Nama: MUHAMMAD FAISAL FARHAN ARIF

KELAS : 1EA12
NPM : 11223116

Meaning and suffering in

organizations
Michaela Driver
Department of Management and Marketing, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City,
Tennessee, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of suffering for meaning making and
spirituality in organizational contexts.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper explores how organizational spaces may be created for
meaning making and how this is linked to the idea of compassion.
Findings – The paper suggests that while suffering has been explored in organizations, it has not
been studied relative to existential meaning making. This is identified as a significant gap in research
on organizational spirituality. The paper attempts to fill this gap and suggests that the study of
suffering has to separate suffering as an objective phenomenon, which should be eliminated in
organizations, from suffering as a subjective experience in which meaning may be found. It is also
proposed that, for existential meaning to be uncovered in the face of suffering, organizational spaces
have to be created in which such meaning making can take place.
Originality/value – The paper suggests that suffering can be a pathway to the discovery of spiritual
meaning.
Keywords Organizations, Professional ethics, Philosophical concepts Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Research and practitioners have shown increasing interest in exploring spiritual dimensions in
organizations (Biberman et al., 1999; Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, 2003; Graber and Johnson, 2001;
Kahnweiler and Otte, 1997; Mitroff and Denton, 1999). Although there is no universal definition of
spirituality (Ashforth and Pratt, 2003), a common theme of research is that spirituality, at the
individual level, is related to the search for and fulfillment of meaning (Kinjerski and Skrypnek, 2004).
Organizations are considered to be one of the important contexts in the search for meaning in life
(Dale, 1991; Holland, 1989; Korac-Kakabadse et al., 2002; Novak, 1996; Pava, 1999; Schechter, 1995;
Thompson, 2000). Spirituality is seen as a developmental gestalt whose center is the individual's
search for meaning and purpose (Gull and Doh, 2004). Meaning has been defined in various ways,
such as purpose in life or the belief that one fulfills a “life framework or life purpose” (Battista and
Almond, 1973), as well as attachment to the concept of meaning in life, having a framework for
viewing life in the context of that meaning (Chamberlain and Zika, 1988; Debats et al., 1995;
O'Connor and Chamberlain, 1996).

Research finds that meaning in life can be expressed through meaning systems constructed from
spatial and temporal self-narratives (Hermans, 1998). Meaning is also reflected in the everyday
personal narratives that shape events (Sommer and Baumeister, 1998), the decisions we make
(Maddi, 1998), and the personal projects we undertake every day (Little, 1998).

Meaning in life and meaning in work are interrelated (Brief and Nord, 1990; MOW, 1987), and are
not viewed as separate compartments. The meaning produced both in life and at work has mutual
influencing effects (De Klerk, 2004; Liou et al., 1990). The meaning of work is not limited to economic
or materialistic dimensions, but has a deeper significance for life (Morse and Weiss, 1955).
Workplaces and organizations are places where humans interpret and create meaning in life (Ashar
and Lane-Maher, 2004; De Klerk, 2004; Frankl, 1962; Pava, 1999).

In this paper, spirituality at the individual level is defined as the search for meaning in work with
meaning referring to the experience of connection with a higher purpose (Hermans, 1998; Sommer
and Baumeister, 1998). This definition emphasizes spirituality as a process of searching for meaning,
which is the basis for connecting spirituality with the project of human development towards a
higher level of consciousness (Wilber, 1981).

Spirituality is seen as part of a journey in which humans reconnect with purpose and meaning that
transcends the individual ego. For example, in the Buddhist tradition, the central theme of
spirituality is dissolution or transcendence of the self (Armstrong, 2001; Carrithers, 1983; Nhat Hanh,
1998; Ling, 1973). Through various practices or teachings, individuals can find a path to connection
with the universal whole where the individual self no longer exists or is relevant. Spirituality in this
sense is a journey that can take a lifetime and where meaning is found by transcending one's limits
(Armstrong, 2001).

