Introduction

This chapter presents a religious diversity workplace integration framework posited by Miller (Reference 414Miller2007) and later adapted by Miller and Ewest (Reference Miller and Ewest2015) which this chapter suggests is a better alignment with organizational practices and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Title VII, and Employment Equality Framework Directive requirements. As a means for comparative analysis, this chapter considers the various historical challenges to civil rights as outlined in Title VII, to which organizations have had to adjust in order to accommodate their employee's religious practices. These historical challenges include: Ethnicity (in the 1960s), equality of woman (in the 1970s), the changing nuclear family (in the 1980s), and gender orientation (in the 1990s) (Miller & Ewest, Reference Miller and Ewest2015). The framework presented is theoretically anchored in Symbolic Management theory (Ashforth & Vaidyanath, Reference Ashforth and Vaidyanath2002; Roberge et al., Reference Roberge, Lewicki, Hietapelto and Abdyldaeva2011). Symbolic Management theory is a way management presents a picture with certain parameters or frames, and portrays the desired organization to its members and other stakeholders (Fiss & Zajac, Reference Fiss and Zajac2006). The strength of this perspective is that it aids in finding a common frame of reference for individuals to understand and identify a proposed organizational culture which allows employees to find commonalities among differences, or specifically in this case diversity within faith or religious groups.

The proposed faith integration framework posits four frames to assess how well an organization accommodates religious diversity in regards to religious or faith accommodation requests, formal organizational policies, and employee wellness. The four frames within the framework are: Faith avoiding, faith based, faith safe, and faith friendly. These frames are placed within an assessment rubric assessing: Organizational policy, accommodation requests, and employee well-being. The recommended frame within the framework is “Faith-Friendly.” The faith friendly frame addresses Title VII requirements for religious accommodation in the United States (and tacitly The Universal Declaration of Human Rights), but also goes beyond this by developing polices that regard a person's religion as a means to employee wellness and corresponding organizational benefits. The faith friendly frame goes beyond the minimum requirements of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Title VII and Employment Equality Framework Directive because it seeks out employee's faith needs and understands and embraces the corresponding benefits associated with empowering the diverse faith traditions within the workplace.

The chapter presents two case studies, The Paprec Group and PacMoore Corporation, as a means to understand the various frames in a diagnostic fashion. Each of these companies assertively incorporates one of the frames into their business practices and branding. The framework provides the reader with a tool to diagnose which frame they believe each company is using, and making recommendations in regards to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Title VII, and Employment Equality Framework Directive accommodation requirements and corresponding policy requirements. The chapter resolves by presenting the findings from one organization that the author considers to be faith friendly, that is, they have met all the criteria presented in the assessment rubric for being a faith friendly company and compares this to a random sample. The survey reports the findings of self-perceived satisfaction in regard to how employees believe how their organization honors their faith tradition with respective policies, their ability to accommodate their faith needs, and finally their consideration of themselves as human beings. The survey was part of a larger assessment, whose findings will not be discussed in this chapter, that was designed to determine how employees integrate their faith into the workplace through their religiously motivated behavior manifested in ethics, verbal or symbolic expression, or finding purpose in their work or enriching faith practices.

Contextual Considerations

How does the modern workplace respond to the growing presence of religion? While religion has declined in some places, such as Europe, globally the number of people who identify with a major world religion is predicted to rise from its present level of 80% to 85% by 2050 (Johnson, Reference Johnson, Melton and Bauman2010). This reality is coupled with the reality that many employees are less willing to leave their faith and its corresponding expression outside of the workplace (Mitroff & Denton, Reference Mitroff and Denton1999; Nash & McLennan, Reference Nash and McLennan2001; Hicks, Reference Hicks2003; Williams, Reference Williams2003; Fogel, Reference Fogel2004; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, Reference 413Giacalone and Jurkiewicz2005; Hart & Brady, Reference Hart and Brady2005; Miller, Reference 414Miller2007; Miller & Ewest, Reference Miller and Ewest2013c).

Many developed countries, like the United States, are becoming less religiously uniform and becoming more religiously diverse and pluralistic. This new complex religious reality is going to require the attention of human resource departments, diversity managers, and managers at every level. Within the United States the reality is demonstrated by a growth in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claims pertaining to religious discrimination (Atkinson, Reference Atkinson2004). Globally, organizations will need to develop an understanding of how organizational policies should best be designed to respect those of diverse faith traditions. If organizations are not able to address these issues, the default will be for individuals to best determine what is the appropriate level of expression of their faith in the workplace (Gregory, Reference Gregory2011).

In the United States, recent claims cited by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that administers and enforces civil rights laws against workplace discrimination, would suggest faith expression in the workplace is a growing concern. There were 4,151 religious claims filed with the EEOC during the 2011 fiscal year, a 9.5% increase on 2010. In subsequent years, total claims filed have dipped below the 2011 high, but these numbers are staggering compared with the 1997 number of 1,709 claims. See Table 14.1.

Further, the two largest categories of EEOC religious claims in the workplace have consistently centered on accommodation requests for time off (for prayer and/or special holiday observances) and issues around clothing (Estreicher & Gray, Reference Estreicher and Gray2006; Greenwald, Reference Greenwald2012). This could suggest the historically and statistically Christian-dominated workforce is unfamiliar with the issues, practices, rituals, and beliefs of many non-Christian traditions, resulting in possible mismanagement of religious accommodation requests (Greenwald, Reference Greenwald2012).

Within developed countries, the challenges before organizations go beyond this simple depiction of internal organizational management decisions, since religion is regarded as a universal human right. Organizations will need to consider both voluntary approaches to honoring human rights as manifested in faith or religious expressions, as well as adherence to external accountability measures such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Employment Equality Framework Directive, and, in the United States, Title VII considerations (Campbell, 2006).

What may be of encouragement is that some suggest that today's organizations within developed countries are more willing to partner with employees and take responsibility to respect employees' religious freedom (White, Reference White and Park2011). In developed countries, organizations before 1950 emphasized the rights of the employer, in contrast to the 1960s and 1970s, when organizations began to emphasize the rights of the employee (White, Reference White and Park2011).

Religion: An Aspect of Our Humanity

Regardless of how organizations respond, what cannot be refuted is that a person's faith or religious tradition is part of their human identity (Richards & Bergin, Reference Richards and Bergin1997; Hart & Brady, Reference Hart and Brady2005). A person's faith or religious tradition is vital to how individuals create meaning for themselves and ultimately is vital in how one forms their personal identity (Emmons, Reference Emmons2003; Wuthnow, Reference Wuthnow2005). Yet, while business should recognize this trend and adhere to the legal requirements as mandated by their nation, they may still miss the vital constructive aspects of bringing faith into the workplace (King & Holmes, Reference King and Holmes2012). Research has demonstrated that there are numerous positive effects that integration of faith and work can have on the workplace, such as on important life outcomes (Walker, Reference Walker2013); organizational commitment (Pawar, Reference Pawar2009; Bodia & Ali, Reference 412Bodia and Ali2012); productivity (Duchon & Plowman, Reference Duchon and Plowman2005; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Yang and Li2012); job satisfaction (Hall et al., Reference Hall, Oates, Anderson and Willingham2012); ethics (Weaver & Argle, Reference Weaver and Argle2002; Emerson & McKinney, Reference Emerson and McKinney2010); and, finally, job retention and job involvement (Milliman et al., Reference Milliman, Czaplewski and Gerguson2003; Pawar, Reference Pawar2009).

Yet, the prevailing assumption of the modern workplace is that there must “be a wall of separation between a person's beliefs and the workplace” (Kelly, Reference Kelly2008, p. 42). The “wall” of separation is perceived to be important because we do not all share the same worldview. Some believe that secularization has also influenced management theory so it has become individualist and materialistic (Dyck & Schroeder, Reference Dyck and Schroeder2005). The governing attitude of the modern workplace can be best understood as one that supports a necessary decline in religious faith since it interferes with organizational processes (Berger, Reference Berger1969; Wilson, Reference Wilson1982; Ashforth & Vaidyanath, Reference Ashforth and Vaidyanath2002; King, Reference King2012).

And, while sociologists continue to consider the degree, scope, or existence of secularization in greater society, it would be difficult to contend that many organizations are in reality committed to secularization within their own walls (Goldblast, Reference Goldblast2000; Ashforth & Vaidyanath, Reference Ashforth and Vaidyanath2002; Seales, Reference 415Seales2012). The impact on employees are potentially numerous, but most notable is the tendency for workers to compartmentalize their religious faith while at work. Yet, other organizations take the opposite perspective, in that they embrace a more holistic approach and recognize their employees' personal lives including various attributes, such as race, sex, gender orientation, and religious faith (Ashforth & Vaidyanath, Reference Ashforth and Vaidyanath2002; Gull & Doh, Reference Gull and Doh2004; Johnson, Reference Johnson2007; Vasconcelos, Reference Vasconcelos2010).

Religious Diversity and Human Rights

Organizations which take a more holistic approach understand the vital role religious faith can play in the development of personal meaning and identity (Emmons, Reference Emmons2003; Wuthnow, Reference Wuthnow2005), and ultimately understand religion as an aspect of their employees' human rights. Human rights should be understood as a set of moral imperatives, that critique law and legal systems (Campbell, 2006); moral imperatives that are granted to people simply because they are human (Morsink, Reference Morsink2009). Internationally, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 2009) to establish a baseline of universal respect and value for all human persons. Within this declaration, Article 2 affirms that every human is to be entitled to all the rights and freedoms with respect to religion. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights addresses religious human rights in Article 18, stating:

As a demonstration of the United Nations' commitment to ensure that human rights are upheld, they established The Global Compact, which is the world's largest global citizenship initiative, representing over 100 countries. The Global Compact carries with it a series of commitments organizations promise to fulfill, including a specific commitment to take responsibility in areas of human rights, labor, the environment, and anti-corruption. Most companies that participate, 79%, do so because they believe it will increase trust in their company (United Nations, 2010).

