How Does Religion Matter and Why

This article was downloaded by: [130.104.176.52] On: 23 October 2013, At: 07:00 Publisher: Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS) INFORMS is located in Maryland, USA Organization Science Organization Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://pubsontine. informs.org PERSPECTIVE—How Does Religion Matter and Why? Religion and the Organizational Sciences Suzanne Chan-Serafin, Arthur P. Brief, Jennifer M. George To cite this article: Suzanne Chan-Serafin, Arthur P. Brief, Jennifer M. George (2013) PERSPECTIVE—How Does Religion Matter and Why? Religion and the Organizational Sciences. Organization Science 24(5):1585-1600. http:/ /dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0797 Full terms and conditions of use: http://pubsonline. informs.org/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used only for the purposes of research, teaching, and/or private study. Commercial use or systematic downloading (by robots or other automatic processes) is prohibited without explicit Publisher approval. For more information, contact permissions@informs.org. ‘The Publisher does not warrant or guarantee the article's accuracy, completeness, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Descriptions of, or references to, products or publications, or inclusion of an advertisement in this article, neither constitutes nor implies a guarantee, endorsement, or support of claims made of that product, publication, or service. Copyright © 2013, INFORMS Please scroll down for article—it is on subsequent pages orms | INFORMS is the largest professional society in the world for professionals in the fields of operations research, management science, and analytics. For more information on INFORMS, its publications, membership, or meetings visit http://www.informs.org RIGHTS LIN KdOrganization 1S T0470 a) SSN TD 5 ni) int. apt di ong/10 128 7lone 11200797 PERSPECTIVE How Does Religion Matter and Why? Religion and the Organizational Sciences Suzanne Chan-Serafin ‘School of Management, Anstaban School of Business, Uniersiy of New South Wales, Syéney, New South Wales 2052, ‘chan-seafneuw eda a Arthur P. Brief Depatoent of Management, David Keces School of Business, University of Uh, Salt Lake Cy, Utah 84112, ‘uburbriet business tah edo Jennifer M. George Jesse I. Jones Graduate School of Busines, Rice Univernty, loston, Texas 77005, jpsorge@rice es Bitton is becoming increasingly sient in and around; bat not conned to the American wopae, The rs of openly faith-based organizations and discourse surrounding the role and importance of spirituality ae just @ couple ofthe indicators that religion, in its various guises, is playing a role in organizational life, With few exceptions. however, scholaty research has sidestepped the issue of religion, and, perhaps unwittingly, discourse suounding spiituaity seems to imply that religion isa benign and postive force. Rather than implicitly or explicilly assuming that religion is a benign, positive force in organizations in this paper, We suggest that organizational scholars need to rigorously address the potential consequences of religion at work in a dispassionate manner that acknowledges both the benelils/adaptive outcomes and the challenges/maladaptie outcomes. Specifically, adopting primarily a psychological approach, we theorize about two fundamental tensions produced by contemplalione about religion and the concept of God at work and the conditions under ‘which benefits versus challenges may prevail. These exemplary tensions, viruousness versus “more-virtuous-than-thow and prosacialty and ethicality versus egocentsism, highlight the fact that religion has the potential to result in beth adaptive and maladaptive outcomes for organizations and thei members. Importantly, fo each tension, we thearze about the inital conditions under which beneficialfadaptive ot challenging/maladapsive outcomes will prevail, We also explore the citcal Downloaded from informs.org by [130.104.176.52] on 23 October 2013, at 07:00 . For personal use only, all rights reserved. RIGHTSL ‘oe thatthe wider context plays in understanding these tensions and how religion affects organizational life Key words: religion; erganizatinal behavior, psychological processes History: Published online in Articles in Advance December 20, 2012. Introduction Contemplations about religion and the concept of God appear to be on the rise, at least in, but not con- fined to, the American workplace (Micklethwait and Wooldridge 2009), Sometimes this is notable because businesses label and promote themselves as faith based For example, Christian Owned & Operated is a website listing Christian businesses in Houston and surrounding areas (http://www.christianownedandoperated.com), To be listed in the directory, a firm must agree to the following statement, found on the directory’s website: We are a Christian owned and operated business who bolieves Jesus Christ came into the world as God's one NKO sts and only son, to forgive us of our sins and give ever lasting life to those who accept him as their Lord and. Savior. We operate our business under the same guiding principles taught by Jesus Christ Similar directories, including those of other faiths, also are widespread outside the United States (e.g., Fellow- ship of Companies for Christ International (http://www {feciorg) in over 20 countries, Buddhist Business Net- work (htip:/www.buddhistbusiness. com) in Malaysia) As we argue later, we expect that managers of most faith-based businesses would describe their workplaces as spiritual. For now, all we want to recognize is that spirituality and religion in the workplace is arights reserved. Downloaded from informs.org by [130.104.176.52] on 23 October 2013, at 07:00 . For personal use only, (Chan Serafin, Brit, and George: Perpectve rusiation Seine 245) 9p. 15851600, © 2013 INFORMS as reflected by the number of trade books recently published addressing the subject, Representative titles include Spirituality, Inc.: Religion in the Ameri- can Workplace (Lambert 2009), God Is My CEO: Fol- lowing God's Principles in a Bottom-line World (Sulian 2002), and A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America: A Hard Look at Spirituality, Religion, and Values in the Workplace (Mitroff and Denton 1999). ‘Although a few organizational scholars have addressed the role of God and religion in the workplace, the dominant orientation of these authors has been to emphasize the positive organizational outcomes of religion, or more accurately, spirituality (e.g., Ashmos and Duchon 2000, Delbecq 1999). Alternatively, we strive to ‘be more balanced with the intent of better framing the study of religion at work. Thus, our approach is similar to the one taken by Ashforth and Vaidyanath (2002) in their treatment of organizations as secular religions in that in addition to acknowledging potential benefits, they also discuss potential costs, However, although our approach complements theirs, itis distinct in that we explicitly focus on religion, as opposed to secular systems that may take on “religious” aspects. Farther- more, our paper is broader than the Lip-Wiersma et al (2009) discussion about the “dark side of the workplace spirituality movement” in that we do not focus on how organizations and their management misuse spirituality to control or seduce their stakeholders. Rather, we reflect more generally on the role that thoughts about God and religion play in the workplace. For instance, we consider how these thoughts affect organizational members" virtuousness and their (unethical behaviors. ‘Tensions between positive and negative consequences of religion exist yet have gone largely unrecognized in the organizational literature. Most commonly, the positive is accentuated (e.g., Delbecq 1999). By exploring the tensions between the benefits and challenges engen- dered by contemplations about God in organizational life and by advancing a preliminary framework by which religion in organizations can be examined, we hope to push the study of religion at work into the mainstream. As we will argue below, although there are some notable exceptions (c.g., Weaver and Agle 2002), the implica tions of religion for organizational life have not been adequately addressed in the organizational sciences. ‘The remainder of our paper unfolds as follows. First, we address the likely import of considering religion at work and clarify what we mean by “religion at work.” Next, in an attempt to provide a balanced treatment, ‘our paper highlights two exemplary cases of tensions between related benefits/adaptive outcomes and chal- Ienges/maladaptive outcomes of having religion infused into organizational life, The adaptive (and maladaptive) outcomes—namely, virtuousness (Versus. “more- virtuous-than-thou”) and prosociality/ethicality (versus egocentrism)—were selected because of their potential RIGHTS LINKED import to the effective functioning of organizations (see, for example, Cameron 2003 and Podsakoff et al. 1997, respectively). Our aim here is to focus research attention not just on the good or the bad but on both simultane- ously, as well as to encourage others to explore under what conditions one might prevail over the other, This paper clases with a framework for the study of religion at work that recognizes the contexts within which such conflicting forces play themselves out, In the end, we hope our efforts will entice more scholars to study the effects of religion in organizations. The Potential Import of God at Work According to a Gallup poll (Gallup 2009), 56% of Amet- icans report that religion is very important in ther lives, 63% say they are a member of a church or synagogue, and 55% claim they attend a church or synagogue once a month or more (but see Chaves et al. 1998), There are more than 159 milion adult Christians, 2.8 million adult Jews, and 1.1 million adult Muslims in the United States according to the American Religious Identification Sur- vey (Kosmin et al, 2001), Moving beyond the United States, the Gallup Organization surveyed representative samples in 143 countries in 2006 to 2008 and found that the median proportion of respondents who claimed that religion is important in their daily lives was an over- whelming 82% (Crabtree and Pelham 2008). It probably is safe to assume that many of these people, especially the 56% in the United States and the 82% (median) across 143 countries reporting religion as important in their lives, do not check their thoughts about God at the workplace door. We clearly are not the frst social scientists to recognize the importance of religion in their realms of inquiry. William James’ The Varieties of Religious Experience ‘was frst published in 1902. He defined religion as “the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine” (lames 2007, p. 24), James argued that the “healthy- minded” religious person (as contrasted with a person believing in “hell-fre theology”) will have a deep sense of “the goodness of life” and a soul of “sky-blue tint (p49). Thus, on balance, James found religious experience to be useful, even for biological functioning. But this usefulness did not imply to him the truth value of religion per se, An example of equally important early work in sociology is Weber's (1922) The Sociology af Religion. This tour de force opens by tackling the question of why humankind so widely embraces the belief in supernatural powers, and it then moves on to discuss such ideas as God and prophets, as well as to examine the formation of religious communities and different roads to salvation (see Tracey's 2012 review of the Key literature in the sociology of religion). Below, we offerrights reserved. Downloaded from informs.org by [130.104.176.52] on 23 October 2013, at 07:00 . For personal use only, (Chan-Serafi, Brie, and George: Perspective nation Since 26), p1H5-160, 2015 INFORMS 1587 snapshots of how the study of religion is forming today in psychology and sociology, as well as in management. Describing the upsurge in the last 25 years in psychology, Emmons and Paloutzian (2003, p. 379) stated, ‘The paychology of religion re-emerged as a fullforce, leading-edge research area that contributes new know!