Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion

This article was downloaded by: [Toussaint, Loren L.] On: 13 May 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 922122879] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792992301

Forgiveness and spirituality in organizational life: theory, status of research, and new ideas for discovery

Everett L. Worthington Jr. a; Chelsea L. Greer a; Joshua N. Hook a; Don E. Davis a; Aubrey L. Gartner a; David J. Jennings II a; Lucy Norton a; Daryl R. Van Tongeren a; Todd W. Greer b;Loren Toussaint c a Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA b Department of Psychology, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA, USA c Department of Psychology, Luther College, Decorah, IA, USA Online publication date: 11 May 2010

To cite this Article Worthington Jr., Everett L. , Greer, Chelsea L. , Hook, Joshua N. , Davis, Don E. , Gartner, Aubrey L. ,

Jennings II, David J. , Norton, Lucy , Van Tongeren, Daryl R. , Greer, Todd W. andToussaint, Loren(2010) 'Forgiveness and spirituality in organizational life: theory, status of research, and new ideas for discovery', Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 7: 2, 119 — 134 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/14766081003765273 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766081003765273

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion Vol. 7, No. 2, June 2010, 119–134

Forgiveness and spirituality in organizational life: theory, status of research, and new ideas for discovery Everett L. Worthington, Jr.*a, Chelsea L. Greera, Joshua N. Hooka, Don E. Davisa, Aubrey L. Gartnera, David J. Jennings, IIa, Lucy Nortona, Daryl R. Van Tongerena, Todd W. Greerb and Loren Toussaintc aDepartment bDepartment

of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA;

of Psychology, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA, USA; cDepartment of Psychology, Luther College, Decorah, IA, USA Downloaded By: [Toussaint, Loren L.] At: 22:31 13 May 2010

Journal 10.1080/14766081003765273 RMSR_A_477049.sgm 1476-6086 Original Taylor 7202010 EverettWorthington, [email protected] 00000June & and ofArticle Francis Management, (print)/1942-258X Francis 2010 Jr. Spirituality (online) and Religion

Spirituality is one’s intimacy and closeness with something beyond the self that is held to be sacred (i.e. God, humankind, nature, the cosmos). Workplace conflict and lingering resultant unforgiveness disrupt individuals’ senses of spirituality in the workplace – both in their individual lives and their sense of shared spiritual closeness. Forgiveness is one important way to restore spiritual harmony. We define forgiveness, and briefly review the literature addressing forgiveness in organizations. We also present a model of relational spirituality and forgiveness that addresses how spiritual appraisals around transgressions can help or hinder forgiving and communication around transgressions. We apply this model of spirituality and forgiveness to organizations. We conclude by noting areas of future research needed in this area. Keywords: spirituality; forgiveness; communication; reconciliation; sacred; conflict

Spirituality refers to intimacy and closeness with someone or something beyond the self that is held sacred. These sacred objects might be God (or other divine objects), humankind, nature, or the cosmos. We contend that workplace conflict and lingering resultant unforgiveness can disrupt individuals’ senses of spirituality in the workplace, both interpersonally and in perceived spiritual closeness. Thus, we suggest that forgiveness is one important method to restore spiritual harmony. Research on forgiveness gives clues about how to restore workplace harmony and a sense of spiritual similarity. Psychological research on forgiveness has flourished in recent years (for reviews, see McCullough et al. 2000; Worthington 2005, 2009). There is also a growing literature that has examined the role of forgiveness and justice within organizations (e.g. Aquino et al. 2006). However, although there has historically been a close link between religion, spirituality, and forgiveness (McCullough and Worthington 1999), there have been few efforts to organize theory and research *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] ISSN 1476-6086 print/ISSN 1942-258X online © 2010 Association of Management, Spirituality & Religion DOI: 10.1080/14766081003765273 http://www.informaworld.com

Downloaded By: [Toussaint, Loren L.] At: 22:31 13 May 2010

120

E.L. Worthington et al.

that examine the relationship between spirituality and forgiveness specifically in organizations. Religious beliefs often constitute central features of one’s worldview, which is the social cognitive lens through which an individual interprets the world. Disparate worldviews threaten one’s psychological equanimity by casting doubt on the veracity of one’s own beliefs by reminding one of viable alternative worldviews, and by providing a fundamentally distinct approach to interpreting and interacting with one’s social world. This awareness creates tension and distance between members of the workgroup, and minor past transgressions can cause offenses. Attributions can also be made partially to the offender’s religious differences. As a result, workplace spirituality suffers. Consider the following hypothetical case, which will later be analyzed in light of a model we will explicate. Louise is a theologically conservative Christian, who is highly committed to her religion and local church, and she tries to integrate her faith into virtually all aspects of her daily life. She works with Maureen, who is a Christian, and Saba, who is a Muslim. When Louise made a serious clerical error, her two officemates complained to their supervisor and Louise was subsequently punished. Louise considered the complaints to be unjust and felt that a desecration of the Sacred had occurred, because her faith – and therefore her God – had been desecrated by what she considered a religiously motivated attack out of proportion to her error. However, lingering tensions and unforgiveness for past transgressions combined to spur Maureen and Saba to vindictiveness. Louise held grudges against both coworkers and their supervisor for taking the complaints as seriously as he did. In time, each woman apologized to Louise, who has experienced some forgiveness in each relationship. Each offender’s relationship with the Sacred affected the forgiveness experienced by Louise. In the present article, we define forgiveness and discuss its role in organizations and management. Then, we briefly review research that has examined forgiveness in organizational context. We present a model of relational spirituality and forgiveness and discuss its implications for organizational life. We describe how unforgiveness can disrupt workplaces through interfering with individual workers’ senses of peace and by creating tensions among workers due to rumination that involves speculations about others’ spirituality and religious behaviors, emotions, and motives. In accomplishing these tasks, we review research on forgiveness in organizations. Finally, we suggest a research agenda to explore our model and other aspects of the impact of unforgiveness and forgiveness on workplace spirituality.