In the United States, a similar set of laws are intended to protect the religious human rights of individuals. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of (1964) makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against an employee in regards to the employee's religious faith; employers must accommodate all reasonable requests from employees having to do with their religious beliefs or practices. However, the employer does not have to accommodate those requests which create an undue burden on the workplace (employer) (Gregory, Reference Gregory2011). The fear is that if organizations do not take a more proactive role in accommodating the religious rights of their employees of faith, they will become more marginalized, resulting in increased legal and social religious challenges (Witte & van der Vyver Reference Witte and van der Vyver1996; Atkinson, Reference Atkinson2000; Schley, Reference Schley2008; Gregory, Reference Gregory2011). Similar human rights considerations and corresponding legal measures have been adopted in the European Union under the Employment Equality Framework Directive of 2000 and were implemented in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2010 (Kramar & Syed, 2012). Some research suggests that laws in the UK are moving away from a focus on non-discrimination against minority groups to one that considers how to create equity among groups by considering the scope of positive action (Barnard & Hepple, Reference Barnard and Hepple2000).

However, many countries have institutionalized accommodation of religious practices that are held by the majority national religion. For example, in predominantly Muslim countries, accommodations for daily prayer are anticipated, as are certain financing practices. However, in many countries the challenge will be twofold: the first being how to address accommodation requests from employees who come from minority religions, and the second coming from organizations which have not been proactive and simply have no idea how to become proactive.

However, globally, organizations have had to learn, or are learning to respect the human rights of their employees. Issues such as child labor, women in the workplace, and ethnic divisions are issues organizations located within China, South Africa, and Korea are familiar with, and they can recognize progress in meeting and addressing those challenges. Within the United States, there is a pattern of organizations observing the lapse in human rights issues and putting in place organizational practices and policies to accommodate and correct the lapse in employees' human rights (Miller, Reference Miller, Stackhouse, Hainsworth and Paeth2010; see Table 14.2). That organizations have recognized human rights violations and found ways to accommodate those human rights issues is a promising indication of the ability of organizations to recognize and accommodate employees' religious human rights.

Diversity Management

It is important to note that globally, not all organizations are mandated by law, contractual pressure, or ethical mandate to accommodate human rights. Therefore, it may be important to find voluntary approaches such as “diversity management,” which is used to protect historically underutilized and discriminated groups (Gagnon, & Cornelius, Reference Gagnon and Cornelius2000; Bassett-Jones et al., Reference Bassett-Jones, Brown and Corneulis2007). Yet, there is a considerable amount of opacity on how employers can best respect employees' religious rights. One managerial philosophy, known as Symbolic Management (Ashforth & Vaidyanath, Reference Ashforth and Vaidyanath2002; Roberge et al., Reference Roberge, Lewicki, Hietapelto and Abdyldaeva2011), may provide a means for both employees and employers to envision a diversity strategy. Borrowing from social identity theory (Taifel & Turner, Reference Taifel, Turner, Worchel and Austin1986) and self-categorization theory (Turner et al., Reference Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher and Wetherell1987), which both focus on commonalties among groups, Symbolic Management is a management philosophy that frames or portrays the desired organization as an ideal group to its members or stakeholders (Fiss & Zajac, Reference Fiss and Zajac2006). Diversity programs which foster or emphasize commonalities among groups have strong diversity outcomes (Brewer & Brown, Reference Brewer, Brown, Gilbert, Fiske and Lindzey1998; Brewer & Gaertner, Reference Brewer, Gaertner, Brewer and Hewstone2004). Another term used for the same phenomenon is the word “Frame,” which is understood as the activity of attributing a perspectival model to guide mangers. For Bolman and Deal (Reference Bolman and Deal2008), a frame “involves matching mental maps to circumstances” (p. 12). Researchers have developed numerous theories as a means to depict or frame how organizations should be or are positioning themselves in regards to religion in the workplace (see Table 14.3). Yet many of the established theories within management science fail to consider organizational practices such as the creation of policies, nor do they provide direct consideration of aforementioned established national and international human rights laws, and finally they do not address religious expressions; instead they focus on the “values” of organizations or “Social Responsibility.”

Four Organizational Approaches

The proposed Faith-Friendly Scorecard is a framework which acts as a rubric to assess how good organizations perform in regards to religious or faith accommodation requests, formal organizational policies and employee wellness. The four frames within the framework are: Faith avoiding, faith based, faith safe, and faith friendly. See Table 14.4.

A Faith-Avoiding Organization

Faith-avoiding companies advocate for a secular workplace, and see any inclusion of a person's religious faith to be problematic, prone to creating adversity and counterproductive to the purposes of the workplace. With the use of this frame, the organization forces employees to practice a type of fatal dualism, whereby employees are required to leave their religious faith outside the door of their workplace (Miller & Ewest, Reference Miller and Ewest2015). This perspective may represent the present disposition of organizations in developed countries. Yet, surprisingly, this perspective is also supported by key management authors in the Academy of Management. Mitroff and Denton (Reference Mitroff and Denton1999), whose research subjects indicated religion is perceived as pejorative, viewing religion as a highly inappropriate form of expression and topic within the workplace. Mitroff (Reference Mitroff2003) personally states, “I still believe that formal, organized religion has very little, if any, role to play in the workplace” (p. 378), because he believes religion is divisive.

However, while the use of this frame may avoid the division sometimes created by religious practice in the workplace, it also can create paranoia because the religiously devoted employees may feel they are being treated unjustly. And, even if this frame does protect some employees from offensive religious expression of some, it ignores legitimate demands from the religiously devout employees, which could result in litigation where a nation's laws prohibit such discrimination (Gregory, Reference Gregory2011).

A Faith-Based Organization

Alternatively, faith-based companies are clearly grounded in one particular faith tradition. This frame or perspective seeks to align the company's mission with the values of their religious faith tradition. Companies which are faith-based are typically privately owned, and the founder's faith tradition can play a significant role in promoting the faith within the workplace. The fact is that many faith-based companies view their religious belief as being central to and the main purpose of their business model and their financial success, even at the risk of creating discriminatory policies and practices (Miller & Ewest, Reference Miller and Ewest2015).

While favoring one religious tradition may not be illegal and in some countries is required (e.g., Sharia law) the faith-based company runs the risk of privileging some and discriminating against or even aggressively proselytizing to those from other religious faiths. The faith-based company may even wish to ensure the centrality of their faith and favor and promote those who agree with the leadership's faith perspectives and beliefs. Moreover, employees who hold a different faith tradition to that of their employer may be forced to hide their own faith tradition, feel excluded or simply feel marginalized (Aadland & Skjørshammer, Reference Aadland and Skjørshammer2012; Miller & Ewest, Reference Miller and Ewest2015).

A Faith-Safe Organization

Faith-safe companies choose to tolerate their employees' faith traditions, but do not embrace or encourage religious expression. These companies recognize that there is a legal or humane requirement to accommodate at least the minimum standards pertaining to Title VII and other relevant international laws and guidelines that recognize religion as a human right. These companies accommodate religious requests because they wish to mitigate risk of lawsuits and/or desire employees to feel valued (Miller & Ewest, Reference Miller and Ewest2015).

But this frame doesn't encourage or proactively seek out their employees' religious faith practices because the organization doesn't understand religious faith as an organizational asset or a valued aspect to organizational diversity. One result is that faith-safe companies may not have specific policies for people of faith, yet have set up policies for other protected or marginalized groups (e.g., race, gender, age), raising questions of fairness for people of religious devotion (Miller & Ewest, Reference Miller and Ewest2015).

A Faith-Friendly Organization

The faith-friendly company is like the faith-safe company because it acknowledges the importance of faith in the life of employees and wishes to accommodate those employees, but more importantly this frame also seeks to go beyond what is expected by relevant laws and international guidelines. The faith-friendly company goes beyond minimal legal requirements and international guidelines and embraces religious faith in ways that are consistent with other diversity and inclusion practices. And, consistent with research findings, the company understands the advantages of including religion with and alongside other diversity issues. These advantages include: Organizational commitment (Pawar, Reference Pawar2009; Bodia & Ali, Reference 412Bodia and Ali2012); productivity (Duchon & Plowman, Reference Duchon and Plowman2005; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Yang and Li2012); job satisfaction (Hall et al., Reference Hall, Oates, Anderson and Willingham2012); ethics (Weaver & Argle, Reference Weaver and Argle2002; Emerson & McKinney, Reference Emerson and McKinney2010); and, finally, retention, and job involvement (Milliman et al., Reference Milliman, Czaplewski and Gerguson2003; Pawar, Reference Pawar2009).

The primary way a faith-friendly company demonstrates their commitment to seeing religion as an aspect of human rights and diversity is by constructing workplace policies which are welcoming and inclusive, not favoring one religious tradition over the other. The faith-friendly company understands the vital role religion plays within the lives of many employees (Emmons, Reference Emmons2003; Wuthnow, Reference Wuthnow2005). Therefore, faith-friendly companies seek to include all people of religious faith and understand their religious expression as something to embrace and respect alongside other aspects of diversity (Miller & Ewest, Reference Miller and Ewest2015).

Cases for Discussion

The two cases that follow both depict examples of one of the frames within the four aforementioned frames. The cases were found using web based search engines using Boolean operatives, and selected not because they were an exact fit, but instead are generally “representative” of one of the four frames; The Paprec Group represents a faith-avoiding company and the PacMoore Corporation represents a faith-based one.

The Paprec Group

The French company The Paprec Group, began in 1995 by Jean-Luc Petithuguenin when he took over a small paper recycling company with 45 employees. Petithuguenin was convinced that recycling market had great potential and set to become one of the most important enterprises for the twenty-first century. Through aggressive investment policies the Paprec group acquired advanced industrial technology which allowed it to enter into new recycling markets such as plastics, e-waste, and selective collection. The Paprec group today also has numerous environmental services that include collecting household waste, public bins, and sorted waste. Finally, they offer delegated management of waste collection and sorting facilities, including management of facilities for nonhazardous waste storage (Paprec Group Raw Material Producer of the 21st Century).

With solid leadership, The Paprec Group's dynamic growth and innovation has attracted over 20,000 industrialists to participate in Paprec recycling, resulting in them becoming one of the key players in the world of recycling and waste management (Paprec Group Raw Material Producer of the 21st Century). The respect that the Paprec Group has for the environment is mirrored in their respect for individuals. Paprec seeks out individuals who adhere to the same set of founding values that establishes the company's market presence. The driving philosophy of the company is stated in the following, “We believe in human rights and believe in the Enterprise.” Paprec desires employees who seek excellence, professionalism, and mutual respect.