Many traditions recognize the importance of suffering in spiritual development by stating that
through hardships that are at the limits of human endurance, individuals realize that they are not
just physical beings. Suffering is positioned as the main driver towards spirituality, demonstrating our
ability to transcend ourselves and pushing us towards transcendence (Nhat Hanh, 1998). Suffering is
closely related to the discovery of existential meaning (Frankl, 1959, 1968) and the spiritual journey.
For example, in the Buddhist tradition, the spiritual path leads to the end of suffering (Armstrong,
2001; Carrithers, 1983; Nhat Hanh, 1998; Ling, 1973). Suffering is caused by unsatisfied desires and
by separation from universal peace and happiness. One reaches the end of suffering when the
individual self reconnects with the universal whole.

Suffering and the search for meaning are fundamental to spirituality because how individuals deal
with suffering is not only important for providing existential meaning (Frankl, 1959), but is also
important in psychological and spiritual development (Pruett, 1987). Suffering can be a pathway to
spiritual meaning because the individual transcends the condition of suffering (Frankl, 1959) and
connects with something beyond the self (Armstrong, 2001; Nhat Hanh, 1998). The aim of this paper
is to explore the role of suffering in the formation of meaning and spirituality in an organizational
context. In particular, it identifies meaning-making from experiences of suffering as an important
area of study in the field of organizational spirituality and provides a starting point for future
research. This article will explain the concept of suffering in an organizational context, its relationship
to the formation of meaning, and its relationship in organizational settings as a basis for future
research discussions.

Suffering in an organizational context, defined as inevitable loss, suffering, or injury, has recently
become an important focus in organizational life (Frost, 1999). Research has shown that this suffering
is linked to a variety of organizational dysfunctions and disasters that can result in human suffering.
Examples include institutional failures leading to disasters and deaths, as well as trauma experienced
by workers and its psychological consequences (Tehrani, 1998; Wicks, 2001). The incidence of
workplace violence is also increasing, including various behaviors such as sexual harassment, threats,
verbal violence, and psychological intimidation (McClure and Werther, 1997; Johnson et al., 1995).
Additionally, rampant workplace aggressive behavior and emotional abuse have been described as
serious challenges in the work environment (Dietz et al., 2003; Lee, 2000).

Organizations are increasingly likely to ignore employee suffering by using efficiency arguments as
justification for workplace indifference (Vickers, 1997). Work environments filled with "employee
reductions, rights adjustments, re-engineering, and other efficiency efforts" are said to be
increasingly stressful and even lead to unintentional abuse (McClure and Werther, 1997). Studies
show that work stress costs the industry more than $200 billion annually and employee burnout is a
rampant epidemic, affecting the majority of workers who work longer and harder due to competitive
pressures and a shrinking workforce (Butts, 1997). Situations in which organizations face increasing
environmental pressures and try to manage large-scale change expose employees to more harsh
experiences, stress, even trauma, sometimes related to disaster or even abuse (Stuart, 1996). As a
result, the subjective experience of confronting current organizational realities can be much more
traumatic than previous research on psychological stress amid constant change suggests (Jick, 1993;
Price, 1999; Wah, 2000).

New initiatives in organizations such as the emphasis on high performance and continuous learning
for employees, although intended to improve employee well-being, are said to cause stress or cause
pain in some other way (Driver, 2002). New organizational designs such as total quality management
or empowerment are also said to increase levels of work stress and negatively impact employee
health, resulting in significant costs in terms of illness, lost time and low productivity (Van Ypern and
Hagedorn, 2003). Additionally, more flexible work arrangements, increased employee mobility, and
the need to continuously adapt to changing work environments have proven to make it difficult for
employees to build a meaningful identity at work. This can lead to chronic feelings of abandonment
and dissatisfaction, as well as ongoing feelings of emptiness and inadequateness (Gabriel, 2003).

