Article

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-2024067
E&S 2025, 6: e2024067

Priscila Luciana Garret Simões da Silva; Adriana Pavarina

The work environment has undergone intense^[1] changes, as organizations are inserted in a context of constant and accelerated transformation of values. These changes include concerns with social equality and the understanding that organizations have social responsibility and commitment to the well-being of their employees^[2,3].

One piece of evidence of this movement of change is the manifesto launched by the World Economic Forum, held in Davos, Switzerland, in 2019^[4]. The document states that, in current times, a company’s purpose should not be just to generate wealth, but also to meet human and social aspirations. Among the highlighted commitments are respectful and dignified treatment of employees, valuing diversity, continuous improvement of working conditions, and promoting worker well-being.

Furthermore, there is an awakening, on the part of people, for meaning in work, for personal satisfaction, self-knowledge, self-expression, personal development^[5] and for the prioritization of quality of life^[6]. There is also the desire to belong to a community and establish connections^[7]. These transformations require more humanized management^[8].

In this context, it becomes fundamental for organizations to adopt a holistic view of individuals^[9], since human beings are complex, constituted of body, mind, and spirit^[7]. These dimensions are interdependent^[10] and inseparable, which makes spirituality an integral part of the human condition^[11].

The theme of spirituality in organizations may, initially, cause strangeness. This is possibly due to the idea that religiosity and spirituality have equivalent meanings^[12]. However, according to Karacas^[13], the distinction between the terms lies in the fact that religiosity presupposes adherence to the beliefs and practices of a religious institution or tradition, while spirituality refers to a human feeling of a private, inclusive, and universal character.

Spirituality can be defined as a multifaceted construct that encompasses personal values, philosophical beliefs, life purpose, virtues, and individual characteristics that motivate altruistic and morally elevated behaviors and attitudes^[14,15]. Thus, spirituality can have a place in the organizational environment, as employees bring with them not only their bodies, minds, and skills, but also their spiritual dimension^[1].

In organizations, spirituality can be observed from three perspectives: that of the individual, which comprises the personal spiritual values that the employee brings to work; organizational spirituality (OS), which encompasses the organization’s spiritual values reflected in the spiritual climate; and the interactive perspective, which involves the interaction between the individual’s personal spiritual values and those of the organization^[16]. Based on this approach, this work focuses on OS.

Various concepts of Spirituality in the Workplace (SW) coexist and, at times, become complementary. Thus, SW can be understood as the recognition, by the organization, that employees have an inner life, which deserves respect. This inner life is nourished and nurtured by meaningful work, developed in the context of a community^[7]. To this end, the organization must have a set of values, reflected in the organizational culture, that promote excellent experiences for employees in all work processes, value the sense of connection with other people, and generate feelings of completeness and joy^[2,17].

The theme of spirituality encompasses both individuals and organizations. Spiritual organizations provide improvements in employees’ quality of life, offer a sense of psychological and emotional security, make them feel valued in their intellectual, emotional, and spiritual dimensions, which gives them the experience of purpose and belonging^[17,18]. A truly spiritual organizational environment favors higher rates of commitment^[16], performance^[7], satisfaction, job involvement, cooperation, and teamwork, in addition to reducing frustration and friction in the workplace^[16]. Furthermore, it can decrease turnover^[16], absenteeism^[19], and increase organizational effectiveness^[2]. According to Milliman et al.^[19], the development of spirituality is beneficial for both employees and the organization.

Guillory^[20] argues that spirituality can be the element that enables an organization’s success, provided that it recognizes and consciously incorporates it into its environment. Thus, spirituality in organizations becomes a relevant instrument for management^[21].

Given the relevance of the topic, the present study aimed to investigate the perception of employees from different organizations about the presence (or absence) of characteristics and values indicative of Organizational Spirituality (OS) in their work environments.

According to Marchesi^[22] and Vieira^[23], employees (internal clients) are the best evaluators and have great credibility to qualify their organizations and are true spokespersons for their policies and reputation. Based on this understanding, the aim was to capture the opinion of internal clients from various organizations through a public opinion poll. For Weber and Pérsigo^[24], public opinion polls constitute a useful tool for understanding the reality and behaviors of a social group.