What is spirituality? We define spirituality as a person’s experience of relationship with the Sacred (adapted from Shults and Sandage 2006). The Sacred is whatever someone considers to be the central feature of spirituality. The Sacred could be a God, as is common in most religious spiritualities, but the Sacred could also be viewed as other objects such as nature, the cosmos, or humanity – depending on one’s


121


worldview. A relationship with the Sacred draws on the same psychological systems that are used in interpersonal relationships (e.g. attachment or caregiving systems; see Kirkpatrick 2005). People may experience the Sacred like a close friend, a partner, or a parent. In addition, spirituality changes over time. In fact, substantial changes can occur during life transitions or in the face of traumatic events (Park and Ai 2006). What is forgiveness? We view forgiveness within a stress-and-coping framework (Worthington 2006). A transgression is a violation of boundaries (i.e. psychological, physical, or moral boundaries) that makes a demand on the victim to respond to the changes. Thus, a transgression can be viewed as a stressor. Worthington (2006) identified many coping mechanisms that people use to deal with the negative affect and life circumstances that occur after a transgression, including excusing or justifying the wrongdoing, seeking justice or revenge, accepting the wrongdoing and moving on with life, forgetting the transgression, and forbearing. Coping can also involve forgiveness. We view forgiveness as involving two distinct yet related processes. Decisional forgiveness involves a behavioral intention to act in ways toward the offender that are less negative and more positive. However, one can make a sincere decision to forgive and still experience negative emotions about the transgression or the offender (e.g. anger, sadness, and hate). Emotional forgiveness, then, involves the replacement of negative unforgiving emotions with positive other-oriented emotions (e.g. empathy, sympathy, and love) toward the offender. Both decisional and emotional forgiveness are intra-individual processes (i.e. occur within an individual). However, we note that transgressions also occur within an interpersonal context. This interpersonal context is especially relevant in situations such as organizations, where relationships are often ongoing. We note that religion and spirituality can motivate each type of forgiving. Religion, if it prescribes forgiving, can motivate making a relatively quick decision to forgive. Religion, if focused on peace, could also promote emotional forgiveness. In addition, people could delay or refuse to forgive due to religious or spiritual motivations.

Forgiveness, justice, injustice, and spirituality in organizational life Historically, many people have not considered organizations to be an appropriate venue to consider issues such as forgiveness. However, the related concept of justice has a long tradition in the literature on organizations. Procedural justice ensures that employees treat each other fairly and management treats employees fairly, whereas distributive justice ensures fairness by equitable allocation of rewards and punishment (cf. Hill et al. 2005). There are actions governing relationships within an organization and between the organization and customers (broadly including shareholders) that are


122


governed by both law and professional ethics. Issues of justice arise frequently. The organization deals with the public and the public trust can be violated. The organization and its clientele may have an explicit or implicit agreement to exchange resources and contractual understandings can be easily interpreted differently by both sides. Worthington et al. (2005) identified two different types of ethics that govern these relationships: the ethic of justice and the ethic of care. They proposed that ethics of justice often prevail in the dealings between an organization and its customers, but they recommend an ethics of care for governing relationships within organizations. The argument for ethics of care was suggested because most people leave their jobs as a result of interpersonal conflicts between coworkers or with their supervisor. Zapf and Gross (2001) found that job transfer was the only 1 of 14 conflict management coping strategies to have significant improvement to the current situation. Dissatisfaction with distributive justice and violations of procedural justice are responsible for fewer people leaving their jobs. Feelings of interpersonal anxiety, anger, and resentment – called unforgiveness when it languishes or is renewed by rumination (Worthington and Wade 1999) – occur when people transgress against each other and do not repair the relationship. These broken relationships – which often trigger a sense of spiritual disruption in individuals and destruction of humanistic spiritual closeness within a workgroup – can lead to smoldering feelings of negativity that cover the workplace and can be responsible for missed days at work, loss of productivity, general unhappiness, and a motivation to look for a new job that might promise higher job satisfaction. Feelings of unforgiveness can disrupt religious spirituality by being associated with failure to carry out religious prescriptions to forgive (see Mt 6:14–15, in which Jesus ties divine forgiveness from God to interpersonal forgiveness of offenders), wrongdoing and the regret, guilt, remorse, shame, and self-condemnation and unforgiveness of the self associated with it, and failure to maintain closeness among one’s valued co-workers (damaging a sense of humanistic spirituality). In addition, as illustrated in the initial example with Louise, Maureen, and Saba, unforgiveness over past harms can often be interpreted as deriving from religious or spiritual differences, and in the event of a big transgression that affected aspects of life that are considered sacred, can result in evaluations that a desecration has occurred, which are particularly virulent (Pargament et al. 2005). A model of relational spirituality and forgiveness in organizational life We now consider both spirituality and forgiveness in organizational life. Although forgiveness has historically been identified with formal religions (yet it is recognized that people forgive regardless of whether they are religious or spiritual), many researchers have broadened the study of forgiveness beyond religion (McCullough and Worthington 1999). Little theory or research has examined the relationship between spirituality and forgiveness in organizational