- edge, data, and professional activity 10 the rest of psychology. This is apparent upon examination of the recent trends in the publication of textbooks and joumal articles... These ends became visible after the estab- lishment of APA [American Psychological Association] Division 36, Paychology of Religion. In sociology, Sherkat and Ellison (1999, p. 363) noted, ‘The sociology of religion is experiencing a period af substantial organizational and intellectual progress. Social scientific organizations devoted to the study of reli- zion have experienced unprecedented growth in mectings attendance and membership, and a sociology of religion section was recently added in the American Sociological ‘Association. ‘The Academy of Management has a Management, Spirituality, and Religion Interest Group with approxi- mately 700 members, and the Journal of Managemen, Spirituality, and Religion published its first issue in 2004. Something clearly is happening academically that we believe reflects prior neglect and powerful forces in society. Iannaccone’s (1998) writing in the economies literature identified several forces in the United States that have led to academic interest in religion. Two of these are that (1) church membership rates have risen throughout most of the past two centuries, and (2) incon- sistent with the common notion that religion is a source of hope primarily for the less privileged, numerous anal- yses of survey data demonstrate that rates of religious ipelief and activity tend nor to decline with income, and most rates increase with education. (Professors, especially in the humanities and social sciences, however tend to be Jess religious than the general public.) These statistics clearly highlight the potential import of relic gion, at least in the United States, and its likely influence om a large proportion of the population. ‘Our earlier assumption that many people both inside and outside the United States do not leave their thoughts about religion at the workplace door is akin to the notion that individuals’ attitudes, values, moods, skills, and behaviors spill over and influence their thoughts, feelings, experiences, and actions in organizations (e.g Brief 1998, Edwards and Rothbard 2000). Indeed, aa small number of organizational scholars have demonstrated that one’s religiosity and work outcomes are closely intertwined. For instance, Lynn et al. (2010) showed how religious beliefs and practices integrate with work for a sample of Christians in the United States. Additionally, Uhlmann et al. (2011) demonstrated that when implicitly primed with words related to divine salvation (as opposed to nonreligious words), participants RIGHTS LINKED from a devout religious country were more likely to per- form better on a work task than those from a relatively less religious country. Given the earlier noted prevalence of the use of the term spirituality rather than religion in the management literature (practitioner and presumably scholarly), we think it best to clarify terminology before we move on, Religiosity or Spirituality? Secularism appears to have given rise to a tentative distinction between religiosity and spirituality (Tuner et al, 1995), Yet at the core of both constructs is the personal or group search for the sacred, which can include God, the divine, and the transcendent (Hill and Pargament 2003). For religiosity, however, such a search ‘occurs within a traditional sacred context with prescribed theology and rituals (Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005). Most people experience spirituality within an orga nized religious context (e.g., Marler and Hadaway 200: Zinnbauer et al, 1999). However, there are some who consider themselves spiritual but are not a part of any traditional religious denomination (see Sutcliffe and Bowman 2000). To this end, religiosity and spirituality are best thought of as related, rather than independent (Hill et al. 2000), and spirituality can be viewed as a ‘broader construct that includes religiosity (see Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005), Religion (a subset of spirituality), our focal construct of interest, is concemed with “the feclings thoughts, experiences, and behaviors that arise from a search for the sacred” and “the means and methods (@zg., rituals or prescribed behaviors) of the search that receive validation and support from within an identifi- able group of people” (Hill et al. 2000, p. 66). Heeding Kaplan’s (1964) guidance, because religion is relatively ‘unfamiliar territory in organizational research, our con- ceptualization of religion is inclusive rather than exclusive, We consider religion to include individuals’ religious beliefs/eligiosity, their ritualistic behaviors (e.g. church attendance, prayer), and associations with relic gious denominations (g., Islam, Buddhism). Religios- ity has been operationalized in a wide variety of ways (€-., Hood et al. 2009); for this paper, we consider it to include but not be limited to intrinsic orientations (ic., religion is a “master motive” or an end in and of itself in one's life), extrinsic orientations (i., religion is used as a means to attain one’s goals), and fundamentalist orientations (i.e., conviction of the literal and absolute truth of one particular religion)! Given the connectedness among spirituality, religion, and the belief in the sacred, and that most people consider themselves both spiritual and religious, why do religion and the concept of God so rarely appear in the management literature? Might it be that management scholars, like many others in the “public square,”, at 07:00 . For personal use only, Downloaded from informs.org by [130.104.176.52] on 23 October 201 1588 (Chan Serafin, Brit, and George: Perpecive rasiation Seine 245) 9p. 15851600, 2013 INFORMS avoid mention of God (Sandelands 2003) because invok- ing God is considered a taboo? Like psychology (¢.2., Beit-Hallahmi 1984), this restriction may be attributed in management to the consideration of religion being seen as unscientific But what about management spirituality articles? Although many of these writings are stimulating, some fall into a somewhat weak scientific mode in that they read more like theology resting on faith rather than scientific theory infused by empirical data (for example, see Krishnakumar and Neck 2002). Even proponents of ‘workplace spirituality recognize this problem. Giacalone etal. (2005, p. 521) stated, “Inasmuch as workplace spirituality work was to a large extent driven by advocacy, workplace spirituality has been associated with a nor mative sense of goodness.” Indeed, a scarch of the 21 hhighest-ranked management journals (Gomez-Mejia and Balkin 1992) revealed that only four articles examining spirituality as a key topic were published over the past 10 years. In this paper, our aim is to help introduce the study of religion at work to a broader audience, for with few exceptions (¢.g., Weaver and Agle 2002), it is rarely addressed in the top mainstream journals. By studying “religion at work” we are not directly concerned with theological or philosophical approaches. We are not equipped to do so, Rather, our interests lie in the manifestation of thoughts in the workplace about religion and the influence of those thoughts on how people feel and act at work. Thus, we are adopting a psychological approach focused on affect, cognition, and bochavior. Research in the other social sciences, however, such as economics (Iannaccone 1998), political sci ence (Jost etal. 2004), and sociology (Weaver and Agle 2002), will be incorporated when appropriate. By ignor- ing theology and philosophy, we also exclude explicit consideration of a sizeable number of treatments driven by these perspectives that focus on religion and business ethics (¢-g., Calkins 2000). Also not considered is a substantial body of research concerned with the Protes- tant work ethic (PWE); our decision here rests on the degree to which the construct has become secularized, largely losing its religious content (¢.g., Furnham 1990). Specifically, in contemporary treatments, the PWE rarely conveys that work can be an earthly sign of salvation. As ‘Weber (1958, p. 182) stated, “The idea of duty in one’s calling prowls about in our lives like the ghost of dead religious beliefs” The Bellah et al. (1985) view of a calling seems to capture contemporary approaches emphasizing work performed for its own sake and for personal meaning (also see Bunderson and Thompson 2009). We are aware that the study of religion obviously is value laden, as are the social sciences more generally (Kaplan 1964), A person may be an atheist, agnostic, or a believer; among believers, the religious bodies one could identify with and be influenced by are numerous On balance, we are respectful of religion though not RIGHTS LINKED advocates per se. As such, we see beautiful acts of kind- ness done in the name of religion, as well as horrendous misdeeds. Thus, in this paper, we attempt to provide 1 balanced account by exploring the tensions between related benefits and challenges of religion at work. Tensions: The Benefits ys. the Challenges Religion is a double-edged sword. It has gifted the world with Mahatma Gandhi but also with the evil likes of Osama bin Laden (Silberman et al. 2005). Here, peace and war are not our concems, but they may be seen as, a backdrop to some of the issues we spotlight. More specifically, in this paper, we seck to bring balance to the study of religion in the organization literature by recognizing two exemplary tensions evident between the benefits religion may bring to a workplace and the poten- lial costs it also may entail, Consequently, for each of the benefits God may bring to work, a discussion of a related countervailing force or challenge will follow (see Lewis’ 2000 guide on theoretically exploring tensions) For each of the tensions, we provide an initial exploration of the conditions under which one might prevail over the other, Although an important issue in its own right, we will not be addressing the topic of religious ‘workers as potential targets of discrimination, Tension 1: Virtuousness vs. “More-Virtuous-Than-Thou” Virtuousness, We begin by examining the character or psychological traits of religious versus nonreligious organizational members. On one end of the tension, we expect, based on available research evidence among the adult population, that religious workers possess more character strengths (cf. Peterson and Seligman 2004), For example, religious individuals tend to be more hopeful (cg., Koenig 2009), agreeable, and conscientious (¢g.. Saroglou 2002), and to express the values of honesty (eg., Katz et al. 1994) and forgiveness (¢.g., Exline et al, 2004), Clearly, these character strengths suggest that more religious workers may view themselves as being and may actually be better, mote virtuous organizational members, as well as better adjusted, For example, the facts that (a) one’s engagement in religious activities (eg., reading religious materials, praying, attending ser- ‘vices) is associated positively with the personality trait of conscientiousness (based on a meta-analytic study conducted by Saroglou 2002) and (b) this personality trait hhas been