The study is characterized as descriptive, aiming to describe characteristics of a given population through standardized data collection techniques^[25], with a mixed technical procedure: bibliographic research and a “survey” levantamento. The latter is characterized by directly interrogating the people whose opinions or behaviors are to be known^[25]. The approach used was quantitative, so that opinions and information were translated into numbers, to be classified and analyzed^[26]. For this, a questionnaire was applied, composed of ten questions related to sociodemographic data of the respondents and their respective organizations, in addition to 18 closed questions answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree; 5 = totally agree).

The construction of the questions occurred based on characteristics and values indicative of organizational spirituality identified in the literature. As a criterion for inclusion in the elaboration of the questions, only those mentioned by at least two authors in different articles and/or books were considered, as set forth in Table 1.

Table 1. Correlation of characteristics and values of spirituality and authors

Characteristics and indicative values of organizational spirituality	Authors
Profit is also a way to promote general well-being	Vasconcelos[3], Arruda[18], Robbins[27]
Social responsibility	Vasconcelos[3], Ashmon and Duchon[7], Rego et al.[17], Arruda[20], Milliman et al.[21]
Environmental concern	Vasconcelos[3], Arruda[18]
Develops your employees, encourages new skills and gives opportunity for the use of gifts and talents	Giacalone and Jurkiewic[2], Kolondinsky et al.[16], Arruda[18], Guillory[20], Robbins[27]
Includes employees in decision-making, has decentralized power, and allows autonomy	Giacalone and Jurkiewic[2], Kolondinsky et al.[16], Arruda[18], Guillory[20], Robbins[27]
Concerned with employee well-being values the human being	Vasconcelos[3], Ashmon and Duchon[7], Rego et al.[17], Kolondinsky et al.[16], Arruda[18], Milliman et al.[19], Guillory[20], Robbins[27]
Treats employees ethically and has strong HR policies	Vasconcelos[3], Kolondinsky et al.[16]
Provides job security (peace of mind regarding the future in the organization)	Giacalone and Jurkiewic[2], Ashmon and Duchon[7], Robbins[27]
Values diversity and accepts different points of view and values	Giacalone and Jurkiewic[2], Vasconcelos[3], Kolondinsky et al.[16], Arruda[18], Milliman et al.[19], Robbins[27]
It is service-oriented	Giacalone and Jurkiewic[2], Ashmon and Duchon[7], Rego et al.[17], Kolondinsky et al.[16], Guillory[20].
Stimulates mutual trust among members and information sharing	Ashmon and Duchon[7], Kolondinsky et al.[16], Robbins[27]
Stimulates connection between work colleagues	Kolondinsky et al.[16], Milliman et al.[19]

The questions generated from this theoretical basis were organized into three sections, as presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Sections and respective items

Section	Description	Items
The organization and the community	Employees’ perception of the organization’s relationship with the external community.	1 to 4
The organization and the employee	Employee perception of how the organization relates to the individual (employee).	5 to 13
The organization and the relationship between employees	Employee perception of the organization’s role in promoting peer relationships.	14 to 18

Data collection was carried out through an online questionnaire, disseminated on the LinkedIn® platform, in social media groups and messaging applications, and was available from April 24 to May 10, 2023. The raw data were organized and analyzed using Excel 365 software, through the application of tabular descriptive statistics to determine the frequency of responses in each item and section of the questionnaire.

The research involved 219 participants, of whom 213 completed valid questionnaires. All worked in some organization and were informed about the study’s objective, as well as the anonymous and voluntary nature of their participation.

The sample was characterized by a predominance of participants aged between 27 and 42 years (61.0%), with higher education (49.9%) and residing in the Southeast region (85.4%). Regarding the professional profile, 44.8% worked in person, 33.8% had more than five years of employment with the organization, 23.5% held management positions, and 22.1% belonged to the human resources department.

Regarding the characteristics of the organizations, 74.6% were of a private nature, with a predominance of the service sector (67.1%). Companies with more than 500 employees represented 55.9% of the sample. To identify the predominant perception of the participants about EO in their institutions, an analysis of each item and each of the sections was carried out. For this, the scale described in Table 3 was used.

