The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A framework for accommodating religion and spirituality in the workplace
Abstract
Executive Overview After more than 35 years of exposure to Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) laws, employers in the United States are struggling to understand and effectively deal with the challenges of employee rights and needs in the workplace. The workplace of the early 21st century is a much more diverse and dynamic environment than that visualized by legislative crafters of EEO laws. Though religion was addressed in the original laws, the primary focus was accommodation for religious observances outside the workplace. However, technology, global competition, downsizing, and reengineering have created a workforce of employees seeking value, support, and meaning in their lives that finds expression not only at home but also on the job. This search for religious and spiritual meaning in the workplace is a departure from the more traditional business mentality of “power, profit, and takeovers, where religion was something saved for the Sabbath day.”1 Greater spiritual and religious accommodation has become a source for achieving that meaning and support. Legal interpretations have historically required that employees requesting religious accommodation meet certain tests relative to the sincerity and meaningfulness of their belief. The practice of spirituality through meditation, visioning, or spiritual contemplation has become increasingly prevalent in the United States work environment and has remained less controversial and less subject to regulation as an employee rights issue than formal religion. Those practicing formal religion want the same opportunities and rights provided to employees who practice spirituality. This article investigates the current state of religious and spiritual practice in business organizations and discusses the impact of employment law on such activity. We offer a broad and inclusive interpretation of religious and spiritual belief relevant to the workplace and provide a framework of analysis in addressing accommodation concerns.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance
Garcia‐Zamor, J. (2003) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/1540-6210.00295 · Cited by 607
Kolodinsky, R. W., Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2008) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9507-0 · Cited by 578
Dent, E. B., Higgins, M. E., & Wharff, D. M. (2005) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07.002 · Cited by 466
Karakas, F., & Sarigollu, E. (2013) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1691-5 · Cited by 97
Irving, J., & Berndt, J. (2017) · Administrative Sciences · doi:10.3390/admsci7020010 · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Authors
- Cash, K. C., & Gray, G. R.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Perspectives
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2000-08
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 124-133
- ISSN
- 1558-9080 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-4529
- OpenAlex
- W2102557793
- Cited by
- 338
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 49.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A framework for accommodating religion and spirituality in the workplace. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5465/ame.2000.4468072
- The paper
- Cash, K. C., & Gray, G. R. (2000). A framework for accommodating religion and spirituality in the workplace. Academy of Management Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2000.4468072
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.