123


life. Below, we present a model of relational spirituality and forgiveness, and discuss the implications of this model for organizations.

Relational spirituality and forgiveness Our model of relational spirituality and forgiveness draws broadly on the stressand-coping theory previously described. Transgressions are stressful, and the way a victim appraises the relational context of a transgression affects how much stress the victim will experience (Worthington 2006). Victims may interpret a transgression and its relational context in a spiritual way, imbuing the situation with spiritual meaning or significance (Pargament et al. 2005). Spiritual appraisals of a transgression can evoke strong emotional reactions or even distinctly spiritual emotions such as elevation, awe, or disgust (Haidt et al. 1997; Keltner and Haidt 2003). Haidt and his colleagues have provided evolutionary speculations about the origins of such moral emotions. These powerful moral emotions contribute to spiritual closeness or distance, which we have defined as the essence of spirituality. The underlying premise of our model is that if spiritual appraisals evoke positive moral emotions, such as love or empathy, then forgiveness will occur more easily, because the stress-and-coping model of forgiveness suggests that emotional forgiveness is the replacement of negative emotions with positive other-oriented emotions (Worthington 2006). Thus, emotions oriented toward the sacred – awe, elevation – can serve as emotions that replace unforgiving emotions. On the other hand, if spiritual appraisals evoke negative moral emotions, such as disgust, forgiveness will tend to be more difficult because the amount of negative affect that needs to be replaced or neutralized is greater. People who are highly religious may be more likely to interpret a transgression in a spiritual way, and the nature of their appraisals will determine whether forgiveness is likely to occur. Employees of religious organizations may have unrealistic expectations that, because all employees share the same worldview, conflict should not occur. Or employees who are in conflict may use the Sacred as leverage by claiming that God is on their side. As such, conflicts may be exacerbated because they are given spiritual significance. In secular organizations, employees may be less aware of how spiritual issues affect conflict, but in religious or spiritual organizations, employees may tend to spiritualize conflicts and issues in a way that does not help them deal effectively with conflict. In some cases, victims may need to learn to see the transgression in a less spiritually charged way. We depict our model in Figure 1 as an equilateral pyramid (drawn threedimensionally) that describes the experience of the victim. The horizontal triangle at the base represents how the victim appraises the qualities and the relationships among the victim (V), the offender (O), and the transgression (T). The victim’s perceptions of the characteristics of each can be thought of as properties of the corners of the basal triangle. Thus, religious beliefs, values, commitment, and behavioral patterns are personal qualities of the V and perceptions of personal qualities of O. These relationships of V and O (i.e. the VO relationship),


124


Figure 1. Relationships among the Sacred (S), victim (V), offender (O), and transgression (T), including the victim–offender (VO), victim–transgression (VT), offender–transgression (OT), Sacred–offender (SO), Sacred–victim (SV), and Sacred– transgression (ST) relationships. Adapted with permission from Davis et al. (2008).

V and T (i.e. VT), and O and T (OT) have been the focus of previous research (for reviews, see Worthington 2005). Appraisals of these relationships affect the victim’s motivations to forgive. For example, victims tend to have greater motivation to forgive a close friend than a stranger (Boccato et al. 2008). Relationship closeness is a victim–offender appraisal (see VO in Figure 1). The more hurtful a transgression is, the more difficult it is to forgive. Hurtfulness of the transgression is a victim–transgression appraisal (see VT in Figure 1). It is easier to forgive if an offender apologizes sincerely. Sincerity of an apology is an offender–transgression appraisal (see OT in Figure 1). However, previous research has not considered the relational triad that occurs when a victim perceives a transgression to have spiritual meaning. The vertical lines in the model represent three spiritual relationships that a victim may appraise (Davis et al. 2008). For people who are spiritual and religious, appraisals of these spiritual relationships also affect the victim’s motivations to forgive. For example, if the victim views the transgression as a Figure 1.

Relationships among the Sacred (S), victim (V), offender (O), and transgression (T), including the victim–offender (VO), victim–transgression (VT), offender–transgression (OT), Sacred–offender (SO), Sacred–victim (SV), and Sacred–transgression (ST) relationships. Adapted with permission from Davis

et al. (2008).