Table 3. Equivalence between scoring and classification

Score on the scale	Meaning	Classification of EO perception
1	I totally disagree	Low degree of organizational spirituality
2	I disagree
3	I neither agree nor disagree	Medium degree of organizational spirituality
4	I agree	High degree of organizational spirituality
5	I totally agree

The global analysis of the results was performed from the averages found in each of the three sections. Thus, 59.2% of respondents perceive that their organizations exhibit a high degree of organizational spirituality, 20.6% perceive a low degree, and 20.2% evaluate it as a medium degree of spirituality (Table 1).

Table 1. Overall result

Responses (scale points)	1 and 2 (Low degree)	3 (Median degree)	4 and 5 (High degree)
1- The organization and community	22,1%	17,6%	60,3%
2- The organization and the employee	20,7%	20,6%	58,7%
3- The organization and the relationship between employees.	18,9%	22,4%	58,7%
Average	20,6%	20,2%	59,2%

The first section analyzed was titled “The organization and the community”. Currently, a good relationship between the organization and the community is considered fundamental. It is believed that organizations have the role of acting socially and that their activities should generate shared value. Thus, profit, although important, is neither the only nor the most relevant value of the organization^[27,28].

Vasconcelos^[3] argues that an organization based on spirituality reciprocates and maintains commitment to the community in which it is established. In the analysis of this section, which addresses the relationship between organization and community, it was found that 60.2% of participants perceive that their organizations exhibit a high degree of organizational spirituality, while 39.8% evaluate this perception as low or medium, according to Table 2.

Table 2 – Classification of the items in the section “The organization and the external community”

Responses (scale points)	1 and 2 (Low degree)	3 (Median degree)	4 and 5 (High degree)
1- The organization develops the community in which it operates (e.g., social, health, education, sports projects).	27,3%	17,8%	54,9%
2- The organization has environmental protection initiatives (internal and/or external actions)	28,2%	16,4%	55,4%
3- In the organization, managerial decisions are also inspired by social awareness and responsibility.	24,9%	21,6%	53,5%
4- The organization works ethically and has a good and solid reputation.	8,4%	14,6%	77,3%
Average	22,2%	17,6%	60,2%

Item 4 “The organization works ethically and has a good and solid reputation” was the one that obtained the highest agreement rate. With 77.0% of positive responses, it can be concluded that the majority of collaborators believe that their organization has a good reputation before society and share this vision. This data is aligned with recent research, which indicates that being in an organization with a good reputation is a desire of workers, as reputation is the second main reason why an individual chooses to work and remain in a company^[29].

Items 1, 2 and 3 are focused on intentional actions carried out by the organization in relation to the external community. On this aspect, the World Economic Forum^[4] advocates that organizations should: serve society; support the community in which they operate and act as protectors of the environment. And the results showed that just over half (55% on average) perceive that their organization is strongly engaged in socio-environmental issues.

The second section, titled “Organization and Employee,” assessed whether respondents perceive a humanized management perspective in their organizations. It was observed that 58.7% classify their organizations with a high degree of spirituality, while 41.3% perceive spirituality as low or medium (Table 3).

Table 3 – Classification of the items in the section “Organization and the employee”

Responses (scale points)	1 and 2	3	4 and 5
	(Low Grade)	(Medium grade)	(High degree)
5- The organization understands that the individual’s learning and growth are continuous.	12,7%	16,9%	70,4%
6- The organization stimulates and fosters employee development.	14,5%	19,2%	66,2%
7- In an organization, a mistake can be admitted with sincerity.	16,9%	18,8%	64,3%
8- In the organization, there is inclusion and participation of employees in decision-making.	36,1%	25,4%	38,5%
9- The organization delegates powers, stimulates employee autonomy.	26,3%	23%	50,7%
10 – In the organization, there is acceptance of diverse points of view and values.	19,7%	19,7%	60,5%
11- The organization treats employees fairly, kindly, and compassionately.	23,4%	20,7%	55,9%
12- In the organization, diversity is valued.	15,5%	20,7%	63,9%
13- In the organization there is security related to job tenure.	21,6%	20,7%	57,8%
Average	20,7%	20,6%	58,7%

The idea of a humanized organization has been gaining strength in the corporate environment and has come to be seen as a form of social transformation of organizations^[30]. The recognition of the value of human beings represents an important indicator of EO, and this appreciation is expressed in the way the organization treats its employees, through corporate actions and policies^[17,18,20].