found to be associated positively with job performance (eg., Hurtz. and Donovan 2000) and integrity (cg.. Ones et al. 1993) suggest that religious workers may be especially valuable. Indeed, Barro and McCleary (2003) provided cross- country-level evidence that religious beliefs, notably beliefs in heaven and hell, causally influenced economic growth, According to these researchers, religious beliefs, at 07:00 . For personal use only, Downloaded from informs.org by [130.104.176.52] on 23 October 201 (Chan-Serafi, Brie, and George: Perspective nation Since 26), p1H5-160, 2015 INFORMS 1589 lead individuals to work diligently and honestly, which in turn boosts productivity. The research of Parboteeah et al. (2009) appears to corroborate this argument in that they found, in a sample of over 62,000 individuals in 45 countries, the cognitive and normative elements of national religious contexts (ie., strong beliefs in God and frequent church attendance, respectively) were positively related to individuals’ beliefs that one must work diligently, for work is seen as an obligation to society. “More-Virtuous-Than-Thow.” Based on the research reviewed, religiosity clearly has positive associations with various virtues and perhaps even the productivity of organizational members. However, this positive influence of religion might not necessarily come to fruition (cg. religious individuals may not always be more hhopeful and conscientious) because on the other end of the fension there lies a potential that certain religious individuals are less virtuous than they think they ate. This is so because they are especially likely to fall vic- tim to self-serving assessment biases (e.g., Sedikides and Gebauer 2010). Researchers have repeatedly shown that people, oon average, tend to think they are more charitable, cooperative, and fair than the typical person, as well as less belligerent, deceitful, mean, and unethical (e.g., Alli son et al. 1989). Epley and Dunning (2000), in the moral domain, labeled such self-serving assessments as “fecting holier than thou.” Such flawed self-assessments are not benign (¢.g., see Dunning et al. 2004, pp. 90— 97, regarding the workplace). For instance, people tend to evaluate others” ethical conduct in a situation based on their forecasts of how they would behave in that situation, and given that these forecasts are based on cgotistic self-characterizations, the ethical standards in use are biased upward, leading to overly harsh assessments of others (c.g., Alicke 1993; also see Tenbrunsel et al, 2010) Humility is commonly associated with religion (e.g. Murray 2001), and Exline and Geyer (2004, p. 110) found that religiousness is associated with wanting to be more humble. But they also noted that “one poten- ial barrier to humility for highly religious individa- als might be religious pride, in which religious people see themselves as being ‘holier than thou.’ ...” Indeed, Rowatt et al. (2002) found that people for whom relic gion was the “master motive” in life saw themselves as more likely than others to follow biblical command- ments (¢.g. ‘do not steal”) and to exhibit more favorable nonreligious attributes (¢.g., intelligence) and less unta- vorable nonreligious attributes (e.g., phoniness). Sup- porting these findings, Sedikides and Gebauer's (2010) meta-analysis showed a positive relationship between individuals’ intrinsic religiosity and their engagement in self-enhancement processes as operationalized by socially desirable responding. It appears that religiosity does not necessatily produce humility and may be RIGHTS LINKED related to overly harsh assessments of others. Based on the evidence reviewed, the latter seems especially probable in the moral domain but may likely generalize to assessments regarding, for example, intelligence and competence How might our posited more-virtuous-than-thou posture of the religious play itself out at work? We, for example, anticipate that these people, in a managerial role, would tend to judge their subordinates (especially those perceived to be nonreligious or of a different religious persuasion) to be, on average, less honest, kind, and smart than themselves. Such judgments would set the stage for the “Golem effect” (eg., Oz and Eden 1994)—that is, managers with negative judgments in hhand have low expectations for their subordinates and, therefore, may withhold emotional and professional support from them; the subordinates’ experiences are limited and their confidence lowered, leading to poor performance. On the contrary, the very same managers might generate positive organizational outcomes when relating with their bosses. Specifically, managers holding a more-virtuous-than-thow posture may be more likely to attempt to exercise influence upward (e.g., Mowday 1978), such as through issue selling, than managers who do not hold such stances, This is because perceiving themselves as better, more credible, and perhaps more powerful than others, more-virtuous-than-thou managers may View issue selling as less likely to harm their organizational images in the eyes of top management (Dut- ton and Ashford 1993). For organizations, issue selling serves a critical function in the decision-making process as it funnels important information and novel ideas from members closer to actual firm operations to top management (Dutton and Ashford 1993) ‘Additionally, raising the -more-virtuous-than-thou notion up to the organizational level, religion may lead companies to believe that they are better than and morally superior to others (see Staw’s 1991 argu- ments for the relevance of individuals’ psychological processes on organizational actions). Worse, if Koerber and Neck (2006) are right, might firms with inflated beliefs of their own virtues alter the very organizational structures deemed crucial by the American Institute of Centfied Public Accountants for the deterrence of financial fraud? That is, when organizations believe their members are more virtuous than they are and can do no wrong, organizations may pay less attention to their structures, such as internal control policies, management oversights, and proper segregation of duties, thereby exposing themselves to greater risks of fraud. As Fry (2004, p. 166) noted, religion “can foster zealotry atthe expense of organizational goals.” Obviously, these are three of many potential scenarios we could paint. The point is that linkages between religiosity, more-virtuous- than-thou postures, and organizational behavior appear ‘worthy of thought and empitical examination,, at 07:00 . For personal use only, Downloaded from informs.org by [130.104.176.52] on 23 October 201 1590 (Chan Serafin, Brit, and George: Perpecive rusiation Sec 245) 9p. 15851600, © 013 INFORMS Virtuousness vs. More-Virtuous-Than-Thou: When Might One Prevail Over the Other? To theorize about when virtuousness or a more-virtuous-than-thou posture may prevail, we turn to Gordon Allport’s (1952) con- ceptualization of intrinsic religiosity and the notion of self-identity threat (e.g., Burris and Navara 2002). Intrin- sie religiosity, considered a healthy form of religiosity, reflects the extent to which religious faith is fully inte- grated into, or is the master motivator in, one’s life (All- port and Ross 1967). Allport (1952) theorized that consistent virtuous behaviors can only be exhibited by the intrinsically religious because they use their religious values (eg. from “the Golden Rule”) to guide their behaviors. Empirical support for this theory comes from studies demonstrating thatthe intrinsically religious self- report possessing more virtues and engaging in more virtuous behaviors compared with their less religious counterparts (c.g, Saroglou 2002), However, other studies have demonstrated that the virtues associated with an intrinsic religious orientation may be a product of socially desirable response tendencies (g., Sedikides and Gebauer 2010). Specifically, these studies show that the intrinsically religious present an appearance of being virtuous, explicitly rating themselves as being more tolerant and compassionate without providing behavioral evidence for their claim (i.e. being more-virtuous-than-thou; see Batson et al, 1993), Recent research on threats to self-identities suggests that the intrinsically religious may be either virtuous or more- virtuous-than-thou, depending on whether such threats exist in the work context. For instance, when Burris and Navara (2002) experimentally induced threat to participants’ self-identities (ie., asked participants to recall and disclose a negative experience for which they felt responsible), the highly intrinsic religious participants were more likely to engage in self-protective cognitions and see themselves in a more positive but unrealistic light (ie., self-deception) than those who did not experience such a threat. This patter did not hold for those scoring low in intrinsic religiosity; rather, they were less likely to engage in self-protective cognitions following a threat. Monin (2007) similarly asserted that threats to one’s moral identity (¢.g., when one’s social comparison, is scen as morally superior) can trigger one’s defense mechanism and cause one to hold the more-virtuous- than-thou posture. Indeed, Weaver and Agle (2002) proposed that religion plays a central role in one’s self identity; departures from religious role expectations (i. threat (o self-identity) result in dissonance, leading to efforts to alleviate such dissonance (sce Festinger 1957). We expect one such effort for the highly intrinsically religious would be to perceive the self in an enhanced light, thereby exacerbating one’s more-virtuous-than- thou tendencies ‘The workplace is rife with potential threats to self- identity, In a qualitative study, Elsbach (2003), for RIGHTS LINKED instance, demonstrated that transitioning fom traditional to monterritorial offices threatened employees’ identities because it severely limited their ability to affirm their distinctiveness through the display of personal posses- sions. Less novel threats to people’s identities at work, such as those posed by stereotypes and power imbalance between groups at the societal level (e-g., Ely 1994) axe also evident in the literature. Thus, we propose that the combination of intzinsially religious organizational members and the existence of self-identity threats in the workplace is not uncommon yet potentially detrimental, resulting in otherwise virtuous members succumbing t© a more-virtuous-than-thou orientation ‘Tension 2: Prosociality and Ethicality vs. Egocentrism Prosociality and Ethicality. Religiosity has been associated positively with behaviors that help or benefit others, such as volunteering (e.g., Ruiter and De Graaf 2005), donating financially (¢.g., Spilka et al, 2003), and being willing to help family members (Saroglou et al. 2007). Moreover, Shariff and Norenzayan (2007) demonstrated, in a diverse sample, that individuals primed with God concepts behave more generously in anonymous dictator games than when they were primed ‘with neutral words. Such positive effects of religion on prosocial behaviors have been partly attributed to a common tenet for social behavior shared by most major world religions (e.g., Dividio et al. 2006). Specifically, most religions stress the importance of concern for ott er as illustrated by their incorporation of some form of the Golden Rule (¢.g., “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18, NIV), “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others” (Analects 15:23, Confucius)) Consistent with the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975), because values predict intentions and ‘behaviors, religious people valuing principles such