Jean-Luc Petithuguenin, in order to maintain this respect of individuals and fight against discrimination, asked all of its current 4,000 employees (from 56 different nationalities) to agree to practice a newly adopted “Charter of Secularism” (see Table 14.5). The Paprec group anticipates that the charter will move the company beyond present French laws, which prohibit the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols in schools. Moreover the charter seeks to resonate with the philosophy of secularism within French society, which intends to create freedom for people to believe or not believe freely (The Charter For Secularity and Diversity).

PacMoore Case Study

In 1985 Bill Moore left Procter and Gamble to take a leadership role at this father's company, George Meyer Company. Bill became aware of a need within the food industry for a reliable and capable manufacturing partner. Bill spent the next 20 years growing the company to meet the industries needs of packaging, blending, spray drying, and extrusion (Management Team).

Today the PacMoore Corporation, an American company, is a progressive and reliable food-contract packaging and processing business located in Hammond, Indiana. The company's contract manufacturing capabilities include blending, sifting, spraying, and turnkey processing, all of which enable the company to meet almost any requirement for food and dry ingredients. PacMoore, led by Bill Moore, employs 300 people, processes an estimated 250 million pounds of ingredients each year and generates annual sales over $35 million.

For the leadership at the PacMoore Corporation, their organization goes beyond simple social responsibility or respect for employees. “For PacMoore, Business a Mission (BAM) is not simply a social responsibility campaign – it is a calling we have been given as Disciples of Jesus Christ.” The leadership at PacMoore understand the business they are committed to as a mission, the term “Business as Mission” conveys how their Christian faith is integrated into their business practices. BAM is the building and sustaining of profitable businesses that create jobs, allowing them to form relationships with their employees, customers, and salespersons through which they are able to share the message of Jesus Christ with those who are interested.

Although making a profit is still the overarching goal of the company, CEO Bill Moore believes the company's mission is much deeper, broader, and eternal. This sense of an eternal mission in the company started 15 years ago when Moore became convinced that his faith shouldn't be confined to Sundays only. He decided to bring his faith to work and use the company he leads to change the lives of employees, customers, suppliers, and even farmers in Uganda. CEO Bill Moore states, “The concept of mission is very important to us, we use the company as a platform to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all the people we can … our business is a mission field” (Shorr, Reference Shorr2012, p. 21). It is the company's purpose to live fully committed to love, serve, and honor Jesus Christ and the company's mission to supply 5,000 jobs to low-income communities around the world by 2020.

The PacMoore Corporation has five core values that hold the company and their employees together – faith, family, integrity, respect, and excellence – all of which encourage employees to grow spiritually at work. The company employs seven Christian workplace chaplains that regularly help and care for employees. “Our job is to shepherd employees, care for them and love them. If an employee is facing a difficult family situation, an ethical dilemma at work, or one of a thousand other problems that can descend upon us, we are at hand to provide prayer, comfort and counsel” (Shorr, Reference Shorr2012, p. 21). The company also sponsors numerous activities and programs to help employees grow in their spirituality. The company's mission also extends beyond its local community and is working to help farmers in Uganda to produce products for market.

Assessing with “Faith-Friendly Scorecard”

While neither of these companies is a perfect fit within one of the four frames, the purpose of the framework is to act as a guide in assessing where companies are seeing religion as an aspect of human rights and diversity by constructing workplace policies which are welcoming and inclusive, nor favoring one religious tradition over the other. And, depending on where they fall within the “Faith-Friendly Scorecard,” the assessment provides a better understanding of the organizational risk and corresponding benefits associated with the use of their present organizational frame.

Does Faith-Friendly Frame Make a Difference?

The Faith-Friendly Frame and accompanying scorecard are theoretical propositions, but does the adoption and use of the frame within organizational life make a difference in organizational life for employees? Preliminary research conducted by myself and my research colleague, Dr David W. Miller of the Princeton University Faith and Work Initiative suggests it does in the perception of employees, and with this positive perception comes increased employee commitment.

Methodology

Preliminary Research was conducted in order to understand whether “faith-friendly companies make a difference” on employee perceptions by focusing on two samples of employees, one drawn from a faith-friendly organization, the other one drawn from a random sample of alumni. The first organization was regarded as a faith-friendly company, sampled a large manufacturing organization in the United States, and had 5,828 respondents. Specifically, the company met all the criteria within the Faith-Friendly Scorecard: it had formal organizational policies which both accommodated and embraced their employees' religions and they saw an employee's religion as an aspect of employee wellness. The faith-friendly company also had chaplaincy programs, of which chaplains came from various faith traditions (Imams, Pastors, Priests, Rabbis, etc.) as well as social workers. The second sample was a randomized sample from an alumni group of more than 1,500, which represented individuals from various organizational frames, and had 176 respondents. The random sample was taken from a group of college alumni who were working full time at various occupations. Permission was obtained from both Institutional Research Boards of participating institutions. All responses were kept confidential, respondents could stop the survey at any time and responses were only obtained with written consent of the participant. The questions were collected via an online survey tool and the responses were loaded into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).

Research Findings

From the research findings, presented in Table 14.6, the majority of respondents (90%) believed in God, and self-identified as a Christian faith. The underrepresentation of other religious traditions is a limitation to this research, and thus this research should be considered exploratory and not universally applicable. But, when both groups were asked if the organization was aware of their religious needs the random sample self-reported agreement or strong agreement at 48.9% compared with 70.7% of the faith-friendly company. When asked if their religious faith was accommodated, the random sample self-reported “agreed” or “strongly agreed” at 66.5% compared with 76% of the faith-friendly companies self-reporting agreement or strong agreement. When asked if their organization embraced their religious faith, the group from the random sample “agreed” or “strongly agreed” at 47%, compared with the faith-friendly sample at 69.4%. When asked if the employee had experienced discrimination or harassment, both scored roughly the same with both “agreed” or “strongly agreed,” the random sample scoring at 6.3% and the faith-friendly sample at 6.5%. When both groups were asked if the organization had any policies that prevented them from expressing their religious faith, the random sample either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” at 10.8% and the faith-friendly group reported 5.5%. When the two groups were asked if the company's culture discouraged them from expressing their faith at work, the random sample “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the statement at 14.1%, compared with 7.5% of respondents of the faith-friendly employee. Finally, when asked the binary question of whether their company allows them to freely integrate their religious faith in the workplace, 56% of the random sample said “yes,” compared with 85.1% of the faith-friendly sample.

Implications/Directions for Future Research and Practice?

This research is exploratory and the frames presented in this chapter would benefit from further research. However, the hope is that the presentation of the Faith-Friendly Frame and corresponding Faith-Friendly Scorecard will allow organizational managers and managers to consider alternative organizational structures to better respect and embrace employees' religious faith tradition alongside other human rights considerations.

The data raises many questions as to the effects moderating and mediating variables have on survey responses. However, with the exception of harassment and discrimination, one thing would require further exploration: how faith-friendly companies appear to have more employees that self-report more organizational attention to their religious faith. The Faith-Friendly Frame which fosters this self-perception may then begin to foster greater employee wellness and in turn result in the aforementioned benefits of integrating religious faith within the workplace and potentially contributing to work life balance (Syed & Ozbilgin, Reference Syed and Ozbilgin2015).

Conclusions and Considerations

The chapter considered the importance of diversity philosophies and how these philosophies allow for the development of organizational frames (perspectives) that would allow for the inclusion of and respect for religion within the workplace and in doing so honor individual human rights (e.g., race, gender, sex). The chapter proposes an organizational framework, presenting four different “frames” as a means to structure and guide managerial policy. The organizational frames of faith-avoiding, faith-based, faith-safe, and faith-friendly represent the various organizational frames or strategies organizations use to manage the ongoing human rights issues relating to human religious beliefs. The chapter resolved by explaining research which suggests the use of the Faith-Friendly Frame may have positive effects on religious employees' self-perceptions.

Frameworks for the Religious Question in Western Companies

Religion is defined in countless ways. All of these definitions refer to two of its features, the belief in an invisible world (or a supra-empirical reality) together with shared ritual observances related to this belief. Religion has been an integral part of many societies since the Palaeolithic period according to some (Lenoir, Reference Lenoir2008).

The notion of religion appears in the constitution and legal texts of many Western countries. In their policy, companies can refer to legal settings and to informal principles. All these references are subject to interpretation and uncertainty.

Other Types of Arguments

In the face of religious demands, companies can refer to organizational and individual arguments that are not legal obligations, but rather convenient anchors.

Individual Identity

Religion is considered as a series of associated beliefs and practices, chosen (or not) by each individual. It can be considered as a “controllable aspect of identity” that everyone can reveal (or not). Thus, some people decide to keep their beliefs for themselves – “intrinsic religion” – whereas other people need to express their religion as a way of belonging to a community – “extrinsic religion” – (Allport, Reference Allport1966) and so acquiring a social identity (Tajfel & Turner, Reference Tajfel, Turner, Worchel and Austin1986) that they do not necessarily find in the company. In the workplace, employees can decide whether to separate, merge, or balance their professional and personal identity (Sainsaulieu, Reference Sainsaulieu1992; Kreiner et al., Reference Kreiner, Hollensbe and Sheep2006). Increasing numbers of workers seem to want a holistic life (theorized in Miller's (Reference Miller2007) “Integration Box”) that merges, among other things, faith and work, but they have few resources to help them in this aim (Miller & Ewest, Reference Miller and Ewest2013). Revealing one's religion can be seen as a voluntary choice resulting from a need to be considered as a “whole person” at work (Mitroff & Denton, Reference Mitroff and Denton1999; Clair et al., Reference Clair, Beatty and Maclean2005; Hart & Brady, Reference Hart and Brady2005). Thus, religion is moving away from deep-level identity towards surface-level identity and can generate conflicts, and accusations of proselytism or discrimination (Gebert et al., Reference Gebert, Boerner, Kearney, King, Zhang and Song2014). Framing religion in relation to identity positions the issue at an individual level, i.e. how each person considers religion in his/her professional and personal life. However, it also positions religion at a collective level, as a vector of social belonging.

Firms may refer to individual expectations about whether to reveal the different facets of one's identity. They can even encourage them in a particular direction through the HR and diversity policies they implement.