The highest rated items (5 and 6) deal with the perception of policies and actions aimed at continuous learning and individual development. This indicates that a significant portion of respondents perceive effective support from their organizations in this regard. According to Giacalone and Jurkiewicz^[2], organizations should create environments that support learning, challenge growth, and recognize the evolution and improvement of individuals. These actions value the human being and stimulate employee development.

Some items, although not the best evaluated, showed results above the section’s average (58.7%). This is the case for item 7 “In the organization, a mistake can be admitted with sincerity” and item 10 “In the organization, there is acceptance of diverse points of view and values”. Both reflect the respondents’ perception of freedom to express opinions and take responsibility for their actions, even in situations of error. This type of environment indicates the presence of respect and trust, free from fear and arbitrariness^[27].

Another item that surpassed the section average was 12 “In the organization, diversity is valued”, this shows that diversity is integrated into the policies of most of the respondents’ organizations (63.9%). Practices focused on diversity are valued, according to a study by the consulting firm Randstad,^[31] which indicated that 88.0% of the interviewed workers prefer organizations that adopt diversity as a value and objective. Besides being desirable, diversity is beneficial for everyone and for the organization itself, as it allows coexistence around a common goal. This favors the exchange of experiences and contributes to innovation^[3].

Item 13 addresses employees’ perception of their future in the organization. And according to several studies and authors, offering job security is an important measure of organizational spirituality^[2,7,27]. And the result showed that in the studied group, the majority (58%) have security and prospect of remaining.

The items that deal with participation in the decision-making process and autonomy (8 and 9) had the lowest agreement rates, which reflects a low or medium perception of organizational spirituality. Among them, item 8 “In the organization, there is inclusion and participation of employees in decision-making” stands out, which obtained the lowest percentage of agreement not only in the section but in the entire questionnaire, with only 38.0%. This result may reveal that, in the view of the participating workers, the organization does not grant them effective power. For Kolodisnk et al.^[16], including employees in decision-making provides them with a sense of importance and empowerment.

The second item with the lowest perception of spirituality was 9 “The organization delegates powers, stimulates employee autonomy”. This perception of low autonomy may be related to the also low perception of inclusion in decision-making. Autonomy is an important criterion for job satisfaction. When an organization grants autonomy to its employees, it demonstrates confidence in their ability to make decisions intelligently and prudently^[27,32].

Item 11 obtained a result slightly below the section average. Its objective was to verify, in the respondents’ perception, whether the organization treats employees ethically, which involves, among other aspects, the notion of justice^[16].

Justice in organizations is related to how employees perceive the criteria and processes used to recognize their individual results^[33]. Feeling treated fairly can positively impact commitment, performance, and trust^[34]. On the other hand, the perception of injustice can trigger negative consequences, such as the development of the “Burnout” syndrome^[27]. This syndrome is considered an occupational phenomenon, resulting from chronic work stress leading to exhaustion, mental detachment from work, and reduced professional effectiveness^[35]. Therefore, it is possible to affirm that the presence or absence of justice has relevant implications for both organizations and individuals.

In the third and final section, the perception of relationships between work colleagues mediated by the organization was analyzed. This aspect is relevant to organizational spirituality, as it strengthens employees’ sense of community and mutual connection^[13]. For a large portion of respondents (58.7%), their organizations exhibit a high degree of spirituality. While 22.4% indicated a medium degree and 18.9% a low level, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4 – Classification of the items in the section “Organization and the relationship between employees”

Responses (scale points)	1 and 2	3	4 and 5
	(Low Grade)	(Medium grade)	(High degree)
14- The organization stimulates information sharing.	16,4%	24,4%	59,2%
15- The organization is service-oriented (collaboration, serving others, teamwork).	15,0%	15,5%	69,5%
16- In the organization, people are linked by a common purpose.	16,9%	19,7%	63,4%
17- In the organization, the work environment is marked by support, empathy, and genuine care.	24,0%	29,1%	47,0%
18- The organization cultivates a sense of community among employees.	22,1%	23,5%	54,5%
Average	18,9%	22,4%	58,7%

The item that reached the highest percentage (69.5%) was 15 “The organization is service-oriented (collaboration, serving others, teamwork)”. However, the item that obtained the lowest result (47.0%) was 17 “In the organization, the work environment is marked by support, empathy, and genuine care”. This highlights a lower perception of these affective values in the organizational environment.