as caring for others likely will engage in more prosocial behaviors than the nonreligious, who may not be bound to abide by such principles. We expect these teligiosity-prosocial behavior associations to hold true in organizational contexts, Specifi- cally, religious workers compared with nonreligious ones likely will engage in more extra-role behaviors intended to benefit the organization, such as prosocial organizational behaviors (see Brief and Motowidlo 1986). Indeed, Kutcher et al. (2010), using cross-sectional data, demonstrated that religious employees are likely to report performing more organizational citizenship behaviors than their nonreligious counterparts. This is the only empirical study, to our knowledge, that has examined the religiosity-prosocial organizational behaviors relationship, Future research examining this linkage likely will offer significant implications for the effective- ness and smooth functioning of organizations (see, for, at 07:00 . For personal use only, Downloaded from informs.org by [130.104.176.52] on 23 October 201 (Chan-Serafi, Brie, and George: Perspective nation Since 26), p1H5-160, 2015 INFORMS 1591 example, the Podsakoff et al. 2009 meta-analysis demonstrating the positive consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors). ‘The benefits of religion for prosocial behavior plau- sibly will extend to ethical behavior (bchavior where self-interest is often not the primary goal) in the workplace, There are, however, limited empirical studies demonstrating this potential religiosity-ethical behavior relationship, and even fewer have been conducted in ‘workplace settings. The few modest religiosity-business- related ethical behavior studies that do exist reveal mixed results (see Weaver and Agle 2002), with some positive results indicating religiosity to be associated with less willingness to justify ethically suspect behaviors (such as cheating on taxes; see Parboteeah et al. 2008), more positive attitudes toward statements of corporate social responsibility (Agle and Van Buren 1999), and less will- Ingness to pirate software (Wagner and Sanders 2001). Later, we will introduce the negative results and a sociological and politcal science approach to explaining the mixed results, However, for now, we focus on a psychological account for this religiosity-ethical behavior link Self-control has been argued to be necessary for people to behave ethically (Baumeister and Exlinc 1999); Baumeister et al, (1994) suggested that religion, as an external source of discipline, can be helpful to people in exercising self-control. Additionally, Geyer and Baumeister (2005) suggested that religious organizations facilitate self-monitoring, a key ingredient of self- control, through their traditions and rituals such as fasting and prayers. They further argued that religion can affect positive self-control by providing moral standards and motivating moral behavior. Indeed, Barnett et al. (1996) demonstrated that religious members have more “uncompromising moral standards than their nonreligious counterparts and thus were more likely to blow the whis- Uc on their cheating peers. Accordingly, it can be seen that by bringing religion to work, one brings moral standards that are adhered to, at least partially, by self control. Egocentrism. Tt appears that religion at work can produce organizational benefits by providing a means for workers to guide their behaviors in the realm of prosociality and ethicality, However, at the other end of this teligiosity-prosociality and ethicality tension lies a potential for certain religious organizational members to possess egocentric tendencies in the form of prejudiced attitudes and behaviors directed at racial/ethnic minorities, gay men and lesbians, and other outgroup members, Allport and Kramer (1946) have been identified as the first researchers to observe that churchgoers are more Intolerant of ethnic minorities than nonattendees (All- port and Ross 1967). Over the years, that finding has ‘been empirically and theoretically elaborated on in several ways (e.g, Batson et al, 1993), The most consistent findings in this literature are that measures of RIGHTS LINKED religious fundamentalism are associated with indices of intolerance toward various groups including ethnic minorities, women, and especially gay men and lesbians (Hunsberger and Jackson 2005). Religious fundamentalism is defined as “the belief that there is one set of religious teachings that clearly contains the fundamental, basic. inerrant truth about humanity and deity” (Altemeyer and Hunsberger 1992, p. 118) and can be thought of as “a strong, usually exclusive commitment to a given religion that guides one’s interaction with the world” (Jackson and Esses 1997, p. 895). Several reasons have been advanced to explain the religion-prejudice linkage (e.g., Hunsberger and Jackson 2005). One provocative rationale suggests that religion, by justifying or explaining the social status quo (e.g., “God rewards those who lead a good life"). legit- imates social structures and traditions, Thus, religion would be associated with prejudice if it justified exist ing inequalities. Indeed, Schwartz and Huismans (1995) found among participants of several Western religions that religiosity is associated positively with conservative values (¢.g., tradition) and negatively with openness-to- change values. Furthermore, according to Hunsberger and Jackson (2005), values such as “freedom of oppor- tunities,” held more strongly by the highly intrinsically religious compared to the less intinsically religious and the nonreligious (Burris et al. 2000), may paradoxically assist the highly intrinsically religious in masking and justifying their own prejudiced attitudes and behaviors. Specifically, when the intrinsically religious believe that “freedom of opportunity” is a reality rather than an ideal, they likely will blame minority groups for their own adverse situations, for example, by stereotyping them as. unintelligent. In fact, Hinojosa and Park (2004) found American Evangelical Protestants especially likely to view the social disadvantage of African Americans as a product of a lack of motivation. This religious prejudice explanation is very much in line with system justification theory (¢g., Jost et al. 2004, p. 887), which in part posits that there is a need “to imbue the status quo with legit- imacy and to see it as good, fair, natural, desirable, and even inevitable.” Religion can help fulfill such a need, ‘We expect that religiosity is associated with prejudice at least partly through its effects on individuals’ justification of social status quo maintenance. Below, we provide two recent examples of religion-prejudice research and address its workplace import Regarding race, DiTomaso et al. (2003, p. 2), among a sample of whites in three areas of the United States, observed how the policy attitudes of religious conser vatives, compared to those of nonreligious conservatives, “have been culturally constructed and mobilized to attack those public institutions that incorporated blacks as part of the Civil Rights Movement.” They found, for Instance, that religious identification was strongly pre- dictive of the belief that it is nor the government's business to ensure fair treatment, The religiously identified, at 07:00 . For personal use only, Downloaded from informs.org by [130.104.176.52] on 23 October 201 1592 (Chan Serafin, Brit, and George: Perpecive rasiation Seine 245) 9p. 15851600, 2013 INFORMS were categorized as such if they, in interviews, about the importance of their faith, their involvement in their church, .. and the influence of such. .. involvement on their lives” (DiTomaso et al. 2003, p. 12). Given the import of and controversy surrounding affirmative action (eg, Crosby and VanDeVeer 2000), these are salient results ‘The targeted groups investigated most in recent religion-prejudice research appear to be gay men and lesbians. In a rare organizationally relevant study, Horvath and Ryan (2003) demonstrated that religiosity, measured by the frequency of church attendance and of religious practices, as well as perceived importance of, religion to one's life, is positively associated with beliefs that there will be negative consequences from employ- ing homosexuals. Outside of the work context, religious fundamentalism has also been found to be correlated positively with homosexual prejudices within samples of Christians, Hindus, Jews, and Muslims (see Hunsberger 1995). Few studies, however, have examined relationships between religion and implicit attitudes toward gays and lesbians. “Implicit attitudes” are unconscious, relatively automatic evaluative reactions (Greenwald and Banaji 1995), and as such, might be more insidious than the more frequently studied explicit forms of prejudice, Rowatt et al, (2006) investigated religion-implicit homosexual prejudice linkages in a sample of Protes- tants and Catholics, finding religious fundamentalism to be a strong predictor of negative implicit attitudes toward gay men, ‘The reasons supplied for such findings vary, but often are traced presumably to a literal interpretation of the Bible emphasizing homosexuality as unnatural and per- verse, and to a fundamentalist view that homosexuality is a threat to the nuclear family and, thus, a threat to society (Burdette et al. 2005), Empirically, Jackson and Esses (1997) demonstrated that religious fundamentalists blame gays and lesbians for societal problems, such as unemployment, through their perceptions that homosexuals threaten their values. This attibution of blame was found to translate into helping behaviors that are patronizing in nature; that is, instead of engaging in involved forms of helping such as providing incentives for gays and lesbians to start up businesses, religious fundamentalists in Jackson and Esses' studies were more likely to provide help in the form of “changing” gays and lesbians to solve the problem. For example, religious fundamentalists may encourage gays and lesbians {o accept responsibility for their own problems and then recommend that they participate in employment train- ing programs in exchange for unemployment benefits, Such forms of helping behavior, if mirrored in organizations, can have a detrimental impact on organizational members (Whether they are racial minorities, gays and lesbians, or other outgroup members) who seek help and advice. The religion-—prejudice associations highlighted RIGHTS LINKED above clearly mean that to better understand employ- ‘ment discrimination and, hence, organizational diversity, religion needs to be placed on the agenda in organizational research, Prosociality and Ethicality vs. Egocentrism: When Might One Prevail Over the Other? To explore the conditions under which prosociality and ethicality or egocentrism will prevail, we draw on the work of both psychologists and sociologists, From a psychological perspective, the cognitive mechanisms resulting from espousing two different religious moral principles (ic., Preston et al. 2010) and moral disengage- ‘ment (Bandura 1999) are relevant. Preston et al. (2010) recently reviewed and extended the literature on religion and prosocial behavior by providing an interesting approach to examine the activation of prosocial behaviors toward ingroup members and the dampen- ing of such behaviors toward outsiders. According t0 Preston et al, (2010), religion and belief in God are related to prosocial behavior, but in different ways. The religious principle emphasizes religious affiliation as a social unit, with the main moral concem being ingroup protection and cooperation, whereas the supernatural Principle derives from the belief in God as a moral agent, with the