Corporate Policies

At work, religion echoes other human resource management issues, and can fall within the scope of other previously established policies. Firstly, a growing number of companies have introduced and developed diversity policies. These policies can be viewed as reactive (associated with costs and short-term responses) or proactive (as a long-term strategic asset in line with the business case approach (Cox & Blake, Reference Cox and Blake1991)). Religious diversity can thus be considered as one type of diversity that has to be managed for better performance (Cui et al., Reference Cui, Jo, Na and Velasquez2015), even if many consider it as the “bête noire” of this type of policy. Secondly, religious demands may “resonate” with work/life balance policies. Some companies attempt to separate their employees' professional and private lives, whereas others, on the contrary, promote a more integrated view, and others again take a middle course, with a policy of respect (Kirchmeyer, Reference Kirchmeyer1995). These policies take a collective management approach to the religious question.

Grey Areas for Firms with Regard to These Frameworks

Each of the principles mentioned above represents a frame of reference for private companies in many Western countries. However, as the following table shows, these principles also raise questions about how they can be converted into clear guidelines.

Implications of These Diverse Principles

Table 15.1 highlights the types of risk firms face (Ghumman et al., Reference Ghumman, Ryan, Barclay, Karen and Markel2013). The decision to accept, refuse, or accommodate can be seen by other employees as unfair privileges enjoyed by groups of believers or disbelievers. To guarantee freedom of religious belief and observance may establish disparate treatment through specific measures for those who reveal their identity to the detriment of those who do not. To treat everyone impartially may also create “undue hardship” (as it is commonly described in the USA). All these frames of reference can thus become starting points for corporate “micro-inequality” by extracting common law in the name of religion. For example, in 2015 in Indiana, the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” was signed in order to give business owners a stronger legal defense if they refuse to serve lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender customers and want to cite their faith as justification for their actions, stirring the emotions of many.

Table 15.1 Levels and uncertainty of the frameworks used by firms to manage religious issues

Principles	Frameworks used by private firms	Questions
Legal register
Freedom	Guarantee: – employees' freedom to believe or not – freedom of religious expression – fair and equal treatment	Sincerity of religious beliefs? How far can freedom of expression go?
Equality	Fight against discrimination linked to employees' religious beliefs	How can all employees be treated impartially?
Other registers
Individual identity	Understand employees' overall identity Estimate the collective identity created by religious belief	What sides of the identity have to be managed? What are the roles of this identity at work?
Corporate policies	Integrate religion with other policies already implemented or initiated: Diversity or work/life balance	Is religion another dimension to relate to existing policies? Is it an extension of already initiated policies?

Different Viewpoints

Some of these principles are rooted in an individual perspective (freedom and individual identity) whilst others, at the other end of the spectrum, refer to the collective corporate dimension (policy implementation). Between these two extremes, some principles consider the individual in relation to the group and introduce the notion of the relative importance of the various frameworks (equality and non-discrimination). They express the limits within which people wish to contain religious issues: either individual or, on the contrary, those of the broader corporate community (see Figure 15.1).

Figure 15.1 The different levels of the principles for managing religious issues in the workplace

Whilst these principles seem to be sufficient, they leave companies with “grey areas.” These areas of uncertainty, which can also be seen as providing firms with leeway for their action, come from the different foundations (and sometimes lack of clarity) of the principles.

Different Answers Identified in Companies

Regarding how companies deal with all these frameworks, scholars propose some typologies in order to analyze company attitudes to religious questions. Mitroff & Denton (Reference Mitroff and Denton1999) identify five different manners for US companies to be religious and/or spiritual: religion-based, evolutionary, recovering, socially responsible, and value-based organizations. This typology mainly helps to distinguish the different ways in which religion and/or spirituality are considered in US companies. Grossman (Reference Grossman2008) extends this research and pinpoints three types of company according to their leaders' convictions: faith-frosty (the less religious expression there is at work, the better), faith-focused (faith provides underlying values that motivate and guide the organizations), faith-friendly (inclusion and integration of all religious beliefs are promoted). In line with these categorizations, Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (Reference Giacalone and Jurkiewicz2010) describe three types of relationship between spirituality and the workplace: a parallel, an adversial, or an integrative relationship, while Ashforth and Pratt (Reference Ashforth, Pratt, Giacalone and Jurkiewicz2010) also define three types of organizations: enabling, directing, and partnering.

More recently, Miller & Ewest (Reference Miller and Ewest2015) investigate corporate actions and attitudes toward workplace spirituality and propose an integrative structure understanding organizational attitudes, policies, and practices: faith-avoiding, faith-based, faith-safe, faith-friendly, as detailed in Table 15.2.

Table 15.2 Typology of faith-orientations and their implications in the workplace

	Descriptions	Principles
Faith-avoiding	No religious accommodation	Corporate policies based on secularization theory
Faith-based	One predominant religion and some accommodations for the others	Corporate policies rooted within one religion
Faith-safe	Tolerance and understanding of various religious beliefs with a predominant religion	Law (diversity is promoted in order to avoid undue burden or costly litigation) Equality of all employees Identity of all employees
Faith-friendly	Accommodations for various religious traditions	Freedom Diversity of identities at work

Source: Miller & Ewest (Reference Miller and Ewest2015).

To deal with religion in the workplace, firms have to find a balance between the different principles with which they must comply. Nonetheless, areas of uncertainty and liberty remain. All these typologies underline the crucial role of leaders and the diversity of organizational responses to religious issues in the workplace. But these researches are based on companies based in the United States, where faith is an “umbrella” term (Miller, Reference Miller2007; Miller & Ewest, Reference Miller and Ewest2015) that includes all forms of beliefs, i.e. religious and spiritual ones. We think that it could be interesting to investigate these frames of attitudes in the French context where the definition of religion is narrower and the attitudes towards it more regulated by law.

The French Exception: Evidence from Diversity Guides

Methodology

This research was initiated in 2009 to investigate the issue of religious management in large non-state firms in France. To explore this “taboo” subject, we collected three types of qualitative data (see Figure 15.2).

Figure 15.2 The phases of the religious French guides project

Large French companies have chosen to concentrate on the way those receiving different religious claims can interpret this facet of identity. The role of the guides is to establish certain standards to be integrated into the organization's culture (see extracts in Appendix). They also aim to allow all employees to avoid interpreting religious belief at work individually and subjectively. We collected guides of how to manage religious diversity in the workplace from companies in different sectors, as detailed in the Table 15.3 below. Major large French firms have led this initiative. We collected the guides of almost all the firms that had produced them in France. For the others, we interviewed diversity managers, and obtained information on the contents of these guides in line with those studied.

Table 15.3 Profile of French firms of our research

Firm	Sector	Staff
Casino	Retail	330,000
EDF	Electricity distributor	110,000
La Poste	Services (postal, banking, and mobile telephony)	240,000
Orange	Mobile telephony	170,000
RATP	Public transport	56,000
Valeo	Automotive parts supplier	79,000
Veolia	Water, waste, energy, and transport management	318,000

We also studied the guides produced by other organizations (AFMD, ORSE, Alliance du Commerce, IMS Entreprendre).Footnote ¹ We complemented this data with secondary data, by investigating, for example, the discourses produced by the State Defender of Rights, the MEDEF (French employers' umbrella association), the Observatory of Laïcité, and the Economic, Social, and Environmental Council on this topic. We analyzed and triangulated this data (Miles & Huberman, Reference Miles and Huberman2003) using secondary data (minutes of meetings of the AFMD diversity commission and press articles) and primary data to better understand the positioning of these firms and the types of discourses produced. We analyzed the data in the guides thematically based on the criteria we had already established, isolating the topics in each text in order to compare them with the other texts dealing with similar topics (Ghiglione & Matalon, Reference Ghiglione and Matalon1991).

Conclusion

Our research contributes to fill the gap in the literature identified by King et al. (Reference King, Bell and Lawrence2009) regarding the analysis of religious diversity within organizational units. It underlines that most of Western firms deal with religious claims in terms of both legal frames of reference and informal principles. These principles, whose definitions are vague, leave room for interpretation. Thereby, our work calls for their reconsideration as symbols of three dimensions: societal, organizational, and individual. The investigation of these nested levels of analysis shows the limits of each one taken alone but also the difficulties of reconciling them.

Facing these grey areas, we show that companies adopt three different positions in line with previous typologies in the US context (described before). Our focus on the French context allows us to show that some firms are in a position of denial (or “faith-avoiding” in the continuum of Miller & Ewest, Reference Miller and Ewest2015) with a neutrality argument inspired in France by the principle of Laïcité. Recently strengthened this position in France, by inscribing in the New Labor Law (or Law El Khomri, July 2016), the Article 1 bis A introduces the right to inscribe the principle of neutrality in companies rules and regulations. If this tendency of excluding religion from work exists, we observe in the same time the evolution of many French private firms from a refusal or acceptance position to an accommodation one. This evolution demonstrates the learning process of these organizations in the face of this complex area of management. But we do not find any correspondence with the “faith-based” (Miller & Ewest, Reference Miller and Ewest2015) or “religion-based” (Mitroff & Denton, Reference Mitroff and Denton1999) types in our research. Firstly, the faith of a company's founder does not imply the dissemination of his or her values to their employees. Businesses linked with religious issues can also justify this position; these “tendency organisations” are essentially associations, unions, or groups (political parties, churches, or other religious groups) in which ideology, morality, philosophy, or policy is expressly advocated. Secondly, there is a strict definition of faith associated in France with the six main religions.

Our research provides evidence of interactions and identifications of societal, organizational, and individual principles and of the three stances towards religion in the workplace. It also questions the roles of management tools. Indeed, many firms attempt to determine guidelines to ensure that their responses are consistent. The guides produced by French firms reflect the different views they use to justify their arguments and the way they respond to religious claims. These documents shed light on the different positions taken by firms and the way they consider societal, organizational, and individual issues. They have a responsibility to help those who receive such claims to manage them. Nonetheless, our research suggests that we should not overestimate the influence of these guides. The managers or employees we interviewed in some firms were not aware of their existence, or did not refer to them, preferring to find their own local solutions. This paradox, whereby the tools are produced but the users are either unaware of them or do not use them, raises questions about the best way to help managers to respond to their subordinates' religious expression. Thus, this result confirms the limited scope of the management tools described by scholars (Aggeri & Labatut, Reference Aggeri and Labatut2010).