125

desecration (i.e. the destruction of something sacred; see TS in Figure 1), the transgression is more difficult to forgive (Pargament et al. 2005; Davis et al. 2008). If victims have a close relationship with the Sacred that lead to positive emotions, they may find it easier to forgive the transgression (see SV in Figure 1). If victims view the offender as being spiritually similar to themselves, they may experience higher levels of emotions such as empathy and find forgiveness to be easier (see SO in Figure 1). Recall the example of Louise and her coworkers at the beginning of the article. Louise, a committed Christian (a personal quality, at V), was wronged by two coworkers, one a Christian and one a Muslim (qualities of O). Louise might appraise each coworker’s relationship with the Sacred (SO in Figure 1), and view her Christian coworker as spiritually similar in a variety of ways and her Muslim coworker as spiritually different in a variety of ways. Louise might experience more and faster forgiveness for her co-worker who is perceived to be more spiritually similar. Louise’s own relationship with the Sacred (e.g. perhaps perceived to be a close, personal, and loving relationship) at the time of the transgression might also influence her experience of forgiveness (SV in Figure 1). For instance, perhaps Louise views her relationship with God as one that is characterized by grace and forgiveness. These emotions may make forgiveness easier. On the other hand, viewing God as a reproving and critical God, ready to punish sin and wrongdoing might stimulate her to similar focus on justice, or might make her feel that she must forgive lest she be condemned to judgment of her own sins (Mt 6: 14–15). Furthermore, Louise might have considered the transgressions to be desecrations of the sanctity of the workplace and of her God (ST in Figure 1). This spiritual appraisal is likely to make forgiveness more difficult.

Implications for organizations Our model of relational spirituality and forgiveness posits that people who are religious or spiritual are likely to make spiritual appraisals when transgressions occur. That is, the victim’s spiritual experience of a transgression might affect whether the victim engages in some form of organizational deviance such as vengefulness. Both secular and religious organizations are composed of heterogeneous individuals whose spiritual beliefs can range considerably. Even in religious organizations (e.g. churches), beliefs vary between members. In-groups perceive as many differences among members as in-group members do between themselves and out-group members (Brewer 1979). The differences can hang on subtle points of doctrine or on perceived spiritual involvement, but the differences are real and can cause emotional conflicts. As such, conflicts may be exacerbated because they are given spiritual significance. In religious or spiritual organizations, employees may inappropriately attach spiritual connotations to mundane events. In some cases, victims may need to learn to see the transgression in a less spiritually charged way. Worthington (1988) suggested that people perceive members of religious out-groups differently than religious in-groups. In-groups are seen as people like us, and yet we make much ado about small


126


differences. Out-groups are seen as people unlike us, and yet we focus on only macroscopic differences rather than making fine distinctions like we make in ingroup comparisons. In addition, highly religious people are especially attuned to focus on religious and spiritual differences and similarities. They run perceptions through a religious screen (Worthington 1988). They are more likely to be hurt more by an offense of an in-group member than by the same offense by an outgroup member because they do not expect in-group members to offend. Yet they are also more likely to forgive the in-group member because there is more of a perceived kinship (McCullough 2008). Wohl and Branscombe (2005) suggest that spirituality aids forgiveness by widening one’s circle of moral regard, resulting in recategorizing former out-group members to be closer to in-group members. For secular organizations, we encourage companies to develop training programs concerning religious and spiritual issues in the workplace. Often these trainings can be included in broader programs that work to develop multicultural sensitivity across a variety of domains. However, just as easily, an organization that was beset by troubled relationships in the workplace might organize seminars for employees on conflict management, grudge management, or anger management. Forgiveness might be an integral part. Struthers, Dupuis, and Eaton (2005) found that such prosocial training was an effective intervention technique for coworkers after a transgression. Forgiveness is not something that everyone will value, and Wade and Worthington (2003) have shown that forgiveness is not the only way to deal with injustices and hurts. Rather, people deal with transgressions through forbearing (i.e. suppressing negative responses even though still holding grudges), accepting and moving on with life, seeking to bring justice into the workplace, relinquishing injustices to God or a High Power, appealing to the Divine for divine justice, and many other ways (see Wade and Worthington 2003). Organizational programs can be designed to teach employees to interact with those who transgress against them. The programs can be sensitive to a variety of individual differences, including different religious or spiritual worldviews. People who work to resolve conflicts between employees should also be aware that spiritual appraisals may affect employees’ experiences of forgiveness (or lack of it) and ways they choose to deal with injustice – namely, religious and spiritual people tend to endorse forgiveness more than some other alternatives.

Forgiveness within organizational context Organizational literature has focused more on deviance toward the organization that arises after perceived or actual violations of justice than on forgiveness (for a review, see Hill et al. 2005). These might be violations of procedural justice (e.g. following procedures that are perceived as unfair or illegal in decisions). The decisions often involve (a) unfair distribution of resources (distributive justice) or (b) policies that are discriminatory, unfair, or unduly restraining.