key moral concer being virtue and following the moral principles of God (cf. Haidt and Joseph’s 2004 moral principles—ingroup/loyalty versus hharm/care). Depending on which moral principle religious organizational members espouse, their prosocial bbchaviors toward ingroup versus outgroup members and, by extension, their discriminatory behaviors directed. at members of the outgroup, will vary. The targets of such ‘behaviors therefore become crucial in understanding this tension, Specifically, religious workers supporting the supernatural principle likely will engage in more univer- sal prosocial behaviors, helping and behaving ethically toward both ingroup and outgroup members. Similarly, for those upholding the religious principle, they likely will behave prosocially toward their ingroup members. In these cases, the religiosity-prosociality and ethicality relationship prevails. Drawing on the reasoning of Preston et al. (2010), the religiosity-egocentrism linkage will prevail vis-i- vis out-group members when religious workers uphold the religious principle: the religious principle’s moral concern of ingroup protection likely will fuel them to engage in less prosocial and even more discriminatory behaviors toward outgroup members. We contend that it is not only the support of the religious principle that ‘might lead to egocentrism; rather, another psychological mechanism may also be at play. For instance, Bushman et al. (2007) showed that exposure to scriptural violence sanctioned by God increased aggression in a sample of undergraduate students, This was especially so for those ‘who believe in the scriptures. Bushman et al, (2007)rights reserved. Downloaded from informs.org by [130.104.176.52] on 23 October 2013, at 07:00 . For personal use only, (Chan-Serafi, Brie, and George: Perspective nation Sine 26), py. 1H5-160, 2015 INFORMS 1593 reasoned that when violence is perceived as morally justified through its sanctification by God, aggression is produced (cf. Berkowitz 1993). Moreover, Ginges et al. (2009) found regular religious service attendance to be associated with approval of suicide attacks against outgroup members via the abilities of those regularly attending religious services to strengthen within-group cooperation and widen the perceptual divide between ingroup and outgroup interests. The “us-versus-tem” thinking encourages one to cast outsiders as unworthy of respect and even lacking in humanness (cf. Struch and Schwartz 1989). This dehumanization process tends to make one less inhibited to harm another (e.g., Bandura et al. 1975) Moral justification and dehumanization are related to some of the cognitive mechanisms responsible for moral disengagement. Bandura (1999) argued that individu. als are more likely to make unethical decisions when they morally disengage (ic. when moral self-regulatory processes that usually curb unethical behavior are deac~ tivated), By morally justifying a deviant act and by strip- ping one’s victims of human qualities, individuals can hhurt their victims yet still preserve their own sense of morality. If there is something so powerful about religion and the concept of God that can trigger one’s moral disengagement processes, what might this mean for organizations and their members who frequently are confronted with decisions that are ethically charged? Through moral disengagement, religious workers might find it easier to act egocentrically and behave poorly toward their bosses, peers, and customers who are not of the same faith or who belong to the outgroup. The nature of moral principles espoused by religious organizational members together with moral disengagement processes likely will infiuence when religiosity-prosociality and ethicality or religiosity-egocentrism prevails. From a sociological perspective, focusing on individue als’ cognitive processes is not sufficient to gauge the religiosity tension between prosociality/ethicality and egocentrism. Weaver and Agle (2002) offered a provocative symbolic interactionist approach to explain the mixed empirical findings for the religiosity-ethical behavior linkage and when this relationship will prevail. Accord- ing to this approach, individuals hold multiple role identities at any given point in time and will only engage in behaviors that are consistent with the expectations of a particular role identity when that identity is prominent ‘Weaver and Agle (2002) argued that individuals’ religious role identities are “switched on” when religious- relevant contextual cues are salient in the organization (cg. the presence of religious artifacts and coreligion- ists). Under such conditions, religious workers likely will engage in behaviors that are in accordance with the moral expectations specified by their religion. For Weaver and Agle (2002), these behaviors are perceived to be ethical ones, but surely they can be extended to RIGHTS LINKED include prosocial behaviors, particularly when religious members who uphold the supernatural principle (Pre- ston et al, 2010) or principles of concem for others (eg. the Golden Rule) work in organizations where religious cues are salient. In these cases, the religiosity— prosociality and ethicality relationship may be promoted, Alternatively, when religious members embedded in religiously salient organizations espouse the religious principle (Preston et al. 2010) or believe, for example, that homosexuality is a threat (o society, the religiosity egocentrism relationship may prevail. ‘Tensions Recap We have explored the tensions religion can build in organizations by demonstrating how the religiosity of organizational members may manifest itself in admirable as well as potentially troublesome ways. Again, our intent is not to advocate that God occupy the comer office or that religion be banned from the workplace. Rather, we hope to promote the study of religion at work by enticing organizational scholars to investigate the tensions between the benefits/adaptive outcomes and the challenges/maladaptive outcomes produced by religion at work, as well as to explore the conditions under Whi cone might prevail over the other. In our analysis of two exemplary cases representing the struggle between the benefits and challenges, we observe that the two tensions ae in fact held together by a common thread. Specif- ically, the forces we identified as potentially responsible for driving challenges to prevail over benefits, or vice versa, can be categorized into (1) individuals” religiosity and beliefs in and relationships with God (e-2., the intrinsically religious, those who subseribe to religious versus supematural principles) and (2) the con- ‘exis within which religious organizational members are embedded (e.g., contexts posing self-identity threats or laden with religious stimuli). In the “right” combination, these forces can drive either adaptive or maladaptive outcomes. Unt now, we have focused principally on individuals’ beliefs. In the nest section, we provide a somewhat fuller treatment of the role of the context in Which a person's religion may manifest itself. By introducing more aggregate issues such as organizational and nation-state-evel religiosity, we provide a broader theo- retical framework for the study of religion at work that acknowledges the tensions between the benefits and the challenges. Religion in Context ‘This paper was opened by recognizing the existence of Christian owned and operated businesses. We assert, based on theory (e.g., Schneider 1987), that religiou Christians are attracted to these firms, hired by them, and remain with them. We theorize that religious Christians embedded in such a firm may behave differently thanrights reserved. Downloaded from informs.org by [130.104.176.52] on 23 October 2013, at 07:00 . For personal use only, 1594 (Chan Serafin, Brit, and George: Perpectve rusiation Seine 245) 9p. 15851600, © 2013 INFORMS they would in more secular organizations (cf, Weaver and Agle 2002). More specifically, we anticipate that the sorts of religiosity-organizational behavior relationships proposed will be stronger the more the work environ- ‘ment primes religion, thus making one's religion and religious role identity more salient. For example, in line with Weaver and Agle's (2002) symbolic interactionist theory, one could build an argument that an organization populated by Protestants (whether they be intrinsics or fundamentalists) who espouse the religious as opposed to supernatural principle (Preston et al. 2010) may be “unreceptive to outgroup members. Consistent with this reasoning, Salvador et al. (2010) found that religious fundamentalism interacted with workplace priming of religion to predict discrimination against gay and lesbian customers in an experiment that created a simulated work environment. These findings were later replicated in the field. In 28 organizations, Salvador et al. (2010) demonstrated that fundamentalist religious workers were more willing to discriminate against gay and lesbian coworkers when their workplace possessed contextual cties that made religion salient Such cues included coworkers displaying items of reli- sious significance (e.g., prayer beads) in their work areas and company mission statements reflecting religious val- vues, It is important to note that without such workplace cues, no discrimination was detected in the field study; the religiosity-ethicality relationship prevailed. Christian owned and operated businesses (or those owned and managed by other faiths) present another issue possibly worthy of research attention: religiosity as an organizational attribute, Such an attribute might be gauged in multiple ways, for example, by explicit reference to the belief in God and religion in company documents, policies, and procedures, or by aggregating the religiosity of a firm’s employees. Then, one might theorize how and when collective religiosity is related to both adaptive and maladaptive outcomes. For instance, collective religiosity has the potential to lead to unfair employment discrimination (e.g., collective religiosity may be associated with excluding outgroup members) and may make for an uncomfortable work environment for those workers who are religiously dissimilar from the majority. The veracity of these expectations, however, depends on whether there is the “right” combination of individuals’ beliefs in God and context. For example, if a firm’s religious employees collectively espouse the religious as opposed to the supernatural principle, and religious cues are prominent in that firm, the proposed religiosity-egocentrism relationship may prevail These expectations are empirical questions in need of future research, More positively, perhaps, let us take the case of the restaurant chain Chick-fil-A and founder, chait- man, and chief executive officer S, Truett Cathy. Cathy is described in his company biography as one who RIGHTS LINKED “built his life and business based on hard work, humanity and biblical principles. Based on these principles, all of Chick-fil-A restaurants operate with a ‘elosed-on-Sunday’ policy—without exception” (Chick- fil-A 2012a). The company explains its closed-on- Sunday policy in the following statement: “Cathy cred- its ‘blessings from the Lord” for the great success the company has enjoyed, and he remains as committed as ever to maintaining the closed-on-Sunday policy (Chick-fil-A 20126). The question becomes, does a company like Chick-fil-A, other than closing on Sundays, behave differently than presumably more secular organizations such as Burger King and McDonalds? Clearly, wwe expect that firms that are more faith-based do act differently. How so? Will workers embedded in such faith-based firms be more virtuous and engage in more prosocial