This perspective opens new avenues for research. From a managerial point of view, we would question the role of management tools in dealing with religious diversity. In our opinion, the guides are a sign of the increasing awareness of major private organizations interested in taking up this issue and in considering it as a type of diversity that they need to manage. They also reveal the attitudes adopted by each firm towards the subject. Their scope appears uncertain, however. It would be interesting to compare the effect of the training and guides used in each firm.

Like all categorizations, our typology of French companies' positions towards religion at work, risks suffering from “conceptual rigidity” (Miller & Ewest, Reference Miller and Ewest2015, p. 322). Our objective is to help managers and leaders to position their firms in a continuum of attitudes regarding this complex topic. Besides, this typology is dynamic. Companies can move from one position to another for many reasons: new leaders, contexts or problematic cases … It would be interesting to follow some of them during their evolution in order to analyze the causes and consequences of this process.

Finally, if the French case is sometimes considered as specific because of its restrictive definition of religion and its principle of Laïcité, our research underlines the difficulties associated with this last concept. It emphasizes that the principle of Laïcité disrupts the principle of freedom, even in the private business sector. While the use of Laïcité appears to complicate the situation in France, it is beginning to be studied in other Western countries, or may even be inspiring them. These countries also face the limitations of freedom and the particular requests of their employees with their broad range of beliefs. At the same time, business and more widely French society are increasingly looking towards Anglo-Saxon reasonable accommodation. Perhaps this situation, in which the general model of Laïcité and the particular model based on individual freedom are sources of inspiration for each other, announces the emergence of a hybrid model shared by all Western private firms.

Introduction

What happens when religious identity intersects with gender, race/ethnicity, nationality, and other social identities in the professional lives of women in the US academy? Our chapter interrogates how we experience academic careers at the intersection of these various identities. As researchers have argued, “within American society, the spiritual dimension of our lives has traditionally been regarded as intensely personal, an innermost component of who we are that lies outside the realm of appropriate discussion or concern within business and academic contexts” (Lindholm & Astin, Reference 467Lindholm and Astin2006, p. 64). However, this self limiting taboo is slowly lifting; both in popular press and academic environments, there appears to be a discernible hunger for appropriate (i.e. not obnoxious) ways of “fostering spirituality and an associated hunger for spiritual growth” (ibid., p. 64). Higher education is, as Lindholm and Astin argue, “a critical focal point for responding to the question of how we balance the ‘exterior’ and ‘interior’ aspects of our lives more effectively” (p. 64). Further, they add that “existing research indicates that developing people's abilities to access, nurture, and give expression to the spiritual dimension of their lives impacts how they engage with the world and fosters within them a heightened sense of connectedness that promotes empathy, ethical behavior, civic responsibility, passion, and action or social justice” (p. 64). The internal or interior aspects refer to the spiritual or existential dimensions of life; the exterior refers to work, actions, behavior, etc.

Our focus in this chapter is to explore faith-work integration, discussing the strategies we use to leverage the different aspects of our identity in support of our leadership aspirations. Using an intersectional framework (Crenshaw, Reference Crenshaw1989; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, Reference Sanchez-Hucles and Davis2010), we investigate how our various identities are implicated in our experiences of both privilege and discrimination within higher education in the United States. Both of us have experiences as students in both secular and religiously affiliated predominantly white institutions (PWIs), but the bulk of our work experience is within religiously affiliated institutions, what we shall hitherto refer to as Christian Higher Education (CHE) institutions.

As management and education scholars, we borrow from both disciplines in theorizing and unpacking our experiences. Our work is informed by our interests in women's leadership experiences in higher education, particularly women who are differentially positioned due to their social identities, in our case, our being, at a minimum, black, immigrant, Christians in PWIs in the USA (Hernandez et al., Reference Hernandez and Murray-Johnson2015). As scholars who hold multiple social identities, we illustrate how race, ethnicity, national origins, gender, and religious/spiritual identities intersect in our experiences navigating the predominantly white higher education context within the United States. As immigrants from Kenya and Trinidad; as tenured faculty members; as Christians; as women who, upon coming to the United States to pursue higher education, suddenly found ourselves identified as black or African American due to our phenotype; as wives to African American men; and as mothers; our experiences can illustrate life at the intersections of multiple identities. Most of the studies on spirituality and religion in the workplace do not employ an intersectional framework, thus our collaborative autoethnography work can add a missing dimension to the extant literature.

We begin by discussing intersectionality as the theoretical framework undergirding our study and situate our work in the management, spirituality, and religion literature. We then we describe the present study and ensuing themes that emerged from our collective data collection and meaning making process.

Intersectional Theoretical Framework

Kimberle Crenshaw, a legal scholar, is credited with having popularized the term intersectionality, in her landmark work unpacking the experiences of women of color and domestic violence (Crenshaw, Reference Crenshaw1989, Reference Crenshaw1991). Since then, the term has been utilized by scholars from a diverse range of disciplines, particularly feminist studies, women's studies, ethnic studies, sociology, and psychology, to describe and problematize the issues of diverse people's experiences at the nexus of various social identities, and to explicate their experiences of discrimination in social and organizational life (Collins, Reference Collins, Ferree, Lorber and Hess1999; Shields, Reference Shields2008; Hulko, Reference Hulko2009). Such scholars argue that discrimination and oppression due to social identities often involve more than one identity; it involves the intersections, the nexus, or to use Patricia Hill Collin's term, a matrix of domination (Collins, Reference Collins, Ferree, Lorber and Hess1999, Reference Collins2008).

Intersectionality as a concept highlights the complexity of experiences of differentially positioned individuals at the intersection of race, gender, class, and other identities. Recently, organization and management scholars have begun using an intersectional framework to interrogate the experiences of women and people of color, in areas such as their struggles with the glass ceiling and advancement as leaders (Ospina & Foldy, Reference Ospina and Foldy2009; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, Reference Sanchez-Hucles and Davis2010; Sang et al., Reference Sang, Al-Dajani and Ozbilgin2013). However, such studies in management remain quite few, with most scholars utilizing a single frame, such as race, or gender (Richardson & Loubier, Reference Richardson and Loubier2008; Ospina & Foldy, Reference Ospina and Foldy2009; Rosette & Livingston, Reference Rosette and Livingston2012). Intersectionality

This chapter joins the small but growing body of research in using an intersectional framework to narrate the experiences of two black women within organizational life, particularly looking at race, gender, nationality, and religion. Building on prior work with another colleague (Hernandez et al., Reference Hernandez and Murray-Johnson2015), we go further in interrogating and narrating our experiences with being minoritized individuals within religious institutions of higher learning. In the previous study, even though we focused on race, gender and nationality in the published article, in the data collection process, religion/spirituality emerged as salient to our experiences. However, we were asked to remove that section from the paper during the review process. As such, we welcome the opportunity to reposition our religiosity/spirituality in its rightful place – we recognize it as both a source of strength as well as a point of contention in the academy. The central question guiding our interrogations is: How are we, Faith and Kathy-Ann, able to integrate our spiritual identity with our personal and professional calling as foreign-born, black female leaders in the predominantly white academy?

Spirituality, Religion, and Work

Within the management literature, spirituality and religion became topics of conversation in the late 1990s, as researchers began to ask questions about the role that these play in the world of organizations (see for example, Fairholm, Reference Fairholm1997; Fort, Reference Fort1997; Fry, Reference Fry and Giacalone2005, Reference Fry, Biberman and Tishman2008; Fry & Whittington, Reference Fry, Whittington, Gardner, Avolio and Walumbwa2005; Fry et al., Reference Fry, Vitucci and Cedillo2005; Jackson, Reference Jackson1999; Mitroff and Denton, Reference Mitroff and Denton1999). Mitroff and Denton's (Reference Mitroff and Denton1999) work was particularly intriguing as a pioneering study into how managers and executives integrated spirituality into the management of organizations. Their study revealed participants discomfort with the idea of religion at work, fearing that religion could be disruptive to work. Further, participants in their study shared their discomfort with bringing their souls to their workplace:

Mitroff and Denton argued for the need to integrate spirituality into management, including the ability to recognize individuals full personhood at work, to be motivated by higher level needs (not just money), to express their creativity and intelligence, and to find higher meaning through their work. Mitroff and Denton's work was foundational to many of the empirical studies that emerged in the 2000s with a clear focus on spirituality and religion in the field of management studies.

Management and spirituality scholar Margaret Benefiel's conceptualization of spirituality connects well with our own experience. Benefiel argues that

Benefiel's (Reference Benefiel2005) account of the leader's spiritual transformation journey is particularly helpful in informing and explaining our own experiences. She draws on a five stage model of individual spiritual transformation, that can be summarized thus:

1. 1. First half of the journey

   • Stage I: Awakening – individual becomes aware of spiritual reality and adopts spiritual practices

   • Stage II: Transition – Individual has difficulty with spiritual practices, feels isolated and frustrated, questions path

2. 2. Second half of the journey

   • Stage III: Recovery – individual discovers new way of relating to God (or ultimate reality), adopts new spiritual practices, and experiences renewed joy

   • Stage IV: Dark night – Individual finds spiritual practices ineffective, goes through a time of deeper questioning and sense of isolation

   • Stage V: Dawn – individual experiences new sense of connectedness, alignment, and new ways of making meaning.

Benefiel (Reference Benefiel2005) explains that at stage V, “leaders who live predominantly in this place are more available to the needs of the people they serve, and more available to their organizations. Because their egos have been relativized to the higher good, they can use their skills and energy to serve the good of the organization as a whole, rather than using them to fill their own ego needs” (p. 735). This kind of understanding of spiritual development is helpful in unpacking some of our own experiences as black immigrant women academics working in environments where we experience racist microaggressions – it helps to unpack both why we choose to stay and/or when we choose to move on, it explicates the underlying framework that undergirds our choice to do so.

Spirituality among African Ascended People

Several studies provide evidence of the salience of religiosity/spirituality and positive outcomes for African ascended people – that is, people who have African ancestry whether they reside in Africa or the vast African Diaspora – especially in light of the intersecting struggles with racism, sexism, and classism. As Dantley (Reference Dantley2005) argues, “spirituality has given people of color the impetus to create, innovate, and transform infirming and deprecating conditions with which they have had to contend” (p. 655). Further, “African American spirituality is the internal grounding of many Black people's ontology or sense of being. It crafts a sense of self and provides the impetus to resist forms and practices of dehumanization and oppression that are sometimes promoted by the dominant culture” (p. 657).