127

Experiencing injustice is stressful and stimulates coping (Worthington 2006). Some coping is prosocial and productive. This coping might be aimed at resolving interpersonal tensions, advocating for changed policies or procedures, employing helpful conflict resolution strategies to clear up conflict, and changing leadership styles or responses. However, some coping might be antisocial and harmful to organizations or individuals within the organizations. Typically, this has been called workplace aggression (Aquino and Thau 2009; Barling et al. 2009; Hershcovis et al. 2007) or workplace deviance (Berry et al. 2007; Judge et al. 2006). Aggression involves actions that are harmful or threatening to the organization or to individuals or subunits within the organization. Deviance is a broader term that suggests that norms of the organization (including norms requiring civil behavior of employees) have been violated (for a meta-analysis, see Berry et al. 2007). Deviance against the organization might include reduced productivity (i.e. slacking off), stealing company supplies, cheating on hours worked, or harassing fellow employees. Interpersonal deviance is directed against specific individuals who have wronged an individual. Such acts might involve betraying a confidence, undermining a fellow employee’s work, reporting rule-breaking, gossiping, or discriminating. Researchers also further separate interpersonal deviance based on whether the deviance is toward a supervisor or a co-worker (for a meta-analysis, see Hershcovis et al. 2007). Whereas most organizational research has considered various violations of justice as stimuli for vengeful responses, forgiveness researchers (Mullet et al. 2005) observe that there are three classes of unforgiving responses to transgressions: vengeful responses, avoidant responses (i.e. staying home from work, leaving the organization, or taking early retirement), and active grudge-holding (i.e. the employees are unhappy, alert for opportunities to cause trouble for the offender such as gossiping or looking for reportable wrongdoing). Vengeful, avoidant and grudge-holding responses are considered to be unforgiveness. The research on workplace transgressions and company-, coworker-, or supervisor-targeted deviant behaviors have progressed far beyond identifying and substantiating main effects. In the past five years, most research has sought to determine moderators and mediators of transgression-deviance connections. Several excellent reviews of the research on workplace transgressions are available (e.g. Aquino and Thau 2009; Hershcovis et al. 2007). Organizations have often been seen as settings that deal with many issues of justice and injustice. Folk wisdom often aims at Godfather-like equanimity: “It ain’t personal; it’s just business.” As a consequence, emotional topics such as forgiveness are often viewed as suspect. Forgiveness may be (mis)perceived as (a) giving an offender the competitive edge, (b) being too weak to insist on justice, (c) tantamount to accepting an injustice without response, (d) stuffing one’s feelings, or (e) invalidating one’s ability to confront or communicate with a wrongdoer. Forgiveness researchers suggest that none of these are implications of forgiveness, rightly understood as an intrapersonal experience in interpersonal context.


128


Unforgiveness and forgiveness in the workplace Occupational discord is almost inevitable. Whether offenses are inadvertent or intentional, serious interpersonal transgressions can take place in work environments. These interpersonal conflicts can have deleterious effects, such as increased absenteeism and reduced well-being (Giebels and Janssen 2005), increased stress (De Dreu 2008; Narayanan et al. 1999), withdrawal from organizational life (Cropanzano et al. 2001), and a reduction in cooperative behaviors and increased aggression (Skarlicki and Folger 1997). Moreover, the mere perception of injustice has been related to poorer physical and mental health (Elovainio et al. 2003). In sum, interpersonal stress and conflict at work can result in poorer employee productivity, health, and well-being. Worker reactions can vary, from trying to “right,” the perceived transgression (Cropanzano et al. 2001) or exact revenge (Skarlicki and Folger 1997). Affective responses can involve a state of emotional unforgiveness defined as an embodied experience of a host of negative personal emotions including: anger, hostility, and vengeful rumination, among other attempts to restore justice in a conflicted relationship (Worthington et al. 2005). Transgressions have been posited to create an injustice gap, which is the discrepancy between the way a person wishes a transgression would be resolved and the current perceived status of resolution (Exline et al. 2003). The size of the injustice gap is proportional to the amount of emotional unforgiveness experienced. Most people seek to reduce the injustice gap, and accompanying feelings of unforgiveness (Worthington 2006). There are various ways to reduce unforgiveness, such as revenge, avoidance, or forgiveness. Thus, forgiveness is only one of many potential responses aimed at ameliorating the unforgiveness elicited by an offense (cf. Wade and Worthington 2003). Understanding forgiveness is especially pertinent in workplace contexts because of the continued work relationship between the victim and transgressor (Aquino et al. 2003). That is, forgiveness is particularly effective in reducing unforgiveness between individuals in ongoing relationships because it is a stressreducing strategy that promotes extended prosocial exchanges between victim and transgressor. Avoidance, revenge, and other strategies might reduce unforgiveness but are practically untenable given the ongoing work relationships between offender and victim. Related to this, forgiveness can increase commitment to and satisfaction with the relationship with the person who hurt them (Aquino et al. 2006). Sustained emotional unforgiveness (i.e. harboring negative emotions toward an offender) has been shown to be an interpersonal stress reaction (for reviews, see Worthington et al. 2007; Worthington and Sotoohi in press). More specifically, revenge, is related to poorer health outcomes in employees (Aquino et al. 2006; Bradfield and Aquino 1999; Little et al. 2007) and in the general population (for reviews, see Worthington et al. 2007; Worthington and Sotoohi in press). Research also suggests that individuals low in dispositional forgivingness have elevated susceptibility to physical and mental illness symptoms. Thus, unforgiveness at work exacts substantial costs for employees and organizations alike.