Service orientation is a striking characteristic of spirituality, and the item’s result demonstrates that respondents may be embedded in an environment that values collaboration. Despite this, the results also indicate that, in the environment, support, empathy, and care do not manifest significantly. This may indicate the absence of a deeper connection between people, as these expressions (support, empathy, and care) are generated in the presence of a real bond between peers^[19].  

Deep connection fosters a sense of community^[13]. The item addressing this theme is 18 “The organization cultivates a sense of community among employees,” which obtained the second-lowest score in the section (54.5%). This result supports and relates to that obtained in item 17 “In the organization, the work environment is marked by support, empathy, and genuine care” because, for someone to feel part of a community, it is necessary to perceive, among other things, the reciprocal care among work colleagues^[17].

The last two items of this analysis are 14 and 16. Item 14 “The organization stimulates information sharing” complements the high perception that the respondents’ organizations are service-oriented, as information sharing denotes collaboration.

Item 16 “In the organization, people are linked by a common purpose” was classified with a perception of high spirituality. This item addresses work-related purpose. Currently, the individual desires a job that is not only challenging or interesting, but that offers meaning and purpose. When these individual purposes converge into a common purpose, which unites employees, the strengthening of the sense of community occurs, which positively reflects on the perception of the organization’s spirituality^[7,19].

As stated at the beginning of this section, the relationship between employees and the sense of community is an important element of EAT. Although this relationship occurs within the group and is established between individuals, the organization has the responsibility to provide a favorable environment for the establishment of good relationships, by cultivating and encouraging spiritual values^[9].

The sense of community can be stimulated through certain organizational practices. According to Bezerra and Oliveira^[9], the decrease in internal competition functions as an instrument to promote connection in the workplace. In practice, this consists of discouraging the culture of internal competition, encouraging camaraderie, promoting interaction, stimulating respect and consideration among colleagues, in addition to offering training to prevent prejudiced and disrespectful attitudes.

The present study investigated the perception of employees from various organizations about the presence of characteristics and values indicative of EO. The proposed objective was achieved, however, it presented convenience sampling as a limitation, which lacks statistical rigor^[25]. For future studies, it is recommended that research be conducted with a probabilistic sample, with employees from specific sectors and/or organizations. It is also suggested that a comparison be made between the perception of employees and the policies and actions related to organizational spirituality, existing and prescribed in the organizations.

The results identified that the majority of participants perceive a high degree of spirituality in their organizations. However, they also pointed to aspects such as the perception of low employee participation in decision-making processes and little encouragement of autonomy. Thus, it is noted that organizations need to continue advancing in a humanized management perspective, in which their employees are valued as multidimensional human beings.