Other researchers similarly agree that for many people of African ascent, spirituality is a deeply integral part of our identity, and an important source of our meaning making in the context of struggle (e.g., Allison & Broadus, Reference Allison and Broadus2009; Cozart, Reference Cozart2010; Dillard et al., Reference Dillard, Abdur-Rashid and Tyson2000). Spirituality and religious participation enhance physical and emotional well-being among African Americans (Levin et al., Reference Levin, Chatters and Taylor2005; Zavala et al., Reference Zavala, Maliski, Kwan, Fink and Litwin2009); the social support engendered in a faith community minimizes the effect of race-related stress (Utsey et al., Reference Utsey, Giesbrecht, Hook and Stanard2008); and spirituality contributes to cultural resilience and the ability to cope with adversity as part of a community (Brown & Tylka, Reference Brown and Tylka2011; Utsey et al., Reference Utsey, Bolden, Lanier and Williams III2007). In sum, religious/spiritual connection can act “as an emotional support and guidance, a source of stress relief and comfort, and a way for participants to access and then address their challenges” (Teti et al., Reference 469Teti, Martin, Ranade, Massie, Malebranche, Tschann and Bowleg2012, p. 529).

By religious identity, most management, spirituality and religion scholars often indicate the specific rituals, beliefs, and practices associated with specific religious institutions (Fry, Reference Fry2003). On the other hand, spirituality often refers to the broader deeper connections amongst human beings, the divine, and nature, connections that go beyond religious affiliations (Fry, Reference Fry2003). Whereas some scholars and practitioners are uncomfortable with studying and discussing religion in relation to work – attempting to separate spirituality from religion because many individuals now identify as spiritual but not religious (Lindholm & Astin, Reference 467Lindholm and Astin2006) – our own spiritual identities are deeply tied to our religious identities, and thus, need not be separated. We are religious and spiritual. We sometimes use the terms interchangeably. Chiorazzi (Reference Chiorazzi2015) quotes Jacob Olupona observation that, “African spirituality simply acknowledges that beliefs and practices touch on and inform every facet of human life, and therefore African religion cannot be separated from the everyday or mundane” (Chiorazzi, Reference Chiorazzi2015, para. 15). Peter Paris agrees, arguing that “religion permeates every dimension of African life … the ubiquity of religious consciousness among African peoples constitutes their single most important common characteristic” (Reference Paris1995, p. 27).

It is imperative to continue explorations of spirituality amongst people of African heritage in the continent and the diaspora, in this case, two immigrant women faculty members in PWIs, to uncover the role spirituality plays both in our struggle against domination and racist microaggressions, and in our understanding and use of power and privilege. The approach we selected for our study, a collaborative autoethnography, was chosen because it enabled us to stay true to ourselves and honor our experiences as subjects as we interrogate a phenomenon that has larger socio-cultural consequences.

Collaborative Autoethnography

We employed collaborative autoethnography (CAE) to interrogate our experiences and reveal, through this first person approach, the role of spirituality in navigating the intersections of race, gender, national origins, and other identities. CAE is a qualitative research method that allows researchers to “work in community to collect their autobiographical materials and to analyze and interpret their data collectively to gain a meaningful understanding of sociocultural phenomena reflected in their autobiographical data” (Chang et al., Reference Chang, Ngunjiri and Hernandez2013, pp. 22–3). Though still a nascent addition to the field of social science research, it is gaining recognition as a valuable tool of inquiry that is malleable to academic rigor (Hughes et al., Reference Hughes, Pennington and Makris2012) and to interrogations of life in various sociocultural contexts, always aimed at problematizing the status quo and dehegemonizing inquiry (Tillman, 2009; William-White, Reference William-White2011). CAE is particularly sensitive to the need for relational authenticity in research, acknowledging the vulnerability that individuals experience in difficult institutional contexts, and articulating shared meaning making of collective realities (Hernandez & Ngunjiri, Reference Hernandez, Ngunjiri, Adams, Ellis and Holman Jones2013). The process begins with a shared agreement about the boundaries of the research project, in this case, a focus on our individual and collective experiences as marginalized individuals in PWI contexts, exploring both the challenges and opportunities inherent in that marginality.

Autoethnographers range from those who recognize the story as analysis, as stories evoke emotional responses from their readers (Ellis, Reference Ellis, Tierney and Lincoln1997) to those who employ a more analytical approach to explicitly connect their stories to socio-cultural and organizational issues (Anderson, Reference Anderson2006). We situate this autoethnographic exploration in the middle of that continuum – we expect to evoke emotional responses to some of the more difficult stories about microaggressions and oppressions in academia as well as to add our experiences to the larger conversation about the experiences of people like us.

Our choice in using first-person qualitative research in the form of CAE is a political choice to both legitimize and highlight the appropriateness of the personal in capturing the complexity of our experiences. Indeed, there is a growing recognition of the need for qualitative approaches in leadership studies like ours. For example, Lund Dean and colleagues have observed:

As such, we view our choice of a method that focuses on us as both subject and object of our inquiry as well-suited to authentically capturing the complexities of how we integrate our spiritual and work identities as black women in the academy. Below we describe the data collection and analysis processes we utilized to unpack our experiences at the intersections.

Data Collection and Analysis

The data for this paper come from several sources collected over the last seven years. Specifically, we draw on culturegram activities in which we visually mapped out our salient identities, self-reflective writing inspired by both current events (e.g., the recent Ferguson, Missouri and related race crises in the United States), and focus group discussions, which were collected for the aforementioned CAE project. Further, data come from reflexive journals, where we engage in narrating and reflecting on our experiences in the classroom, with student evaluations, interactions with colleagues and other daily examples of microaggressions. The third source of data is work that we have done with another colleague, which we presented at a leadership conference (Ngunjiri et al., Reference 468Ngunjiri, Hernandez and Elbert2014).

Data were analyzed on two levels: independently and collaboratively. After the first phase of data collection, we exchanged our individual writing and independently extracted themes and made suggestions of areas for further probing. In reading the scripts, we compared focus group discussion data with our written documents to independently code meaningful ideas in response to the question: “What are the areas of convergences/divergences in our experiences?” Extensive discussions helped us to negotiate and condense final themes. We condensed overlapping and redundant codes into broad themes with supporting text segments relevant to our central research question. Being mindful that autoethnographic work faces unique ethical challenges which include the reliance on personal self-disclosures that implicate self and others with the potential to cause harm, we implemented relevant ethical guidelines to protect ourselves as well as the unknowing participants in our self-stories (Ellis, 2007; Catham-Carpenter, Reference Catham-Carpenter2010; Hernandez & Ngunjiri, Reference Hernandez, Ngunjiri, Adams, Ellis and Holman Jones2013).

Findings

In the following sections, we first discuss our spiritual/religious identity as the nexus for the strategies we employ to successfully navigate the academy. Then we discuss in turn the strategies that emerged from this exploration: turning challenges into opportunities, becoming tempered radical, and developing spiritual resiliency.

Religious/Spiritual Identity

As explained previously, as people of African ascent, our spiritual and religious identity are deeply intertwined. Our spiritual identity emerged as critical to our ability to persist in the face of overwhelming challenges. In the context of this study, we recognized spirituality and religiosity as overlapping constructs (see Moberg, Reference Moberg1990). Our expressions of spirituality converged in a mutual understanding of spirituality as the “personal, subjective side of religious experience” (Hill & Pargament, Reference Hill and Pargament2003, p. 64). We each identify as protestant Christians, and as both religious and spiritual women. In our conversations about coping, it was the “personal, subjective side” of our faith walk irrespective of denominational affiliation in which we were able to identify areas of commonalities.

Firstly, spirituality tempers our responses to the real or perceived injustices we face often at the intersection of being both black and female. Our spirituality allows us to process our anger in intentional ways; it provokes us to channel that anger into paths of advocacy and action. For example, in recounting the challenges we face in academe our ability to cope coalesced around an understanding that our responses should be congruent with our faith walk. For instance, Kathy-Ann, when trying to decide if she should or should not respond to injustices, shared the following with Faith

Consistent with this tempering of our responses is the construction of a tri-partite lens – a merger of our gendered, cultural/ethnic, and spiritual lens – for interpreting our experiences. For example, Faith observed that having “a racialized identity can be a burden. It can lead us to act/think in ways that are not necessarily healthy; it becomes easier to personalize issues even where they need not be personal.” However, adding a spiritual lens to our analysis provides a somewhat neutral space to understand our experiences as perhaps not colored by gender, or race, or gender times race, but in the wider context of human experiences. In so doing, we are able to choose our battles carefully.

Secondly, spirituality fuels our righteous indignation to fight against injustice as part of our spiritual calling. We recognized that this functional aspect of our spiritual identities exists in tension with the tempering function. While spirituality tempers our responses to perceived injustices against us, it also propels us to fight non-negotiable injustices as part of a spiritual mandate to not only advocate for ourselves but also for those who will follow. For example, Kathy-Ann talks about being aware of this larger mandate on her life:

Relatedly, our spiritual identities help us to see our positions in the academy as having a larger purpose. As such, we find personal satisfaction in acting in accordance with this larger purpose at the intersection of our spiritual, gendered and cultural ethnic statuses even though we are aware of injustices against us in our current context. From a dominant spiritual perspective, both of us teach at Christian religiously affiliated universities where we feel a strong connection to our institutions and the mission they espouse. Kathy-Ann remains convinced that “though not always well implemented, I see my commitment to ideals of the university to live out its mission as an extension of my faith.” Likewise, Faith's personal mission is congruent with that of her current university. We share this commitment to a larger calling. However, we do feel the weight of this responsibility by virtue of our minority status at the intersection of our various identities. When we started collecting autoethnographic data in 2008, we were working at the same institution, before Faith changed jobs in 2013. Faith is the only black female faculty at her institution as of September 2016. Kathy-Ann is one of only a handful of black female faculty at her institution. As such, we are very much aware that our positions come with responsibilities to advocate for ourselves, to mentor others, and also to be pioneers in paving a more equitable path for those to follow. Our spirituality enables us to employ the following tempered radical strategies, and it enables us to survive and thrive in spite of overt and covert racist/sexist microaggressions that we face in the academy.