129


Summary Although research on workplace forgiveness and unforgiveness are limited, it is important to consider how such processes operate in the workplace. Because unforgiveness can produce a multifarious negative psychological effects, both intrapersonally and interpersonally, future research should more fully explicate the deleterious effects of harboring unforgiveness and the benefits of forgiveness across all levels of an organization. New ideas for discovery Research on forgiveness has accelerated since 1998. Although much of the lowhanging fruit has been plucked, there are still many basic ideas that are unexplored (for a recent set of reviews, see Worthington 2005). This is especially true of organizational psychology, where most research related to forgiveness has investigated organizational deviance (see Aquino and Thau 2009), not forgiveness per se. As the existing research shows, the relationship between organizations and customers or corporate shareholders has largely considered justice and injustice and effects of apologies on external evaluations of organizations. There is a high frequency of transgressions in organizational settings, which can lead to workplace deviance, loss of productivity, absenteeism, and job turnover. The consequences strongly affect the organization. Thus, forgiveness seems to be an understudied repair strategy that has great potential to prevent poor outcomes within organizations. In addition, as we can see by the model we set forth connecting the spiritual level with the more secular level of offenders, victims, and transgressions, consideration of the spiritual can add other dimensions to understanding and resolving conflicts – especially when people differ starkly in religious or spiritual views (such as often occurs in international business settings). We list several exciting areas for future research. First, what role might spirituality play in dealing with transgressions? If the manager embraces a specific type of spirituality, might this spiritual orientation have different effects on norms, employees, and culture? How does the expression of spirituality in the workplace affect employees who are not spiritual or religious? In our model of forgiveness and relational spirituality, an employee’s perception of an offender’s similarity (or dissimilarity) of relationship with the Sacred will influence his or her reactions to the wrongdoing. This assertion requires additional empirical validation. Second, especially in an increasingly globalized business environment, future research should study international interactions. Corporations may experience what they believe to be unfair or discriminatory treatment from foreign governments, alliances of foreign countries, or responses of foreign customers. Companies may wonder how they can possibly repair the damage or repair loss of face. Religious and spiritual differences frequently occur in combination with and as a result of cultural differences. People can sacralize behaviors that a person from a different culture and religion might not be aware is sacred. How a company negotiates both the cultural and religious differences in an increasingly globalized


130


economy is potential area for future research. Our proposed model helps focus attention on little studied, yet vital, relationships in dealing with cultural and religious differences. Third, studies of interactions around transgressions in organizations are needed. When transgressions occur, reproaches are often made. Reproaches are requests for a perceived wrongdoer to explain his or her actions. Supervisors may make different types of reproaches than do subordinates (to supervisors) or coworkers to each other. Do perceived differences in religion and spirituality affect the likelihood of making reproaches and the style of reproaching? Accounts are explanations of wrongdoing (Schönbach 1990), that include denial or refusal (e.g. “I didn’t do anything wrong”), justification (e.g. “I did wrong but had valid, justifiable reasons for doing so”), excuses (e.g. “I did wrong, but there were mitigating factors that made the wrongdoing understandable”) or concessions (e.g. “I did wrong, have regret, should apologize, and will offer restitution”). Do variables in the model of relational spirituality and forgiveness (see Figure 1) affect the types of accounts and style of making accounts? Beyond reproaches and accounts, neither of which has been well-studied in organizations and especially in a spiritual context, social transactions around transgressions have been almost completely unstudied. For example, how does an employee ask a supervisor for forgiveness? Would religious or spiritual stance of the offender and perception of the supervisor’s spirituality make a difference? Does supervisor spirituality affect likelihood that the supervisor would apologize? How do coworkers seek forgiveness from each other? Do perceptions of similarity of religion or spirituality affect worker mutual forgiveness? What personality characteristics and situational factors influence each? How does one respond to one’s boss who asks for forgiveness? In addition, how does one perceive an offender’s spirituality (SO in our model) and is the offense a desecration (ST)? How these factors influence the personal experience of wrongdoers and victims – and match or mismatch of spirituality – have been seldom studied within organizations. Fourth, to what extent does coping with transgressions in organizations through forgiveness, rather than justice, create a less interpersonally stressful environment? Does the reduction in interpersonal stress offer benefits to health and productivity? Preliminary evidence suggests that enhancement of forgiveness in a financial services organization decreases stress by 23% and increases gross sales by an average of 24% (Luskin et al. nd). Can this effect be replicated in other organizations? In what ways might this effect be moderated by (a) individual religiousness or spirituality, and (b) congruence between employees’ spiritual beliefs? Fifth, how do leaders shape corporate cultures that are characterized by an ethics of justice and an ethics of care? How does spirituality matter? How can leaders model forgiveness, justice, and other virtues? Does supervisor spirituality affect the behaviors modeled by supervisors? What are the effects of policysetting? Can leaders set explicit norms for forgiveness as well as for truth, and justice?