Research suggests that employees may experience new pressures imposed on them, such as
mandates for continuous learning, as stressful or painful (Schein, 1999; Snell, 1992). As organizations
shift to more employee-centered structures, implicit cultural control becomes the norm, and
individuals may experience psychological pressure as well as subtle attempts to force conformity
(Casey, 1999; Coopey, 1995; Reynolds, 2000; Rifkin and Fulop, 1997) . Studies of organizations that
seek to become more spiritual and care about the spiritual well-being of employees show that this
can be subjectively perceived as oppression. Employees, for example, may feel pain and betrayal
when initiatives designed to create a more humane and spiritual work environment turn out to be
mere rhetoric (Victor and Stephens, 1994). On the other hand, employees may also feel pain when
organizations force them to accept spirituality as an ideology or hide exploitation as a spiritual
practice (Bell and Taylor, 2003; Freshman, 1999; Porth et al., 1999; Tourish and Pinnington, 2002).
Finally, employees may also feel pain when organizations pay too much attention to employees'
spirituality and interfere with their privacy (Austin, 1995; Brown, 2003; Cash et al., 2000; Lee and
Zemke, 1993).

Research also shows that in the absence of new environmental pressures, organizations appear to be
places where individuals are likely to experience pain, especially emotional and psychological pain.
Psychoanalytically oriented researchers, for example, have long suggested that individuals may
experience psychic pain routinely in organizational contexts, which is the result of collective
dysfunction or neurosis (Kets De Vries, 1991; Gabriel, 1995). Even when efforts are made to diagnose
and eliminate such dysfunction, creating a pain-free and healthy organization seems elusive (Driver,
2003). As a result, all organizations may be places where individuals experience painful experiences,
such as when individual emotions, desires, and needs collide with organizational reality or when
individuals project the needs of family relationships onto the organization (Baum, 1991).
Organizations can also be a context for the subjective experience of psychological pain due to various
dysfunctional and addictive behaviors, as well as neurotic actions that have become part of the
organization's collective identity (Robbins, 1992; Alvesson and Willmott, 1999; Ashforth, 1994;
Hearn, 1994; Linstead, 1997; Schwartz, 1987). This has led some researchers to liken the experiences
individuals experience in the workplace as a result of collective neurosis to those of Holocaust
victims (Stein, 1997, 1998, 2001).
Research has long investigated a variety of organizational events and processes that can lead to
workplace distress. However, what seems to have not been studied to date is how the experience of
these events and processes is subjectively perceived as suffering in terms of meaning-making in
organizations. Meaning can be found in suffering by confronting one's condition and viewing it from
a perspective that goes beyond the immediate situation (Frankl, 1968). In particular, logotherapy, or
the study of existential meaning formation developed by Frankl (1959), suggests that although
humans are not free to choose their circumstances, they are free to choose the meaning they take
from those experiences, even, or perhaps especially, when those circumstances cause significant
suffering. can not be avoided. Frankl discovered many of the fundamental principles of logotherapy
through his experiences as a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp. In the camp, “he found himself
exposed to the most degrading conditions” (Allport, 1959, p. 9), but still possessed the ultimate
freedom, namely the freedom to choose his attitude towards his suffering and the dignity that came
from finding personal meaning in that suffering. From these experiences, Frankl then developed
what is now known as logotherapy. As an existential analysis, logotherapy builds on the works of
Freud and Adler but adds a focus on forms of neurosis that arise from a failure to find meaning in life
in general.

Logotherapy, developed by Frankl (1959), has become a respected and widely applied framework for
identifying the ways individuals find meaning relevant to psychopathology and psychology.
Logotherapy is used to treat neurosis and understand how “healthy” humans search for and find
meaning in life (Frankl, 1959; Lukas, 1986). Frankl has studied in depth how humans can find
meaning in suffering that cannot be avoided or changed. The focus is on the attitudes or attitudes
taken toward suffering and the subjective assignment of meaning. He emphasized that while
suffering itself as an objective phenomenon can never be positive, the subjectively discovered
meaning of suffering can be positive (Frankl, 1959, 1968). In fact, Frankl described the ability to find
meaning through suffering as “a uniquely human potential at its best” and highlighted it as an
expression of human freedom, the freedom to choose one's attitude toward things that cannot be
changed (Frankl, 1968). He stated that in hopeless situations, when faced with an unchangeable fate,
humans can find meaning in life by changing themselves (Frankl, 1959).