Turning Challenges into Opportunities

The challenges that women of color face at the intersection of race and gender in the academy have been well documented (Jean-Marie et al. 2009; Brown & William-White, Reference Brown, William-White, Robinson and Clardy2010; Robinson & Clardy, Reference Robinson and Clardy2010). However, most of the literature focuses on pathologizing the experiences of people of color in the academy, by highlighting the challenges and microaggressions with scant focus targeted at the navigational strategies (Hernandez et al., Reference Hernandez and Murray-Johnson2015) or points of victory. In explicating the intersection of our spiritual identity with our various selves, we were able to uncover the critical role that it plays in helping us get over, or get through the challenges we experience in those intersections (Tillman, Reference Tillman2012).

We have faced the gamut of challenges ranging from inequitable pay, overloaded course work and service requirements, feeling unsupported, being the recipient of harsh student evaluations, lack of recognition for our accomplishments, and various instances of microaggressions (see for example, Hernandez et al., Reference Hernandez and Murray-Johnson2015; Ngunjiri et al., Reference 468Ngunjiri, Hernandez and Elbert2014). Microaggressions involve daily, often subtle actions and statements said to people of color by white people, as opposed to Jim Crow or other forms of overt racism (Solorzano, Reference Solorzano1998; Solorzano et al., Reference Solorzano, Ceja and Yosso2000) – microaggressions include questions such as “where do you come from,” or the statement “you speak very well” that serve to remind us, to let us know that “you don't belong here.” These challenges are consistent with the findings reported by other scholars (for example, Turner, Reference Turner2002; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, Reference Sanchez-Hucles and Davis2010).

However, we recognize our spiritual identity as the fulcrum that emboldens us to utilize these challenges as fuel for the fire to excel in academia, first as graduate students, and now as tenured faculty leaders. Rather than allow the challenges to overwhelm us or simply accept the status quo, we have empowered ourselves to work passionately to become change agents within our institutional contexts even as we advanced through tenure and promotion.

It is challenging to find opportunities to engage in research at teaching universities where women of color constitute a small minority. Hence, we have sought out collaborators within and beyond our institutions. That is how we started working together with a third colleague on CAE projects, as three immigrant faculty working at the same institution, producing several conference presentations and publications together (e.g., Chang et al., Reference Chang, Ngunjiri and Hernandez2013; Hernandez et al., Reference Hernandez and Murray-Johnson2015; Ngunjiri et al., Reference Ngunjiri, Hernandez and Chang2010). This same impetus led us to start working together on this project, this time focusing on our common experiences as foreign-born black women of faith in academia. Through this collaborative effort, we have earned the reputation of being “researchers” at our institutions, being sought out by other faculty and students for advice on publications and presentations. Faith was the first director of research, helping to spearhead research and publications at her previous department, while Kathy-Ann served in a similar role for the school of education at the same institution. Our efforts have helped to support and encourage faculty and graduate students in their scholarship endeavors within that “teaching” [higher teaching load, lower research and publishing expectations] institution.

We also find it challenging to find mentors and/or sponsors in our various contexts. However, we have been resourceful in seeking out mentors beyond our institutions. At the same time, because of this awareness of our own limitations and our spiritual calling, we seek out opportunities to mentor others in the academy, both colleagues and our students, and especially students of color and international students. The products of some of these efforts are presentations and publications with students who are now better positioned to seek out careers in the academy (see for example, Ngunjiri et al., Reference Ngunjiri, Hernandez and Chang2010; Ngunjiri & Christo-Baker, Reference Ngunjiri and Christo-Baker2012; Hernandez & Murray-Johnson, 2014, Reference Hernandez and Murray-Johnson2015). In contemplating the outcomes of mentoring, Faith reflected on two of her proud academic “mama” moments:

Through mentoring, we lead by example to show students how to advance and thrive in spite of the challenges they face. Where it is in our power, we advocate for students and other people of color in our institutions and the wider academy in order to effect change, a theme that we discuss in more depth below under tempered radicalism.

Overall, we find that our spirituality empowers us to reconfigure, strategize and confront injustices so that we are able to not only advance towards our goals but also to effect change irrespective of external realities. To do this effectively, we have become resilient leaders who have been “refined as by fire” at the nexus of our various identities.

Developing Resiliency

Resiliency is the capability to bounce back, and to grow after experiencing adversity (Ramsey & Blieszner, Reference Ramsey and Blieszner1999; Christman & McClellan, Reference Christman and McClellan2008, Reference 465Christman and McClellan2012). As black women in the academy, our ability to survive and thrive is linked to our capacity to persevere, to get through and get over, keeping our eyes on the prize that is tenure, promotion, and more importantly, leaving a legacy for students of color (Tillman, Reference Tillman2012). Resiliency for us involves “adaptive and coping strategies that forms and hones positive character skills” (Christman & McClellan, Reference 465Christman and McClellan2012, p. 650), giving us the ability to cope with the microaggressions that we face as a matter of course in academia. Without resilience, we would have given up and walked away, or worse, stayed but experienced psychological and physical health issues. The protective factors that have enabled us to survive and thrive include our ability to face the structural injustices with hope rather than anger, our ability to engage in a paradigm shift so that we see our whole lives in focus – as mothers, wives, siblings, coaches, consultants – as opposed to merely as professors, our ability to stand up and advocate for ourselves and others, and even the growing wisdom that enables us to choose when/if to respond to injustices or not.

On the other hand, it is challenging to be resilient in the face of constant adversities in the academy. In particular, we are aware of an undercurrent of being presumed incompetent (Muhs et al., Reference Muhs, Niemann, Gonzalez and Harris2013). Kathy-Ann remembers being praised publicly by a senior administrator at a faculty and student gathering with the compliment:

Experiences like these invoking subtle racism and sexism, make us poignantly aware of the burden we bear to work twice as hard with no assurance that our work will receive the recognition or affirmation that it deserves. Moreover, this overworking can cause workaholic tendencies. Having support systems outside of our academic environments provides the necessary checks and balances; we lean on spouses and loved ones to say to us, “You need to stop now! That is enough already!” or “You are working too hard!” Being mothers and wives, having extended family that we care for gives us that avenue for experiencing our non-academic selves.

As with other resilient individuals, we have learned, through intense spiritual introspection and engaging in dialogue with others who are similarly positioned, and with the support of our significant relationships, to “transform pain into growth and achieve fulfillment in personal and professional domains” (Whatley, Reference Whatley1998, p. 4, as cited in Christman & McClellan, Reference 465Christman and McClellan2012, p. 651). Thus, rather than succumb to the microaggressions, we have learned to overcome, to succeed in the midst of, and in spite of, the challenges we face in academia. In addition, as Christman and McClellan (Reference 465Christman and McClellan2012) argue, we have learned “to develop patience, tolerance, responsibility, compassion, determination, and risk taking” (p. 650).

To illustrate Christman and McClellan's point above, Faith remembers facing racist and sexist behavior from a white middle-aged male student who told her she was

Such is the experience of women and minority faculty in most higher education contexts within the US (Smith, Reference Smith2007).

Finally, Christman and McClellan (Reference 465Christman and McClellan2012) state that “resiliency develops and substantiates self-awareness and identity. As individuals encounter adversity, they navigate potential response – to fight or flee” (p. 651). We have each been at this crossroad and have asked ourselves the question: “Should I stay or should I leave?” For Faith, “this meant leaving my previous [toxic] environment and joining a more affirming institutional context that would help advance my professional and research goals.” For Kathy-Ann, “that meant coming to terms with my current institutional contexts due to the demands of my life overall (i.e. familial roles that limit geographic mobility), and finding additional income through consulting.” We recognize that as long as we are minoritized, we have limited choices for more affirming academic contexts than where we are currently located. The reality we face is that sometimes leaving and starting over is not the most pragmatic choice. We each have to discern our individual limits and to make the choice that best fits our personal goals, professional aspirations, and familial realities.

In this way, the nexus of being black, female, spiritual/religious, and the interaction of these identities with the roles that we play, all contribute to our ability to persevere, stay strong, overcome, “get over,” and succeed in both academia and our personal lives. For us, being resilient is also linked to our ability to function as tempered radicals, change agents in our institutional contexts.

Engaging Tempered Radicalism

Meyerson and Scully (Reference Meyerson and Scully1995) first used the term tempered radical to describe people who find themselves at odds with the dominant culture, and who choose agentic responses to disrupt unfair arrangements and change the status quo. Tempered radicals, according to Meyerson (Reference Meyerson2001) function as outsiders within their organizations, and operate along a continuum of five possible responses: resisting quietly and staying true to self, turning personal threats into opportunities, broadening impact through negotiation, leveraging small wins, and organizing collective action. Other actions that found to be consistent with tempered radicals in the African context include: intercultural boundary spanning, resourcefulness and creative problem solving, maturity in leadership, and leveraging the outsider/within positionality (Ngunjiri, Reference Ngunjiri2010). These four approaches enable tempered radicals to be effective in being both authentic in their identity (as women, as people of color) and as leaders in their organizations or communities, in contexts that often involve risk-taking and an ethic of care.

For us, tempered radicalism emerged as the approach we utilize for leading at the intersections. In a sense, we came to the realization that tempered radicalism comes about with maturity in leadership, as well as experience and understanding of the institutional and wider social context in which we enact our lives. On the one end of Meyerson's continuum is the response of staying true to oneself and at the other end is the response of collective action. Consistent with this approach, there are times when we choose silence and staying true to ourselves, other times we voice our values (Creed, Reference Creed2003) and speak up against the microaggressions and inequitable treatment we endure. Knowing which response to take – voice or silence – is driven by pragmatism and prudence borne out of our experience in academia. Early in our experience as international students in the United States, we did not know enough to be able to always actively voice our dissent against microaggressions or racist statements. Take for example this story from Kathy-Ann's life:

In these early experiences, Kathy-Ann did not respond. She remained silent – there was too much to process in the moment about what was being said and the intended meaning behind such comments. Later, after having many such experiences,, she was aware that in these moments, she had a clear choice – to remain silent or to speak out. We both had those kinds of early experiences, where silence was the only response, borne more out of not really knowing how to engage as we were coming to terms with a different construction of blackness for us in this context (see for example Hernandez & Murray-Johnson, Reference Hernandez and Murray-Johnson2015). In private, we would talk through these kinds of experiences with fellow international students and American minority students trying to understand the racism and ethnocentricity that elicited them. And with time, silence could be more of an intentional choice, as in “that does not deserve a response.” Thus we moved from silence because of lack of knowledge and understanding, to silence as choice and more agentic behavior on the Meyerson continuum, quiet resistance and staying true to ourselves.