organizational behaviors than those in secular companies? There is some provocative preliminary evidence thal suggests this may be so, at least for intragroup prosocial organizational behaviors within faith- based firms. Norenzayan and Shariff (2008) provided empirical data from anthropology and sociology to show hal religious communes, compared with secular ones, impose twice as many costly requirements for membership, such as fasting and restrictions of material posses- sions and sex, and that those religious communes enjoy greater longevity. The researchers partially attributed the survival advantage of religious communes to greater intragroup prosociality and cooperation, for the sacri- fice members make to stay in such communes is costly and it is to their benefit to help cach other and preserve the commune as a going concern. Consistently, Henrich et al. (2010), across 15 diverse populations ranging from Missouri to Papua New Guinea, observed that as the per- centage of a sample reported practicing either Islam or Christianity increased, so did their cooperative and fair tueatment of one another. Would such findings regarding prosociality and cooperation hold true at Chick-fil-A. and other faith-based firms? We expect so, But these are questions organizational theory and research need to addres. Taking context to an even higher level of analysis, we briefly tum to the religious environment in which organizations are embedded, Will, for instance, banks oper- ating in Islamic-dominated states behave differently than those located in more secular nations? Very much so. Islamic banking practices rest on several principles that distinguish them from more secular ones. These principles, for example, include (1) prohibitions against interest, contractual uncertainty and speculation, and deal- ings with industries related to pork, pomography, and alcoholic beverages; and (2) reliance on rulings issued by qualified Muslim scholars as they pertain to Islamic finance (e.g., Solé 2007, Yaquby 2005). At the organiz tional level, these principles translate, for instance, into arights reserved. Downloaded from informs.org by [130.104.176.52] on 23 October 2013, at 07:00 . For personal use only, (Chan-Serafi, Brie, and George: Perspective nation Since 26), p1H5-160, 2015 INFORMS 1595 governance structure that incorporates a Sharia Supervi- sory Board, or at the very minimum a Sharia counselor (e.g, Suleiman 2005, Weir 2004). Sharia is the Islamic legal code derived from the Koran and the writings of Muhammad, Beyond the firm, the principles have led to the creation of the Accounting and Auditing Orga- nization for Islamic Financial Institutions, whose goals include the design and dissemination of accounting and auditing standards that can be applied by all Islamic institutions (¢.g., Solé 2007). Islamic banking is very different from secular banking and is growing rapidly (eg., Weir 2004), ‘Admittedly, we chose banking in Islamic countries as a rather easy way to demonstrate how state religiosity may affect the behavior of organizations. Obviously, the Islamic world is more diverse and complex than we have depicted. Regarding diversity, Islamic countries range from the small, wealthy, relatively liberal Qatar to the large, poor, conservative Yemen; regarding complex- ity, Samuel L. Hayes II, an expert on Islamic finance, observed that Western women doing business in Islamic countries almost constitute a “third sex,” for they are seen as so special and different from the genders in these countries (Lagace 2002). Relatedly, Moore and ‘Vanneman (2003) provided a very interesting twist to existing research on conservative religiosity and attitudes toward gender roles, Analyzing a survey of a represen- {ative sample in the United States, they found, after con- trolling for individuals’ religious affiliation, beliefs, and practices, a statistically significant positive relationship between the proportion of fundamentalists in a state and conservative gender attitudes of white individuals in that state. Consistent with the finding of Brief et al. (2005) that the racial demographics of communities matter in influencing organizational members’ racial attitudes, we expect Moore and Vanneman's (2003) findings imply that a community's religious demographics may influ- cence gender attitudes in organizations. Recent research in psychology and sociology suggests that the religious environment in which organizations are embedded will have more far-reaching effects on organizations than just their gender attitudes and, hence, their diversity management, Using representative samples of the world, Diener ct al. (2011) demonstrated that religiosity has the most beneficial effect on individuals’ sub- jective well-being when they are embedded in a society where a large segment of the population is religious, and it has the least helpful effect in a society where the religious are in the minority. These findings suggest that organizations embedded in communities where a majority of the population is religious may have different pro- files than organizations embedded in communities with the religious being in the minority. In the religiosity— ethicality domain, Finke and Adamezyk’s (2008) analysis of two world surveys demonstrated that national religious contexts help shape individuals’ opinions on RIGHTS LINKED morality, Their findings imply that the (un}ethical stance and behaviors of organizations may depend on the religiousness of the nations in which they are embedded. ‘At the nation-state level, the degree of separation between church and state also may impact the outcomes we examined, In a study of 152 nation-states, Fox (2006) observed that only in the United States is there no state support for religion and no state restrictions on religion. Moreover, he found that the U.S. government involvement in religion is on the increase, albeit slightly. However, it should be noted that Americans are the most religious in the industrialized world (see for example, Diener et al. 2011). The lesson is that the United States is a unique context for studying religion in the workplace. Rather than looking at the nation-state level, one could examine religion through the lens of culture (e.g., Geertz 1973, Tarakeshwar etal. 2003). Doing so opens the door to studying the influence of religious cultures within nation-states (e.g., Cohen 2009, Cohen and Hill 2007). ‘The only organizational work in this vein that we are aware of was conducted by Sanchez-Burks (2002). He, for example, demonstrated that American participants high in Protestant relational ideology (PRI; e.g., Calvin- ist Protestants), in a business frame of mind, were less attentive to emotional tone than members of other relic gions. PRT is a cultural construct derived from Sanchez: Burks’ (2005, p. 265) analysis of the Protestant Refor- mation and defined as “a deep-seated belief that affective and relational concerns are considered inappropriate in work settings, and, therefore are to be given less atte tion than in social, non-work settings.” Sanchez-Burks’ findings likely will have an impact on how organizations manage intercultural miscommunication and conflicts. In this section, we have recognized five possibili- ties regarding context: (1) the workplace can serve to prime an employee's religiosity, (2) businesses themselves can be viewed in terms of their religiosity, (3) the religiosity of a nation-state can affect the practices of ‘businesses located in it, (4) religious cultures within a nation-state may influence attitudes and behaviors in organizations, and (5) the religiosity of a nation-state and culture may moderate the effects of (1) and (2) on outcomes. We have just surfaced the tip of the iceberg in terms of the import of religious context on the behavior of organizations and their members, and many impor tant questions await future theorizing and research, example, how do the different levels of analysis of context affect the two tensions discussed and whether benefits prevail over challenges? Specifically, how might the levels differentially influence whether positive or negative outcomes ensue? As another example, what are the consequences for an organization and its members when the religiosity of the workplace does not match that of| the individual worker?rights reserved. Downloaded from informs.org by [130.104.176.52] on 23 October 2013, at 07:00 . For personal use only, 1596 (Chan Serafin, Brit, and George: Perpectve rusiation Seine 245) 9p. 15851600, © 2013 INFORMS Furthermore, students of marketing have long recognized that religion influences what goods and services are traded and how and when they are waded (c.g... Mittelstaedt 2002). For instance, Islam influences how ‘banks based outside of Islamic countries operate and provide services (¢.g., Hongkong and Shanghai Bank- ing Corporation). Similarly, financial institutions such as Cordoba Gold in the United Kingdom are beginning to provide services that are more in line with the moral standards of Sharia, such as the introduction of Shatia- compliant prepaid credit cards, whereby no interest is paid or received by the company. Clearly, there is much, to lear about how religion influences organizational life. Concluding Thoughts At the individual level of analysis, we have demonstrated that religiosity, tapped in a variety of ways, can build tensions between adaptive and maladaptive outcomes in the workplace. It is important to note that the tensions we addressed are mere examples. Others clearly exist. Not attended to, for instance, is the plausible tension between enhanced (¢.g., Ellison ef al. 2000, Smith etal. 2003) and diminished well-being (c.g., Dezutter et al. 2006, Ryan ef al. 1993) produced by religion, We also have proposed initial sets of conditions under which benefits prevail over challenges and challenges prevail over benefits. What we have not addressed is when religiosity will not matter organizationally. In part, we anticipate that the influence of religiosity will vary as a function of the criterion that is the focus of attention, with observed relationships being positive, negative, or null. Moreover, wwe propose that the strength of such relationships is likely 0 be moderated by organizational context (c-., the proportion of coworkers with similar levels of relic giosity). Finally, beyond the individual level of analysis, wwe briefly considered the organizational consequences of collective religiosity at the firm and nation-state levels Largely under the guise of spirituality, religion at ‘work has been advocated by some observers of organizations, but very limited scholarship isin evidence. Indeed, studying religion at work may be taboo. One reason for this state of affairs may be the false view that the study of religion in the workplace belongs to theologians and Philosophers, not social scientists—that itis best not to mix religion and science, Another reason for the taboo may be the fear of being seen as potentially attacking religion, Religion and contemplations about the concept of God are part of many people’s lives. To assume, by neglect, that religion docs not play a role in organizational life leaves us with an incomplete organizational science. Acknowledgments The authors thank senior editer Linda Argote and three anony- ‘mous reviewers for their insightful comments throughout the RIGHTS LINKED review process. This research was parilly supported by Aus- tralian Research Council [Grant DP1094023, awarded to the first author) Endnotes Although our construal of religion includes fundamental- jam, i¢ is silent on the level of activisnafextremism that may be engaged in by such groups. As recognized, for example, by Othman (2006), in addressing fundamentalist Islamist groups, activisnvextemism may range from political violence (Ge, militant Islam or jihadic Islam) to peaceful but politi- ized proselytizing and social reform projects (ie., dakwab or da'awa Islamic movements). The topic of activism, and, in particular, extremism, is therefore beyond the scope of the ‘current inquiry (but for more on the topic, see, for instance, Tannaccone and Berman 2006, Krestel 2007). 