This approach implies that some experiences of suffering can be integrated into a person's life rather
than overcome. However, to do so, it is important to separate efforts to reduce or eliminate suffering
from recognition of suffering as an experience from which personal meaning can be drawn.
Logotherapists do not attempt to reduce or eliminate suffering, nor do they try to change the reality
of the experience by telling the patient that the situation is not as bad as it seems (Lukas, 1986).
Instead, they acknowledge the reality and existence of the patient's suffering, help the patient to do
the same, and then facilitate the process in which the patient changes their attitude toward the
experience of suffering so that personal meaning can be discovered. Logotherapy emphasizes that
each person should have the right to find meaning in the experience of suffering and sees the
process as a space in which one must make room (Frankl, 1959).

While research on spirituality in organizations has focused on the search for meaning, it appears to
only address two of the three areas that Frankl (1959) proposed as places where individuals find
existential meaning, namely “by creating a work or performing an act [and] by experiencing
something or encountering somebody." His primary research addresses how individuals find
meaning through achieving or doing something significant and by experiencing what some call
manifestations of higher levels of existence (Marcic, 1997), such as “goodness, truth, and beauty”
(Frankl, 1959) or “love towards and from others” (Frankl, 1959).
 Specifically, research on organizational spirituality generally explores how spirituality is related to
finding meaning in work through experience and action. For example, there are suggestions that
meaning can be found in organizational contexts by practicing work as a sacred art form, that is, by
engaging in work activities that express the highest forms of human creativity (Holland, 1989).

Work that is in line with spiritual values provides meaning for individuals (Hawley, 1993; Marcic,
1997). Individuals can find meaning by behaving in accordance with high values such as integrity,
courage, honesty, kindness, trustworthiness, or self-discipline (Hawley, 1993; Wagner-Marsh and
Conley, 1999) or by expressing their spirituality in organizational interactions (Vilnai- Yavetz and
Rafaeli, 2003). These behaviors can be meaningful not only because they express high values, but
also because they generate benefits for customers or improve organizational performance (Guillory,
2000).
Additionally, doing work that serves the public good and is financially successful can also be
meaningful (Chappell, 1993; Milliman et al., 1999). Engaging in meaningful activities can also include
behaviors that express a more authentic self, the manifestation of work as part of a larger life journey
toward a meaningful existence (Schechter, 1995), and the implementation of goals (Lips-Wiersma,
2002). Likewise, meaning can be found by acting to express the spiritual dimensions of work,
overcoming the idea that business is absolutely separate from spiritual endeavors (Barnett, 1985).
Meaning can also be found from learning and leading others in ways that are internally meaningful
as well as from one's ethical and spiritual center (Bolman and Deal, 1995) as an expression of
spiritual values (Pfeffer, 2003) such as service to others (Delbecq , 1999). Furthermore, meaning can
be felt by behaving in a way that expresses a connection with a higher power, for example by working
in a way that expresses the will of a divine being (Thompson, 2000), or by completing work that is
personally meaningful or following one's calling (Fox, 1994). . Finally, individuals can find meaning in
working toward community or fellowship with others in the workplace through practices such as
conversation, storytelling, and shared reading (Conger, 1994).

Some authors describe work as "one of the most profound ways of experiencing the divine presence
in the world, that is, experiencing spirituality" (Neck and Milliman, 1994). In the workplace, people
can find meaning through spiritual experiences such as self-strength, creativity, inner peace, wisdom,
truth, happiness, and well-being (Neck and Milliman, 1994; Ray, 1992). Some even define spirit or
spirituality in the workplace exclusively as experiences “characterized by physical, affective, cognitive,
interpersonal, spiritual, and mystical dimensions” (Kinjerski and Skrypnek, 2004). In organizations,
people can find meaning by experiencing love, deep connections with others, and “sacredness in
relationships” (Neck and Milliman, 1994).

The search for meaning in organizations in this case focuses on work as a means of experiencing
more meaningful circumstances, both by engaging deeply and creatively in the work itself (Scherer
and Shook, 1993) and by developing caring and loving relationships with co-workers ( Mirvis, 1997).
Some also suggest that every interaction with others in an organizational context offers an
opportunity to find meaning as individuals experience themselves more authentically, allow
themselves to see shared truths, and thereby experience the human spirit and their collective
humanity (Kriger and Hanson, 1999).