131

Conclusion The purpose of the present article has been to suggest that forgiveness and spirituality may be important aspects of study in organizations, and to provide questions that could be addressed using the model of forgiveness and relational spirituality (Davis et al. 2008). Historically, research in organizations has focused more on justice and injustices than on forgiveness. Justice is a prerequisite for effective organizational life, both in dealing with the public and within the organization. However, forgiveness is also necessary, especially if organizations are to avoid environments that are overly litigious or characterized by petty (or serious) grudges, backbiting, or internal competitiveness. We believe that spirituality of individuals, workplace environments, and especially leaders can do much to promote the balance of justice and forgiveness in organizations. Furthermore, irrespective of whether a manager explicitly attends to it, the interaction of supervisor, subordinate, and coworker spiritualities (or even lack of expression of spiritualities) will inevitably influence how employees deal with transgressions within the workplace. Notes on contributors Everett L. Worthington, Jr. is Professor of Psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University. He received his PhD in Psychology (Counseling) from the University of Missouri-Columbia. He is a member of the APA-accredited program in Counseling Psychology. His research interests are forgiveness, religion and spirituality in relationships and in psychotherapeutic interventions, and marriage and family issues and interventions. Chelsea L. Greer is a student in the doctoral program in Counseling Psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University. She received her master’s degree in Counseling from the Michigan State University. Her research interests include intergroup conflict and forgiveness, forgiveness among Christians, religion and spirituality in psychotherapeutic interventions, and team building processes. Joshua N. Hook is a student in the doctoral program in Counseling Psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University. He received his master’s degree in Counseling Psychology from Virginia Commonwealth University and is currently completing his clinical internship at the University of Miami Counseling Center. His research interests include forgiveness, humility, religion and spirituality, couples therapy, and addiction. Don E. Davis is a student in the doctoral program in Counseling Psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University. He received a master’s degree from Psychological Studies Institute (currently named Richmont Institute) in Clinical Psychology and another master’s degree in Counseling Psychology from Virginia Commonwealth University. He will complete his clinical internship at Clemson University. His research interests include forgiveness, humility, and spirituality and religion, and marriage and family. Aubrey L. Gartner is a student in the doctoral program in Counseling Psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University. She received her master’s degree in Counseling Psychology from Virginia Commonwealth University. Her research interests include forgiveness, mercy, and couples.

132


David J. Jennings, II, is a student in the doctoral program in Counseling Psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University. He received a master’s degree from Psychological Studies Institute (currently named Richmont Institute) in Professional Counseling and will receive another master’s degree in Counseling Psychology from Virginia Commonwealth University this spring. His research interests include forgiveness, marriage and couples, and spirituality in counseling. Lucy G. Norton works as a research assistant in the counseling psychology program at Virginia Commonwealth University. She received her undergraduate degree in psychology from the University of Virginia. Her research interests are forgiveness and moral emotions.


Daryl R. Van Tongeren is a student in the doctoral program in Social Psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University. He received his master’s degree in Experimental Psychology from the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. His research interests include meaning, morality, religion, forgiveness, and positive psychology. Todd W. Greer is a student in the doctoral program in Organizational Leadership with a focus in Human Resource Development at Regent University. He received a master’s degree from Amridge University in Ministerial Leadership. His research interests include training and development, groups/teamwork, spiritual leadership, and organizational conflict. Loren Toussaint is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Luther College. He received his PhD in Psychology from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and subsequently completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Michigan. His research interests are in forgiveness and religiousness/spirituality as predictors of mental and physical health and well-being.

References Aquino, K. and Thau, S. 2009. Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target’s perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 717–741. Aquino, K., Glover, S.L., Goldman, B. and Folger, R. 2003. When push doesn’t come to shove: Interpersonal forgiveness in workplace relationships. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 209–216. Aquino, K., Tripp, T.M. and Bies, R.J. 2006. Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 653–668. Barling, J., Dupre, K.E. and Kelloway, E.K. 2009. Predicting workplace aggression and violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 671–692. Berry, C.M., Ones, D.S. and Sackett, P.R. 2007. Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: a review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410–424. Boccato, G., Capozza, D., Falvo, R. and Durante, F. 2008. The missing link: Ingroup, outgroup and the human species. Social Cognition, 26, 224–234. Bradfield, M. and Aquino, K. 1999. The effects of blame attributions and offender likeableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace. Journal of Management, 25, 607–631. Brewer, M.B. 1979. In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitivemotivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.