2We share our religious attachments here, for one’s religious beliefs (including ours) may not be neuiral; that is, beliefs often stand bebind specific attitudes and behaviors. One of us ‘was reared in BuddhisConfucianst traditions, rarely visits @ temple, and is slightly religious; one of us is an afliated Jew attending services occasionally; and another of us was raised a8 a Christian References Agle BR, Van Buren 11) I (1989) God and mammon: The modeen relationship. Bus, Ethice Quart. 9:563-582. Alicke MD (1993) Egocente standards of conduc evaluation. Basic “Appl. Soe. Paych, VeITI-192. Allison ST, Messick DM, Goethals GR (1988) On being better but not, ‘smarter than others! The Muhammad Ali effect. Soe. Cognition 1295-296 Allport GW (1952) The Individual and His Religion (Macmillan, ‘New York), Allport GW, Kramer BM (1946) Some roots of prejudice. J. Paych 229-39 Allport GW, Ross IM (1967) Persona religious orientation and prej- tudice. J. Personality So. Psych. 5:432~83. Alemeyer R, Hunsbetger B (1992) Authoitaranism, religious fu damental, quest, ané prejudice. Inierat. J. Psych. Religion 21133, Ashforh BE, Vaidyanath D (2002) Work organizations as secular reli- ‘ions. J: Management Inguiry 11359°370, Ashmes DP, Duchon D (2000) Spirituality at work: A conceptualiza- ‘ion and measure. . Management Inguiry 9:134-145, Bandura A (1999) Moral disengagement in the peaperation of inc ‘manities. Personality Soe. Psyeh- Res. 3:195-209. Bandura A. Underwood B, Fromson ME (1975) Disinhibition of ‘aggression through diffusion of responsibility and debumanizi- ‘ion of victims. J. Res, Personality :253-259 Barnett, Bass K, Brown G (1996) Religisiy, etheal ideotony ‘and intentions to report a peers wrongdoing. J Bus. Ethics 1st6i-1174 Barro RJ, MeCleary RM (2003) Religion and economic grow across ‘outes. Amer, Sociol, Rev, 68:760~781 Batson CD, Schoearade P, Vents WL (1993) Religion and the Indi ‘Vidual (Oxford University Pres, New Yor). Baumeister RF, Exline JJ (1999) Virtue. personality, and social ‘elations: Self-contsol as the moral muscle, J. Personality 71165-1194,Downloaded from informs.org by [130.104.176.52] on 23 October 2013, at 07:00 . For personal use only, all rights reserved. (Chan-Serafi, Brie, and George: Perspective nanan Sine 26), py. 1H5-160, 2015 INFORMS 1597 Baumeister RF, Heathexon TR, Tice DM (1994) Losing Control Hows and Why People Fail at Sel Regulation (Academic Press, San Diego) Beit-Hallahmi B (1984) Psychology and eligi. Borstein M, ed. Peychology and ls Allied Disciplines, Vol. | (Lavrence Eelbsum Astocsts, Hlldsle, ND), 241-282, Bella R, Marsden R, Sullivan WM, Swidler A, Tipton SM (1985) Habis of the Heart: Indviduaiom and Comoaiment in America (Cniversty of California Press, Berkeley). Berkowitz I (1993) Aggression: lis Causes, Consequences, and Con: ‘rol (MeGraw-Hil, New Yor). Brief AP (1998) Attitudes in and Around Organizations (Sage ‘Thousand Oaks, CA). Brief AP, Motowidlo SI (1986) Protocal organizational behaviors Acad. Management Rex. U:-T10-725, Brief AP, Unaphress EE, Dietz J, Burows JW, Butz RM, Scholten L (2005) Community maters: Realistic group conflict theory and the impact of diversity, Acad. Management J 48:850-844, Bunderson JS, Thompson JA (2009) The call of the wild: Zookecp- cs, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningiul work Admin. Set. Quart. $4:32-57 Burdete AM, Elion CG, Hull TD (2005) Conservative Protestantism ‘and (olerance toward homosexuals: An examination of potential ‘mechanisms. Sociol Inquiry 75:177-196. Buris CT, Navara GS (2002) Morality play—Or playing morality? Tatrinsie religious orientation and socially desirable responding. Self Identity 187-36, Buris CT, Branscombe NR, Jackson LM (2000) “For God and coun: ‘uy”: Religion andthe endorsement of national sele-stereatypes. J Grose Cultural Pryeh, 31:31)-821 Bushman BJ, Ridge RD, Das B, Key CW, Busath GI. (2007) When ‘God sanctions liling: Effect of scriptural violeace on agazes sion, Paych Sei. 18:204-207, Cains MI (2000) Recovering religion's prophetic voice for busines ice. J Bus, Bthice 25°339-552, Cameron KS (2003) Organizational vitwousness and performance, ‘Cameron KS, Dutton JE, Quinn RE, eds. Positive Organizational Scholarship (Berset-Koehle, San Francisco), 48-65. Chaves M, Hadaway K, Marler P (1998) Overrepeting church atten: ‘dance in America: Evidence that demande the same verdict Amen Sociol. Rev, 6:122-130, CChick-l-A (20122) Executive biographies. Accessed November 15, 2012, bpllwww chicka comPreseBioa/Tuet Chick-fil-A (20120) Chick-il-A's closed-on-Sunday policy. Press releate, Cickel-A, Allan, hipioww chicks com Medial PDF/2012-Closed-on-Sunday: pa, Coen AB (2009) Many forms of culture. Amer Psych. :194-204, Coen AB, Hill PC (2007) Religion as culture: Religious individ alism and collestivism among American Catholics, Jews, and Protesans. J. Personality 75:708-949, CCrabree S, Pelham B (2008) What Alabamians and Iranians have in common. Accessed August 26, 2010, htp:fww gallop com poll 1421 1/Alabarians-lranans-Comamon aspx Cosby FJ, VanDeVeer C (2000) Sex, Race, and Mert: Debating ‘Ajrmative Action in Education and Employment (University of ‘Michigan Press, Ann Arbo) Delbecq LA (1999) Chistian spirituality and contemporary business Teaersbip J. Organ. Change Management 12:318-327 RIGHTS LINKED Denuter J, Soenens B, Hutiebaut D (2006) Religiosity and mental health: A father exploration of te relative amportaace of reli ious Behaviors vs. religious attitudes. Personality Individual Differences 40807-818, Dieaer E, Tay L, Myers DG (2011) The religion paradox: If reli- ‘ion makes people happy, why are so many dropping out? J Personality Soc. Paych. 10112781290 DiTomaso N, Post C, Pcks-Yancy R (2008) Raeelethnicity and God Religious conservatives and varal politics. Presentation, Ames jean Sociological Association Meeting, August 16, Allanta [ups princeton edul~artspolconferences/DiTomaso pa Dividio JF, Piliavin JA, Schroeder DA. Penner LA (2006) The Social Paychology of Provocial Behavior (Lawtence Erlbaum Asto- ciates, Mahwah, ND, Dunning D, Heath C, Suls JM (2004) Flawed self-assessment Impl ‘ations for heath, education, and the workplace. Paych- Sc Public Interest $:59-106. Dutton JE, Auhford SJ (1993) Selling issues to top management ‘Acad. Management Re 18:397-428, [Bawards JR, Rothbard NP (2000) Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family con- simucts Acad: Management Re, 25:1 78199, Ellison CG, Hummer RA, Cormier 8, Rogers RG (2000) Religious involvement and mortality risk among African American als er Aging 2:680-557. Elbach KD (2003) Relating physical envionment to seit falegorizaions: Identity teat and alrmation int non temitoral fice space. Admin. Sei. Quart. 48:622-654 [Bly RI (1994) The ellects of organizational demographics and social ‘dentity on relationships aiong professional women. Admin. Se Quart, 39:203-238, Emmons RA, Paloutzian RE (2003) The psychology of religion “Annual Rev. Peychol. 54377402. Bpley N, Dunning D (2000) Feeling “holier than thou": Are se serving assessments produced by errors in slf- or social pedi tion? J Personality Soc. Pyoh. 78:861-875 Exline JJ, Geyer AL (2004) Perceptions of humility: A preliminary sud. Self Identity 395-118 Exline JJ, Baumeister RF, Bushman BJ, Campbell WK, Finkel ED (2004) Too proud to let go: Natisiste enidement as a arrier to forgiveness. J Personaliy Soc. Psych. 87:894-912. Festinger L (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Row, Peterson, ‘Evanston I). Finke R, Adamczyk A (2008) Cross-national moral beliefs: The infu- ‘ence of halioal religious context Social Quart, 49:617-652 Fishbein M, Ajzen 1 (1975) Belief Atte, Intention, and Behav ior: An Iniredution to Theory and Research (Addison-Wesley Boston. Fox J (2006) World separation of religion and state into the 21x ‘century, Comparative Poitcal Stud. 39:587-569 Fry LW (2004) Book review: Handbook of workplace spirituality ‘and organizational performance, Acad. Management Executive s:165-167 urban A (1990) The Protestant Work Ethic (Routledge, London). Gallup (2008) Religion. Accessed August 2, 2010, ‘conpoll/L6S0heligion arp. Geers C (1973) Interpretation of Culture: Selected Essays by Ciford ‘Geert: (Basie Books, New York). pupwwwgallspDownloaded from informs.org by [130.104.176.52] on 23 October 2013, at 07:00 . For personal use only, all rights reserved. 1598 (Chan Serafin, Brit, and George: Perpectve rusiation Seine 245) 9p. 15851600, © 2013 INFORMS Geyer AL, Baumeister RF (2005) Religion, morality, ad self-control ‘Values, vires, and vices, Palouzian RE, Park CL. ede. Hand: Book of the Prycholony of Religion and Spirituality (Guilford, New York), 412-432, Giacalone RA, Jeskiewicr CL, Fry LW (2005) From advocacy to sience: The next steps in workplace sptiuality research Paloutzin RF, Park CL, ede. Handbook of the Peychology of Religion and Spirtuaity (Guilford, New York), 515-528 Ginges J, Hansen I, Norenzayan A (2009) Religion and support for ‘suicide attacks, Payoh, Set 20.224-230, (Gomex-Mejia LR, Balkin DB (1992) Determinant of faculty pay: An ‘agency theory perspective, Acad. Management J. 35:921-955 Greenwald AG, Banaji MR (1995) Implicit social cognition: Att tudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Piych, Rev 102:1-27 Haid J, Joseph € (2004 Iautive ethics: How innately prepared int ions generate culturally vacable virtues, Daedalus 139:55-66 Heasich J, Ensminger J, McBeath R, Barr A, Barret C, Bolyanatz A, ‘Cardenas JC, ef al, (2010) Markets, religion, community size, and the evolution of fsimese and punishment. Science S27. 1480-1488 Hill PC, Pargament KI (2008) Advances inthe eoneeptalizaton and ‘measurement of religion and spntualiy: Imphiations for phys ical and mental health reseatch. Amer Pych 3864-74, Hill PC, Pargament KI, Hood RW Je, McCullough ME, Swyers JP Larson DB, Zinnbaver BY (2000) Coneeptalizing religion and spirituality: Points of commonality. points of departure. J. The oy Soe. Behav 30°51-77, Hinojosa VJ, Park 1% (2004) Religion and the paradox of racial negualityatitades, Se. Stud. Religion 43:229-238, Hood RW, Hill PC, Splka B (2008) The Peychology of Religion: An Empivical Approach, 4th ed. (Guilford Press, New Yor) Horvath M, Ryan AM (2003) Antecedents and potential moderators ‘ofthe teatonship between aitudes and hiring disrimination ‘on the basis of sekual orientation, Sex Roler $8:115-130, Hunsberger B (1995) Religion and prejudice: The role of religious Tundamentalism, quest, and righting authoritarianism. J. Soc Tesues 11128, Huunsberger B, Jackion LM (2005) Religion, meaning and prejudice, J. Soe. lees 61:807-825, Huurz GM, Donovan 11 (2000) Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. J Appl. Payeh, 85:869-879, Tannaccone LR (1998) Introduction to the economics of religion. 1, Econom, Literature 36 1465-1495 Tannaccone LR, Berman E (2006) Religious extremism: The good, the bad, and the deadly. Public Choice 128:108-128. Jackson LM, Esses VM (1997) Of seriptute and ascription: The rela tion between religious fundamentalism and intergroup belping. Personality Soe. Peych Bull 23:895-909 James W_ (2007) The Varieties of Religious Experience (Digiveads.com Publishing. Sulvell. KS). [Ong. pub. 1902. Longmans, Green & Co, London.) Jost JT, Banaji MR, Nosek BA (2008) A decade of system justi ‘ation theory: Ascumblated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering ofthe status quo. Political Pay, 25:881-920, Julian LS (2002) God fs My CEO: Following God's Principles in a Bottom-line World (FW Publications, Avon, MA). Kaplan A (1964) The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behav Yoral Science (Chandler, San Francitce), RIGHTS LINKED Katz CR, Santman J, nero P (1994) Findings on the revised morally debatable behaviours scale, . Payoh. 