hostile humour. Such risks become intensified when individuals are perceived as evangelical by colleagues.
Inherent in the identification of an employee being on the outer is an assumption that spirituality can represent a marginalising stigma where poor identification with the values and mores of the organisation exists. Given the risks involved, employees tended to adopt strategies to test the water, a metaphor relating to an assessment of the risks based on progressive levels of disclosure on a continuum from little personal ownership of highly general remarks to personalised spiritual disclosure where the pronoun ‘I’ is adopted.
As is common in constructivist grounded theory, the concept of being on the outer can only confidently be applied to the life experiences of participants in this study but nevertheless, the outcomes of the research suggest the value of exploring further the relationship between spiritual self-disclosure in the workplace and identity theories. Finally, analysis of the data in this study has tended to focus on negative experiences, fears and risks surrounding spiritual self-disclosure but the notion of organisational cultures that have successfully communicated ‘safe’ places where diversity flourishes, deserves further attention in order to discover more about how managers can foster these kinds of environments where disclosure, spiritual or otherwise, might present an opportunity for working together better on shared goals. As Gebert, Boerner, Kearney, King, Kai Zhang, and Song (Reference Gebert, Boerner, Kearney, King, Kai Zhang and Song2013) also recently concluded, doing so would seem to involve balancing self-expression in the spirit of respectful pluralism with an awareness of the risks that public expression of spiritual identities entails.