133

Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z.S., Bobocel, D.R. and Rupp, D.E. 2001. Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164–209. Davis, D.E., Hook, J.N. and Worthington, E.L., Jr. 2008. Relational spirituality and forgiveness: The roles of attachment to God, religious coping, and viewing the transgression as a desecration. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 27, 293–301. De Dreu, C.K.W. 2008. The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: Food for (pessimistic) thought. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 5–18. Elovainio, M., Kivimaki, M., Vahtera, J., Virtanen, M. and Keltikangas-Jarvinen, L. 2003. Personality as a moderator in the relations between perceptions of organizational justice and sickness absence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 379–395. Exline, J.J., Worthington, E.L., Jr., Hill, P.C. and McCullough, M.E. 2003. Forgiveness and justice: A research agenda for social and personality psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 337–348. Giebels, E. and Janssen, O. 2005. Conflict stress and reduced well-being at work: The buffering effect of third-party help. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 137–155. Haidt, J., Rozin, P., McCauley, C.R. and Imada, S. 1997. Body, psyche, and culture: The relationship between disgust and morality. Psychology and Developing Societies, 9, 107–131. Herschcovis, M.S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K.A., Dupré, K.E., Inness, M., LeBlanc, M.M. and Sivanathan, N. 2007. Predicting workplace aggression: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 228–238. Hill, P.C., Exline, J.J. and Cohen, A.B. 2005. The social psychology of justice and forgiveness in civil and organizational settings. In: E.L. Worthington, Jr., ed. Handbook of forgiveness. New York: Brunner-Routledge, 477–490. Judge, T., LePine, J. and Rich, B. 2006. Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self- and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 762–776. Keltner, D. and Haidt, J. 2003. Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 17(2), 297–314. Kirkpatrick, L.A. 2005. Attachment, evolution, and the psychology of religion. New York: Guilford Press. Little, L.M., Simmons, B.L. and Nelson, D.L. 2007. Health among leaders: Positive and negative affect, engagement and burnout, forgiveness and revenge. Journal of Management Studies, 44(2), 243–260. Luskin, F., Aberman, R. and DeLorenzo, A.E., Sr. The training of emotional competence in financial services advisors. http://learningtoforgive.com/researchfiles/ research6.htm [Accessed September 6, 2009]. McCullough, M.E. 2008. Beyond revenge: The evolution of the forgiveness instinct. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. McCullough, M.E., Pargament, K.I. and Thoresen, C.E., eds. 2000. Forgiveness: Theory, research and practice. New York: Guilford Press. McCullough, M.E. and Worthington, E.L. Jr. 1999. Religion and the forgiving personality. Journal of Personality, 67, 1141–1164. Mullet, E., Neto, F. and Riviere, S. 2005. Personality and its effects on resentment, revenge, and forgiveness and on self-forgiveness. In: E.L. Worthington, Jr., ed. Handbook of forgiveness. New York: Brunner-Routledge, 159–182. Narayanan, L., Menon, S. and Spector, P.E. 1999. Stress in the workplace: A comparison of gender and occupations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 63–73.


134


Pargament, K.I., Magyar, G.M., Benore, E. and Mahoney, A. 2005. Sacrilege: A study of sacred loss and desecration and their implications for health and well-being in a community sample. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44, 59–78. Park, C.L. and Ai, A.L. 2006. Meaning making and growth: New directions for research on survivors of trauma. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 11, 389–407. Schönbach, P., 1990. Account episodes: The management or escalation of conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press. Shults, F.L. and Sandage, S.J. 2006. Transforming spirituality: Integrating theology and psychology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Skarlicki, D.P. and Folger, R., 1997. Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443. Struthers, C.W., Dupuis, R. and Eaton, J. 2005. Promoting forgiveness among coworkers following a workplace transgression: The effects of social motivation training. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 37(4), 299–308. Wade, N.G. and Worthington, E.L., Jr. 2003. Overcoming interpersonal offenses: Is forgiveness the only way to deal with unforgiveness? Journal of Counseling and Development, 81, 343–353. Wohl, M.J. and Branscombe, N.R. 2005. Forgiveness and collective guilt assignment to historical perpetrator groups depend on level of social category inclusiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 288–303. Worthington, E.L., Jr., 1988. Understanding the values of religious clients: A model and its application to counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 166–174. Worthington, E.L., Jr., ed. 2005. Handbook of forgiveness. New York, NY: BrunnerRoutledge. Worthington, E.L., Jr. 2006. Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge. Worthington, E.L., Jr. 2009. A just forgiveness: Responsible healing without excusing injustice. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Worthington, E.L., Jr., Berry, J.W., Shivy, V.A. and Brownstein, E. 2005. Forgiveness and positive psychology in business ethics and corporate social responsibility. In: R.A. Giacalone, C. Dunn and C.L. Jurkiewicz, eds. Positive psychology in business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, pp. 265–284. Worthington, E.L., Jr. and Sotoohi, G. In press. Physiological assessment of forgiveness, grudges, and revenge: Theories, research methods, and implications. In: F. Columbus, ed. Psychophysiology: Psychological, psychiatric, cognitive, social and neuroscience aspects. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, in press. Worthington, E.L., Jr. and Wade, N.G., 1999. The social psychology of unforgiveness and forgiveness and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 385–418. Worthington, E.L., Jr., Witvliet, C.V.O., Pietrini, P. and Miller, A.J. 2007. Forgiveness, health, and well-being: A review of evidence for emotional versus decisional forgiveness, dispositional forgivingness, and reduced unforgiveness. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30, 291–302. Zapf, D. and Gross, C. 2001. Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 497–522.