126:15-21 Koenig UG (2008) Research on religion, spirituality, and mental eal: A review, Canad. . Pyehiary 54:283-291 Koetber CP, Neck CP (2006) Religion in the workplace: Implications for financial fraud and organizational decision making. . Man ‘agement, Spirituality, Religion 8505-318 Kosmin BA, Mayer E, Keysar A (2001) American Religious enti ‘ation Survey (2001) Report, Institue for the Study of Secu dsm in Society and Culture, Hartford, CT. hepa e.cany ‘44CUNY Cima CUNY. Graduate-Cente/PDF/ARISIARIS. -PDF- version paext= pat Keessel NJ (2007) Bad Fath: The Dangers of Religious Extremiem (Prometheus, Amberst, NY). Krishnakumar S. Neck CP (2002) The “what,” “why” and “how of ‘spitituality inthe workplace. J. Managerial Psych. 17:153-164 Kutcher HJ, Bragger JD, Rodriguez-Stednicki 0, Masco JL (2010) “The role of teligiosty in sess, job attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior. J Bus. Ethie 95:319-337, Lagace M (2002) How to do business in Islamic counties, HBS Working Knowledge (February 4) hnip/fabewk hbs.edafteny! 2745 ml ‘Lambert L. (2009) Spirituality Inc: Religion inthe Amevicam Work ‘lace (New York University Pest, New York), Lewis MW (2000) Exploting paradox: Toward a more comprehensive ‘guide. Acad. Management Res. 25°760-176, Lipt-Wiersma M, Dean KL, Fornaciari CI (2008) Theorizing the dark side of the workplace spirituality movement. J. Management Inquiry 18288-300, ‘Lyna ML, Naughton MJ, VanderVeen § (2010) Connecting religion ‘and work: Patterns and infuences of work-faith integration, Human Relations 68:575-T01 ‘Marler PL, Hadaway CK (2002) “Being religious” or “being spite ‘ual in America: A zero-sum proposition? J. Sc. Stud. Religion 41289-300, ‘Mickiethwait J, Wooldridge A (2009) God Is Back’ How the ‘Global Revival of Fah Ie Changing tke World (Penguin Press New York). ‘Mittotf I, Denton EA (1999) A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America: ‘A Hard Look at Spirituality, Religion, and Vale nthe Work place (lossey-Baas, San Francisco, ‘Mitelstaedt JD (2002) A framework for undetstanding the rela ‘ionships between religions and markets, J. Macromarketing 26-18 ‘Monin B (2007) Hobe than me? Threatening social comparison in ‘he moral domain, Revue Internationale de Paychologie Sociale 20'53-68, Moore 1, Vanneman R (2008) Context masters: Eifecs of the proportion of fundamentalist on gender aitudes. Soc. Forces sD 11s, ‘Mowday RI (1978) The exercise of upward influence in organiza tions. Admin, Sei. Quart. 23:137-156. ‘Murray A. (2001) Humiiy: The Journey Toward Holiness (Bethany rouse, Ada, Ml) [Norenzayan A, Shatift AF (2008) The origin and evolution of sli ious prosociality Science 58:58-62, (Ones DS, Viswesvaran C, Schmidt FI. (1993) Comprehensive mete analysis of integrity lest valgiter: Findings and implications for petsonnel Selection and theories of job performance. J- Appl Paych 18:619-108,Downloaded from informs.org by [130.104.176.52] on 23 October 2013, at 07:00 . For personal use only, all rights reserved. (Chan-Serafi, Brie, and George: Perspective natin Sine 26), pp. 1H5-160, 2015 INFORMS 1599 (Othman N (2006) Muslim women and the challenge of Islan Tundementaiemlextemism: An overview of Southeast Asian ‘Muslim women’s struggle for human rights and gender equal, Women's Stud. Internat. Forum 29339353, 02 §, Baden D (1984) Retraining the golem: Boosting performance ‘oy changing the interpretation of low scores. J. Appl. Psych 0744-758, Pachoteeah KP, Hoegl M, Cullen JB (2008) Ethics and religion: ‘An empitical test of a multidimensional model. J. Bur. Bihice 80:387-398 Pachoteeah KP, Hoegl M, Cullen J (2008) Religious dimensions and ‘work obligation: A‘country insuituional profile model. Human Relations 62:119-148, Peterson C, Seligman MEP (2004) Chavacter Stengihs and Virtues ‘A Handbook and Classscation (Onlord. University Press, Oxford, UK) Podsakol! NP. Whiting SW, Podsakoll PM, Blume BD (2009) Tndividual- and organizational-tevel consequences of organiza tional citizenship behaviors” A metaanalysis, J. Appl Paych 4122-141 Podsakolf PM, Aheame M, MacKenzie SB (1997) Organizational sit izenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Appl. Pych, 82:262-270 Presion IL, Riter RS, Hernandez J (2010) Principles of reli ‘gous prosociaity: A review and seformulaton, Sor. Personality Paych: Compass 4574-590. Rowatt RC, Tsang J. Kelly J, LaMarina B, McCullers M, ‘McKinley A (2006) Associations between tligious personal ity dimensions and implicit homosexual prejudice. J. Sci. Sud Religion 45:397-106, Rowatt WC. Ortenbreit A, Nesselroade KP, Cunningham P (2002) On ‘being holicrthan-thou or humbler-than-thee: A social psychological perspective on rligiousness and humility Sci Stud Religion 1:227-237, Ruiter $, De Graaf ND (2005) National context, religiosity, and Voluatering: Results fiom 53 counties, Amer Sociol Res: 71:191-210. Ryan RM, Righy S, King K (1993) Two types of celigious internal ization and thei relations to religious orientation and mental Iealth Personality Soc. Paych 65:586-596 Salvador R, Chan-SerainS, Smith-Crowe K, Brief AP (2010) For the "ible tells me so: The impact of cligiosity snd cligious orga rizaional contexts on diceimination against gays and lesbians. ‘Working paper University of Massachusetis, Amherst. Sanchez-Burks J (2002) Protestant relational ideology and {Gojatention to flational eves in work settings. J. Personality Soe. Paych, $3:919-529, Sanchez-Busks J (2005) Protestant relational ideology: The cognitive ‘underpinnings and organizational implications of an American ‘anomaly. Staw BM, Kramer RM, eds, Research in Organiza tonal Behavior (Elsevier, Oxford, UK), 265-206, Sandelands LE (2008) The argument for God from organization stud 4s. J. Management Inguiry 12:188-171 Siroglou V_ (2002) Religion and the five factors of personal: ity: A meta-analyue review. Personality Individual Differences 32(1)15=25, Swoglou V, Pichon J, Trompete L, Verschueren M, Demelle (2007) Protocial behavior and religion: New evidence based fon projective measures and peer ratings. J Si. Stud. Religion 44323-5348, RIGHTS LINKED Schneider B (1987) The people make the place. Personnel Paych "40:837-453, Schwartz SH, Huismans § (1995) Value priorities and religiosity in Tour Western religions, Soc. Prych Quart 5888-107. Sedikides C, Gehaver JE (2010) Religisity as seléenhancement ‘A metzanalysis of the relation between socially des able responding and religiosity. Personality Soe Psych. Rev Wares6, Shatif AF, Norenzayan A (2007) God is watching you: Priming God concepts increates prosocial behavior in ah anonymous €co- omic game. Psych Sci. 18:803-809, Shetkat DE, Elison CG (1999) Recent developments and current controversies in the tociology of religion, Annual Rex: Sociol 25:363-39, Sitberman I, Higgine ET, Dweck C$ (2005) Religion and world change: Violence and teroritm versus peace. J Sor. Teruer 1 761-784, Smith 7B, MeCullough ME, Pol J (2008) Religiousness and depres: ‘sion’ Evidence for a main elfect and the moderating inlence of suestul life events. Paych Bul, 129:614-536. Solé IA (2007) Introducing Islamic banks ito conventional banking systems Working Paper 07/175, Intemational Monetary Fund, Washington, DC. Spilka B, Hood RW Jr, Munsberger B, Gorsuch R (2008) The Poy chology of Religion: An Empirical Approach, 3x ed, (Guilford Press, New York) Staw BM (1991) Dressing up lke an organization: When psychological theories can explain organizational action, J. Monagement TP05-819. Struch N, Schwartz SH (1989) Intergroup aggression: Ite predictors and distinctness from ingroup bias. J. Personality Soc. Paych 56360373, Suleiman NM (2005) Corporate governance in Islamic banks: The ‘Muslim banking world faces the challenge of expanding inter rationally wale remaining tue to Islamic principles. Accessed January 6, 2009, ltpifonrw al-bab convarshiecon/esbanks him, Sullilfe $, Bowman M (2000) Beyond the New Age: Exploring Alter ‘native Spirituality (Eeinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, UK). ‘Tuakeshwar N, Stanton J, Pargament KI (2003) Religion: An ‘overlooked dimension in eros-cullural paychology, J. Cros Cultural Payoh, 3437-394, ‘Tenbrunsel AE, Dickmann KA, Wade-Renzoni KA, Bazerman MH (2010) Tho ethical mirage: A temporal explanation as to why we tent as ethical as we think we are. Staw BM, Brief AP. eds Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 (Elsevier, Ams terdam), 153-173, ‘Tracey P (2012) Religion and organization: A eritial review of, feurrent ends and futue directions. Acad Management Ann 87-134 ‘Tumer R, Lakoff D, Bamhouse R, Lu F (1995) Religious or spti- ‘ual problem: A culturally sensitive diagnostic eategory in the DSMAIV. J. Nersour Mental Disease 183:435—146, ‘Unlmann EL, Pochlman TA, Tannenbaum D, Bargh JA (2011) Implicit Puritanism in American moral eognition J. Experiment. Soe. Paych, AT312-820, ‘Wagner SC, Sanders GL (2001) Considerations in ethical decision- ‘making and software piracy. J. Bus, Bthicr 29: 161-167, ‘Weaver GR, AgleB (2002) Reigiosiy and ethical behavior in orgi- nizations A symbolic interactonist perspective. Acad. Manage: tment Rev 277-81,Downloaded from informs.org by [130.104.176.52] on 23 October 2013, at 07:00 . For personal use only, all rights reserved. 1600 (Chan Serafin, Brit, and George: Perpectve rusiation Seine 245) 9p. 15851600, © 2013 INFORMS Weber M (1922) The Sociology of Religion [lo German) (J. C. B ‘Mob (Paul Siebeck), Tubinges, Germany). [Reprinted 1093, ‘Translated by Fiscoif H. Beacon Press, Boston] Weber M (1958) The Protestant Ethic and the Sprit of Capitalism (Charles Senbaers Sons, New York), ‘WeirD (2004) Some sociological philosophical and ethical underpin hings ofan Islamic management model. Management, Spi ality Religion 1224-242, Yaquby N (2005) Sharh requirements for conventional banks J. Islamic Banking Finance 22(3), tpuarewislanic “banking comfarscle_7.aspx Znwbauer B, Pargantent KI (2005) Religiousnese and pirtualy Palouizisn RE, Patk CL, eds. Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirtualiy (Guilford Press, New York), 21-2 Zinubaver BY, Pagament KI, Scott AB (1999) The emerging mean ings of religiousness and spirituality: Problems and prospects J Personality 67:889-919. RIGHTS LINKED Suzanne Chan-Serafin is a senior lecturer at the Aus- tralian School of Business, University of New South Wales She received her PAD. from Tulane University. Her research focuses on ethical decision making, as well as gender and diversity issues in organizations, Arthur P. Brief is the George S. Eccles Chair in Business Ethics and Presidential Professor atthe University of Utah, His research focuses on the moral elements of organizational life, Jennifer M. George is the Mary Gibbs Jones Professor of Management and Professor of Psychology at the Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University. She received her Ph.D. in management and organizational bebav- ior from New York University. Her research interests include affect, mood, and emotions in the workplace; creativity; non- conscious processes; prosocial behavior; personality; groups and teams; and stress and well-being

How Does Religion Matter and Why

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

How Does Religion Matter and Why

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like