References

[1] Tecchio, E.L.; Cunha. C.J.C..A; Santos, F.B. 2016. Spirituality in organizations?. Organizações e Sociedade. 23(79): 590-608. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-9230794. Acesso em: 22 jun. 2023.
[2] Giacalone, R.A; Jurkiewicz, C.L. 2010. The science of workplace spirituality.. In: Giacalone, R.A.; E. Jurkiewicz, C.L. (orgs). The Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance. 3ed. Nova Iorque (EUA): Routledge.
[3] Vasconcelos, A.F. 2015. The Spiritually-Based Organization: A Theoretical Review and its Potential Role in the Third Millennium. Cadernos EBAPEBR. 13(1): 183-205. Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/j/cebape/a/CWZ4hJrXWRnbrbb9q5BcrJx/. Acesso em: 23 jun. 2023.
[4] World Economic Forum. 2019. Davos Manifesto 2020: The Universal Purpose of a Company in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Disponível em: https://www.weforum.org/the-davos-manifesto/manifesto. Acesso em: 21 ago. 2023.
[5] Silva, R.R.; Siqueira, D. 2009. Espiritualidade, religião e trabalho no contexto organizacional. Psicologia em Estudo. 14(3): 557-64. Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/j/pe/a/xdBjw44N5b8SCY9Jwz4qYCC/abstract/?lang=pt# . Acesso em: 10 ago. 2023.
[6] Grupo cia de talentos. 2023. Carreira dos Sonhos 2023. Disponível em: http://cia3.tempsite.ws/carreiradossonhos/2023/cs2023_ebook.pdf . Acesso em: 26 ago. 2023.
[7] Ashmos, D.P.; Duchon, D. 2000. Spirituality at work: A conceptualization and measure. Journal of Management Inquiry. 9(2): 134-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/105649260092008.
[8] Cardoso, E.J.; Santos, J.N. 2016. Práticas organizacionais de Espiritualidade: Um caminho para a garantia do Bem-Estar Profissional de Jovens Trabalhadores. In: Anais do IV Congresso Brasileiro de Estudos Organizacionais; Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, p. 1-20. Disponível em: https://anaiscbeo.emnuvens.com.br/cbeo. Acesso em: 27 jun. 2023.
[9] Bezerra, M.F.; Oliveira, L.M. 2007. Espiritualidade nas Organizações e Comprometimento Organizacional: estudo de caso com um Grupo de Líderes de Agências do Banco do Brasil na cidade de Recife. In: Anais do XXXI Encontro ANPAD; Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil, p. 1-14. Disponível em: https://arquivo.anpad.org.br/eventos.php?cod_evento=&cod_evento_edicao=33&cod_edicao_subsecao=280&cod_edicao_trabalho=7537 . Acesso em 30 ago. 2023.
[10] Limonge-França, N.A.; Rodrigues, A.L. 2005. Stress e trabalho: uma abordagem psicossomática. 4ed. São Paulo, SP, Atlas.
[11] Word Health Organization.WHOQOL and Spirituality, Religiousness and Personal Beliefs (‎SRPB). 1998. World Health Organization. Disponível em: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/70897 . Acesso em: 25 fev. 2023.
[12] Silva, A.C.C; Durante, D.G.; Veloso Biscoli, F.R. 2017. Espiritualidade no ambiente de trabalho: estudo bibliométrico da produção acadêmica nacional 2010-2014. Revista De Gestão E Secretariado. 8(2), 01–19.Disponível em: https://ojs.revistagesec.org.br/secretariado/article/view/594. Acesso em: 15 set. 2023.
[13] Karakas, F. 2010. Spirituality and Performance in Organizations: A Literature Review. Journal of Business Ethics. 94(1): 89-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0251-5.
[14] Kramer, A.L.; Ferko, G.P.S.; Rosa, J.S.; Costa R.C.S.; Arantes, E.C. 2020. Espiritualidade organizacional: avaliando o significado para a vida dos trabalhadores. In: Anais do XII CASI – Congresso de Administração, Sociedade e Inovação. FATENP- Unigranrio, Palhoças, SC, Brasil. p. 1-18. Disponível em: https://www.even3.com.br/anais/12casi/202197-espiritualidade-organizacional–avaliando-o-significado-para-a-vida-dos-trabalhadores/ . Acesso em: 29 maio 2023.
[15] Panzini, R.G.; Rocha, N.S.; Bandeira, D.R.; Fleck, M.P. 2007. Qualidade de vida e espiritualidade. Revista de Psiquiatria Clínica. 34 (1): 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-60832007000700014.
[16] Kolodinsky, R.W.; Giacalone, R.A.; Jurkiewicz, C.L. 2008. Workplace values and outcomes: Exploring personal, organizational, and Interactive workplace spirituality. Journal of Business Ethics. 81(2): 465-480. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-007-9507-0.