On the quiet resistance end of the continuum, Meyerson recognizes that quiet actions are motivated by either a desire to be ones authentic self, or as first steps towards initiating change in the context. This backstage work, acting behind the scenes in ways that may remain invisible, requires “enormous fortitude and personal conviction” (Meyerson, Reference Meyerson2001, p. 51). Such actions include some already mentioned above, such as mentoring and helping others in the organizational context, enacting values and beliefs outside of work (e.g., consulting, coaching), connecting with others in other organizations to network and share resources, all aimed at enabling us to be authentically black immigrant women and effective in our various roles.

In the middle of Myerson's five strategies continuum are three strategies that we discuss here and illustrate with one example that demonstrates how they overlap in real life situations: turning personal threats into opportunities, broadening impact through negotiation, and leveraging small wins. Our ability to turn personal threats into opportunities is a very important strategy we employ to thrive in the midst of the micro aggressions. Agency, the ability to make choices about how to respond to situational variables, enables us not to be silenced, or to appear to collude with the oppressive systems.

The strategy of broadening impact through negotiation requires “seeking out the broader issues embedded” in our encounters at the intersections (Meyerson, Reference Meyerson2001, p. 79). Meyerson recommends looking at these encounters as opportunities to negotiate, “think in terms of competing interests, differing positions and concerns, distinct sources of influence, and alternative framing of issues” (p. 79). That enables us to not merely advocate for ourselves as individuals; instead, we advocate by locating our experiences within the broader institutional context.

In leveraging small wins, we are empowered by every little successful effort. For example, when a publication leads to better appreciation in the department for supporting faculty research goals. Or the win of getting an appropriate office ensures that the unfair treatment will not happen to the next person down the line, because it becomes a learning opportunity for the department leader in how not to treat those who are different. Each small win empowers us for future and further action.

This example helps to demonstrate how tempered radical strategies overlap. Kathy-Ann tells her story to illustrate:

This example illustrates silence as a choice, as opposed to the earlier example where silence was fueled by a sense of powerlessness and not fully understanding the context. In this case, Kathy-Ann was silent at first reading this as a character flaw. But on further reflection, she realized that it was also an issue of institutional culture, at which point it became necessary to voice her values. It became necessary to use this incident to turn a personal threat into an opportunity to teach about personal and professional boundaries, to counter institutional culture. This small win could then become part of a larger goal of changing a culture where taking others intellectual property was quite common.

Finally, engaging in collective action is a very empowering strategy, because it helps us to not feel alone, and to put our resources together for bigger impact than we could achieve individually. For example, by working collaboratively in projects, we have found ourselves being more productive as researchers, as we provide each other with accountability in addition to sharing both the load and the resources. Further, collective action does often translate to encouraging each other, lifting each other up when our individual energies are flagging from the efforts of dealing with daily racial microaggressions, providing one another with the support we need to keep going.

These five strategic approaches are further fueled by our ability to act as intercultural boundary-spanners and leveraging our outsider/within positionality (Ngunjiri, Reference Ngunjiri2010), so we can represent and advocate for our groups within our institutional contexts. As we have grown and matured as leaders, we find that it has become easier to differentiate between the battles we should fight, and those we should leave alone in order to win the war. That is, our capacity for critical spirituality or practical wisdom has been enhanced by our maturity as leaders. Dantley defines critical spirituality thus:

Thus critical spirituality gives us the tools to critique, to deconstruct, it provides us with the practical wisdom to discern our responses to situations and events pragmatically and authentically. Further, being resourceful in our problem solving, including reframing issues, recognizing a higher purpose, knowing whom to call to think through situations, and just overall having one another as sources of support has enabled us to thrive in spite of, and in the midst of the racist/sexist discrimination we are exposed to in PWIs.

Discussion

Living at the intersections of race, gender and national origins, within the context of PWIs in the United States requires that we have the skill set and competency to thrive in the midst of, rather than the absence of challenges to our authority as leaders. As people of African ascent living in the United States, we have found that our spiritual identity and religious communities provide us with the life affirming sustenance that we need to engage in our teaching, research and scholarship in a way that honors who we are, in spite of and in the midst of, challenges to our authority as academics.

These findings are consistent with the work of other scholars (Dillard et al., Reference Dillard, Abdur-Rashid and Tyson2000; Allison & Broadus, Reference Allison and Broadus2009; Cozart, Reference Cozart2010; Alston & McClellan, Reference 464Alston and McClellan2011). Our spiritual identity is the impetus that tempers our responses to injustices, ignites our indignation in the face of injustices, and enables us to see a bigger purpose for our professional calling that is consistent with our faith walk. It is from this integrated understanding of our spiritually centered selves that we are able to employ the three strategies that we have discussed here: turning challenges into opportunities, engaging tempered radicalism, and developing resiliency to overcome the impacts of racial and sexist microaggressions that exist in our institutional contexts.

As indicated above, ours is a critical spirituality (Dantley, Reference Dantley2005) enacted through the three strategies enumerated. As Dantley (Reference Dantley2005) offers, our “faith is prophetic in that it argues that what we see is a current reality, surely there is an antithesis, a response or future yet to be realized” (p. 6). Indeed, for us, having faith that things can be better, that racist and sexist microaggressions are not inevitable, is what fuels our agency towards change. As a matter of course, tempered radicalism demands action, whether quiet or collective action, towards bringing about a more just social arrangement. While we are not always successful in our efforts, our faith empowers us to keep advocating and advancing change. Our spirituality fuels that tempered radicalism, convicting us of the need to act not only on our own behalf, but also on behalf of others, present or future. Our faith communities provide us with an avenue for, at a minimum, letting off steam after racist or sexist encounters.

Our spirituality empowers us in our ability to reframe situations, to see the bigger picture, and to have a sense of calling and purpose in our work. This aspect of spirituality is well covered in the leadership and spirituality literature (Dantley, Reference Dantley2003; Delbecq, Reference Delbecq2004; Duchon & Ploman, Reference Duchon and Ploman2005; Fry, Reference 466Fry and Neal2013). We recognize how our careers, including the institutions where we choose to work, are part of a higher calling on our lives to serve others with our intellectual gifts (Delbecq, Reference Delbecq2004; Hernandez, Reference Hernandez, Chang and Boyd2011; Ngunjiri, Reference Ngunjiri, Chang and Boyd2011). Indeed, finding each other at the same institution and working together since our initial meeting has been a real gift, a way for both of us to actualize our call to academia as we recognized “we are more powerful as a community than we can be as individuals … the inconveniences and tensions of joint scholarship could be accepted knowing that the benefits would outweigh the difficulties” (Delbecq, Reference Delbecq2004, p. 646). When the challenges of being immigrant black women in the academy threaten to overwhelm us, we can rest in the knowledge that this is what we have been called to for this season of our lives.

Our spiritual maturity has been instrumental in anchoring our meaning making process as black women in the US academy, giving us the practical wisdom that enables us to serve our students, engage authentically with our colleagues, and be available to our external constituents as professionals without giving up our identities. Spiritual maturity (Benefiel, Reference Benefiel2005) affords us the prudence and patience to navigate unjust social arrangements, and craft, as Dantley (Reference Dantley2005) argues, creative responses to the challenges we face to our authority as professors and leaders in academia. We attempt to “rock the boat without falling out” (Ngunjiri, Reference Ngunjiri2007) as spirited tempered radicals in PWI contexts. Our spiritual maturity is the key to crafting effective navigational strategies that enable us to thrive in spite of, and in the midst of, the racism, ethnocentrism, and sexism that causes the microaggressions we face daily.

Implications for Theory and Practice

First person research endeavors such as ours help to illuminate the lived experiences of a limited number of people, by going deep into their stories and analyzing those stories. Such approaches provide viable alternatives to positivistic research paradigms for individuals like us who are differently positioned. By employing CAE, we are able to engage in research that allows us to stay true to who we are and honors our experiences, which may have larger socio-cultural implications. However, such stories are not aimed at generalization. Rather, autoethnographic projects enable researchers to unpack experience and illuminate theory. In this case, our CAE exposes our experiences as immigrant black women faculty in PWIs, illustrating how our spirituality and religious identity serves as a buffer against the stresses of racisms and sexism. Seen in light of similar studies that critique the intersectional realities of those who are different from the dominant culture (e.g., Brown & William-White, Reference Brown, William-White, Robinson and Clardy2010; Tilley-Lubbs, Reference Tilley-Lubbs2011; William-White, Reference William-White2011), our study can help in suggesting the need for institutional changes that would bring about better, more just, social arrangements.

At a theoretical level, our CAE illuminates intersectionality theory in praxis – that is, what it means to be black, female, immigrant, and other identities – in particular organizational settings; in our case, PWI contexts. Thus, it brings intersectionality theory to life in the lived experience of two minoritized individuals. In illuminating theory, studies such as ours help to enhance the validity of such theories, because good theory reflects reality (Witz, Reference Witz2007).

One can draw implications from our study in relation to others who are differentially placed, perceiving lessons that other differentially positioned individuals could resonate with and perhaps emulate. We have highlighted how our spirituality and religious identity enables us to engage with our work of teaching, research and service, and how these intersect with our non-academic roles, setting the example for future generations of black women scholars, and other minorities, in navigating the academic landscape (Dillard, Reference Dillard2006; Alston, Reference Alston2012; Hernandez et al., Reference Hernandez and Murray-Johnson2015).

Finally, we recognize that our spirituality and religious identity can be seen in light of the broader topic of this book; in the sense that specifically, for us, it helps us to successfully navigate an often hostile context, and be productive, and successful academics in the midst of challenging realities. That is, for us, our spirituality and religious identity supports our ability to perform, to produce, and to persist. Without the challenges to our authority as academic leaders and professors, perhaps we would be a little less resilient, perhaps we would not have learned to become tempered radicals invested in the goals of institutional change, perhaps we would not have learned how to turn our challenges into learning opportunities. In other words, our story should be seen as an example of navigating nefarious organizational contexts by being all of who one truly is – a raced, gendered, classed … and spiritual/religious being.