[17] Rego, A.; Cunha, M.P.; Souto, S. 2007. Espiritualidade nas organizações e comprometimento organizacional. RAE eletrônica. 6(2): 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-56482007000200003.
[18] Arruda, C.M. A inteligência espiritual: Espiritualidade nas organizações. São Paulo, SP, IBRASA.
[19] Milliman, J.; Czaplewski, A.J.; Ferguson J. 2003. Workplace spirituality and employee work attitudes: An exploratory empirical assessment. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 16(4): 426-447. DOI: 10.1108/09534810310484172.
[20] Guillory, W.A. 2002. A empresa viva: A espiritualidade no local de trabalho. São Paulo, SP: Cultrix.
[21] Barreto, T.F.; Thompson, A.C.; Bastos, B.E.; Feitosa, M.G. 2011. Além da visão romântica: desvelando os potenciais aspectos nocivos da Espiritualidade no ambiente de trabalho. In: Anais do XIV SemeAd – Seminário de Administração, FEA/USP. São Paulo, SP, Brasil. p. 1-14. Disponível em: http://sistema.semead.com.br/14semead/resultado/an_resumo.asp?cod_trabalho=1023 . Acesso em: 30 mai. 2023.
[22] Marchesi, A. 2005. Comunicação interna: Fator Humano como diferencial competitivo. In: Nassar P. (orgs). Comunicação Interna a força das empresas. 2ed. São Paulo, SP: Aberj.
[23] Vieira, R.F. 2004. Comunicação organizacional: gestão de relações públicas. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Mauad.
[24] Weber, A.F.; Pérsegio, P.M. 2017. Pesquisa de opinião pública: princípios e exercícios., Santa Maria, RS: FACOS-UFSM.
[25] Gil A.C. 2008.Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. 6ed. São Paulo, SP: Atlas.
[26] Prodanov, C.; Freitas, E.2013. Metodologia do Trabalho Científico: Métodos e técnicas da pesquisa e do trabalho acadêmico. 2 ed. Novo Hamburgo Rio Grande do Sul: FEEVALE.
[27] Robbins, S.P. 2005. Comportamento organizacional. Trad. Reynaldo Marcondes. Pearson Prentice Hall. 11ed., São Paulo, SP, Brasil (Obra original publicada em 2003). Disponível em: https://www.ufsm.br/app/uploads/sites/330/2019/10/POP.pdf. Acesso em: 3 mar. 2023.
[28] Instituto Ethos; IARSE; Fundacion pró-humana. 2022. Indicadores Ethos ASG. Instituto Ethos, São Paulo, SP, Brasil. 27 p. Disponível em: https://www.ethos.org.br/publicacao/e-book-indicadores-ethos-asg-portugues/. Acesso em: 20 mai. 2023.
[29] Mercer. 2022. Tendências Globais de Talento 2022. Disponível em: https://www.mercer.com/en-us/insights/events/new-shape-of-work-global-talent-trends-2022/. Acesso em: 8 maio 2023.
[30] Cortez, P.A.; Zerbine, T.; Veiga, H.M. 2019. Práticas humanizadas de gestão de pessoas e organização do trabalho: para além do positivismo e do dataísmo. Trabalho Educação e Saúde. 17(3): 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-7746-sol00215.
[31] Randstad. 2023. Workmonitor 2023. Disponível em: https://www.randstad.com.br/mundo-do-trabalho/pesquisas-globais/randstad-workmonitor/. Acesso em: 27 jun. 2023.
[32] Carvalho, D.A. 2019. Prazer, sofrimento e autonomia no trabalho: análise no ambiente público e privado. Conexão Ciência. 14(31): 89-102. https://doi.org/10.24862/cco.v14i3.914.
[33] Paz, M.G.; Gosendo, E.E.; Dessen, M.C.; Mourão, R.G. 2009. Justiça organizacional e bem-estar pessoal nas organizações. Revista de Ciências Ambientais e Saúde. 36(1): 95-115. https://doi.org/10.18224/est.v36i1.1020.
[34] Jesus, R.G.; Rowe, D.E. 2014. Justiça organizacional percebida por professores dos ensinos básico, técnico e tecnológico. Revista de Administração Mackenzie. 15(6): 172–200. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-69712014/administracao.v15n6p172-200.
[35]Organização Mundial de Saúde- OPAS. CID: Burnout é um fenômeno ocupacional.2019.Disponível em: https://www.paho.org/pt/noticias/28-5-2019-cid-burnout-e-um-fenomeno-ocupacional.

Como citar

Silva, P.L.G.S.; Pavarina, A. Espiritualidade organizacional: características e valores na percepção dos funcionários. Revista E&S. 2025; 6: e2024067

About the authors

Priscila Luciana Garret Simões da Silva – Specialist in People Management. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
Adriana Pavarina – Master in Educational Psychology. Supervising professor. Rua Cezira Giovanoni Moretti, 580, Santa Rosa, 13414-157, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil