MANAGEMENT, PROPHETS, AND SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECIES*
Bruno Dyck
Frederick A. Starke
Cal Dueck
University of Manitoba
Please address all correspondence to:
Bruno Dyck
I.H. Asper School of Business
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Manitoba
CANADA R3T 5V4
Phone (204) 474-8184
Fax (204) 474-7545
Email: bdyck@ms.umanitoba.ca
Dyck, B., Starke, F. and C. Dueck (2009). “Management, prophets and self-fulfilling
prophecies.” Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(3): 184-196.
*Thanks to the following for the encouragement and comments on an earlier draft: Dan Epp-Tiessen,
Harold Harder, David Schroeder, Richard Martinez, John Meyer, Janet Morrill, Mitchell Neubert, Ross
Stewart, Janis Thiessen, Elden Wiebe, Kenman Wong, and various reviewers.
ABSTRACT
This paper responds to the increasing calls in the literature for “new prophets and old
ideals” upon which to develop (Radical) management theory and practice that will help us escape
the “iron cage” and the undue emphasis on materialism and individualism that characterizes
Conventional management. We examine teachings ascribed to Jesus in the biblical record which
have historically been used to support Conventional management theory and practice, and show
how they can be (re)interpreted from a less materialist-individualist moral-point-of-view to
support a Radical view of management theory and practice. Implications for management theory
and practice are noted.
2
When reading recent articles in leading scholarly journals, one is struck by the increasing
frustration that is evident with conventional management theory and practice, and by the call for
prophetic new ways of thinking about management. Ferraro, Pfeffer, & Sutton (2005), for
example, note the negative outcomes associated with the “self-fulfilling prophecy” of
conventional management theories, lamenting that the assumptions underlying these theories
have helped to create a world where non-self-interested behavior is seen as morally suspect, and
where money has become the prime motivator for behavior. Ghoshal (2005) expresses similar
concerns about the “self-fulfilling prophecy” that is part of conventional management. Clegg
(2005: 541) describes the religious teachings that underpin some of the negative aspects of
contemporary management theory, and echoes Weber’s (1958) call for “new ‘prophets’ and a
rebirth of ‘old ideals’” to help us to escape the resultant problems. Steingard (2005; see also
Delbecq, 2005) calls for research about “spiritually-informed” management that transcends the
conventional emphasis on narrowly-defined self-interested economic gain. Dyck & Schroeder
(2005) also make the case for new prophets as they develop a theology of what they call Radical
management that contrasts with the materialist-individualist emphasis that characterizes what
they call Conventional management theory.
This interest in prophets—whether metaphorical or literal—reminds us that, as for all
theory, organization and management theory is underpinned by a certain moral-point-of-view. In
his influential book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber (1958) argued
that conventional organization and management theory was initially underpinned by a specific
Judeo-Christian ethic that emphasized materialism and individualism. Weber’s basic thesis
remains widely accepted (Golembiewski, 1989; Herman, 1997; Hershberger, 1958; Jackall,
1988; Langton, 1985; Nash, 1994; Naughton & Bausch, 1994; Novak, 1982; Pattison, 1997;
3
Pfeffer, 1982; Redekop, Ainlay & Siemens, 1995).
Weber showed how this particular materialist-individualist ethic—long since
secularized—tended to maximize efficiency, productivity, wealth creation, and self-interest, but
also tended to leave society imprisoned in an “iron cage” that under-valued other forms of wellbeing (e.g., social, physical, ecological, spiritual, aesthetic). Weber’s challenge to his readers,
consistent with leading contemporary management scholars, is to develop a new approach to
management and organization grounded in the teachings of new prophets. Although himself an
agnostic, Weber argued that escape from the iron cage, and the development of a less materialistindividualist type of management, is most likely to occur with the advent of new religious
prophets.
The article is organized as follows. First, we provide an overview of the basic Weberian
framework that our study is based on, and review some contemporary literature that supports the
merit in presenting the teachings of a prophet to support a new approach to management.
Second, we look at several of the most popular teachings ascribed to Jesus that have been used to
support the Conventional view, and demonstrate how these very same teachings can plausibly be
interpreted from a Radical moral-point-of-view. We also illustrate how each interpretation of an
oft-used biblical story—the parable of the talents—is evident in the practices of contemporary
management exemplars. Finally, we identify the practical implications of self-fulfilling
prophecies and challenge readers to identify their own moral-point-of-view and the self-fulfilling
prophecies that they imply.
WEBER’S TIMELY YET UNHEEDED CHALLENGE
Our article draws from, builds on, and responds to the work of Max Weber, whose past
and ongoing contribution to the organizational sciences is immense. His conceptual framework
4
underpins classical management and organization theory, and scholars continue to draw on
Weber to develop new theory (e.g., Greenwood & Lawrence, 2005).
In particular, our paper contributes to an overarching conceptual framework that
underpins Weber’s work as depicted in Figure 1. The center of the figure has served as the focal
point for organization and management research for many years. Weber was a pioneer in
describing the hallmarks that characterize mainstream management, including ideas about
division of labour, hierarchy of authority, basing hiring and promotion decisions on technical
ability, formal record-keeping, a separation between management and ownership, the importance
of uniformly-applied rules to ensure predictability, and so on (e.g., Daft, 2003). For Weber,
these organizational characteristics exemplified what he called “Formal Rationality,” which is
essentially a way of organizing that maximizes efficiency (Dyck, 1997a). For him, this way of
organizing represented an “ideal-type,” and it is described in virtually all introductory
management textbooks.
-----------------------------insert Figure 1 about here
------------------------------With regard to the “outcomes” circle on the right-hand side of Figure 1, Weber observed
that organizing principles based on Formal Rationality would maximize efficiency, productivity,
and overall wealth creation. This observation has led some commentators to conclude (wrongly)
that Weber was promoting his bureaucratic principles as a laudable “ideal” way of organizing.
This was not at all what Weber had in mind. Rather, Weber uses the term “ideal-type” at an
abstract conceptual level, in this case to describe an approach management based on a particular
Formal Rationality. As it turns out he was personally normatively opposed to this particular
management “ideal-type”. In what has become perhaps the most famous metaphor in the social
sciences, Weber (1958: 181–182) points to the folly of this way of organizing, arguing that it
5
renders followers imprisoned in an ‘iron cage:’ “Specialists without spirit, sensualists without
heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before reached.”
Within the organization sciences, conflict theorists have done the most to build on and develop
Weber’s observations of the “iron cage” and the negative outcomes of mainstream management
theory and practice (e.g., Alvesson & Willmott, 1992; Perrow, 19825).
In terms of the Substantive Rationality circle on the left-hand side of Figure 1, Weber
(1958) describes the moral-point-of-view that this dominant Formally Rational approach to
management is based upon. For Weber, who is still considered to be a leading moral philosopher
of management (Clegg, 1996), management theory and practice can never be value-neutral.
Management is underpinned by specific values, whether or not people are aware of them.
In particular, Weber describes how the dominant Formal Rationality that characterizes
Conventional management is the result of a Substantive Rationality that specifically emphasizes
materialism and individualism (see the discussion of Weber’s notion of “substantive rationality,”
in Kalberg, 1980, and Dyck, 1997a). This materialist-individualist version of Substantive
Rationality was initially associated with the Protestant Ethic developed during the Protestant
Reformation, but has long since been secularized. In spite of secularization, and even though
Weber himself was an agnostic, he argued that escape from the iron cage was most likely to
occur with the advent of new religious prophets and a rebirth of old ideals that would promote a
less materialist-individualist “ideal-type” of management (Weber, 1958: 182, 277-78). In
particular, what Weber called for is the development of what has been called a Radical ideal-type
that places relatively less emphasis on materialism and individualism (Dyck & Schroeder, 2005;
Dyck & Weber, 2006). The goal of our article is to take seriously Weber’s argument on this
point and the challenge it poses for management scholars.
6
Contemporary Relevance of the Weberian Framework
If we consider the framework in Figure 1 in reverse-order, our basic argument is evident
in the following three observations. First, people are growing increasingly concerned about the
outcomes associated with Conventional management. This discontent is evident in antiglobalization protests, in frustration over corporate scandals like those at Enron and Worldcom,
in surveys showing that the majority of Americans believe that people are too focused on
working and making money and not focused enough on family and community (e.g., New
American Dream, 2004), and in the growing body of scholarly research which suggests that a
materialist-individualist approach to life contributes to negative outcomes such as a lower
satisfaction with life (Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2002; Kasser, 2003; Kasser & Ryan, 2001),
poorer interpersonal relationships (Richins & Dawson, 1992), less connectedness with others
(Khanna & Kasser, 2001), less generosity (McHoskey, 1999), less empathy for others and
greater conflict (Sheldon & Kasser, 1995; Sheldon & Flanagan, 2001), interpersonal
manipulation (Khanna & Kasser, 2001), an increase in mental disorders (Cohen & Cohen, 1996),
environmental degradation (Brown, 1998; Thurow, 1996; McCarty & Shrum, 2001), and social
injustice (Rees, 2002).
Second, these outcomes have generated concerns about the materialist-individualist selffulfilling prophecies that characterize the Formal Rationality associated with Conventional
management theory and practice (see, for example, Ferraro et al, 2005; Walsh, Weber &
Margolis, 2003; Giacalone, 2004; Ghoshal, 2005; Margolis & Walsh, 2003). These scholars
make the point that the dominant management paradigm, with its unquestioned acceptance of
maximizing shareholder value, is built on a foundation of individualism and materialism that has
led to some very unfortunate self-fulfilling prophecies in terms of the way that people behave
7
toward one another. For example, Ferraro et al. (2005: 11 & 13) identify several mechanisms by
which social science theories become self-fulfilling, thereby creating the very behavior they
predict. A similar line of thinking is pursued by Ghoshal (2005), who observes that a pessimistic
view of human nature, when combined with the notion of self-fulfilling prophecies, has
contributed to the problematic management behaviors we have witnessed over the last few years.
These concerns have prompted a call for Radical management, glimpses of which are
evident in various streams of research such as corporate social responsibility (Carroll, 1999;
Davis, 1973; Frederick, 1998), corporate social performance (Griffin, 2000; Turban & Greening,
1996; Wood, 1991), corporate citizenship (Matten & Crane, 2005), positive organizational
scholarship (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003), servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977), social
entrepreneurship (Dees, Emerson, & Economy, 2001), stewardship (Block, 1993; Davis,
Schoorman, & Donaldson, 1997), and stakeholder theory (Clarkson, 1995; Evan & Freeman,
1988; Jones, 1995).
Third, an alternative Substantive Rationality (or moral-point-of-view, or worldview) is
needed to underpin Radical management theory and practice (Giacolone & Thompson, 2006). In
particular, Weber (1958) argued that escape from the iron cage was most likely if it were
grounded in the teachings of religious prophets (Dyck & Schroeder, 2005). Similar conclusions
are evident in more recent scholarship. For example, MacIntyre (1981) questions the
materialistic emphasis we place on maximizing efficiency and formal rationality. Like Weber
before him, MacIntyre also emphasizes religious prophets (particularly St. Benedict) who have
informed the moral-point-of-view that “bureaucratic individualism” rests upon. And his
conclusion, like Weber’s, suggests that escaping the iron cage of bureaucratic individualism calls
for another, “doubtless very different,” prophet. Along the same lines, in responding to
8
Langton’s (1985) historical study showing how the materialist-individualist moral-point-of-view
was supported by Christian preachers, Perrow (1985: 282; emphasis added here) raises the
possibility of a qualitatively different moral-point-of-view for management that is based on the
teachings of “the Man from Galilee and his radical social doctrine.” This brings us to the inner
circle on the left-hand side of the larger Substantive Rationality circle, which lies at the heart of
Weber’s (1958) argument, and his challenge for future research.
Our article both responds to Weber’s challenge and takes it one step further by suggesting
that the very lens through which we interpret prophetic teachings may serve as a self-fulfilling
prophecy. Put differently, if we assume, for example, that Jesus was a materialist-individualist,
we will interpret his teachings as promoting materialism and individualism. However, if we
assume that he was not a materialist-individualist—for example, that he valued social justice and
ecological sustainability—then we will interpret his teachings quite differently.
In the next section we use both a Conventional and a Radical moral-point-of-view to
interpret certain teachings ascribed to Jesus, and then illustrate how these teachings might be
evident in the everyday management practices of some well-known modern managers.
CONVENTIONAL VS. RADICAL INTERPRETATIONS OF
THE TEACHINGS OF A WELL-KNOWN PROPHET
Although it would be useful to examine the teachings of any one of several religious
prophets, we have chosen to focus on popular management teachings ascribed to Jesus because
(a) his teachings have often been used to support the Conventional moral-point-of-view, so it is
instructive to see how they can be interpreted from a Radical perspective to support an entirely
different approach to management, and (b) the teachings of Jesus are better-known and have
been written about and studied more extensively than most other prophets. That being said, we
9
do not claim that Jesus is the only, or even the best, example of a prophet to promote a Radical
approach to management (e.g., Delbecq, 2005, notes a “radical” Hindu scripture that many
managers are fond of). There are numerous prophets whose teachings are worthy, many of whom
are not even religious. It would, for example, be quite possible to develop a Radical moralpoint-of-view of management based on, say, a leading proponent of secular humanism. Indeed,
we hope that our study may encourage others to (re)interpret the teachings of other prophets
from a Radical moral-point-of-view. We encourage others to use the same “self-fulfilling
prophecy” approach we present below to (re)examine the teachings of other prominent prophets
from other traditions, including highly-regarded secular philosophers, imams and gurus. Their
teachings could also be interpreted from a Conventional or a Radical moral-point-of-view.
Although the biblical accounts of Jesus’ life and teaching were written almost 2,000 years
ago, they are very relevant to our task at hand. As biblical scholars have noted, the two topics
that Jesus taught about most frequently were money and the Kingdom of God. The relevance of
money to management is self-evident, but so is the teaching about the Kingdom of God because,
as Dyck & Schroeder (2005) note, a contemporary translation of that phrase might be rendered as
“the managerial character of God” (e.g., do Jesus’ teachings promote a Conventional, or a
Radical, managerial character?).1 The relevance of Jesus’ teachings for contemporary managers
is also be hinted at by the fact that his most responsive listeners came from a segment of the
population that is similar to modern managers (Oakman, 1986). Jesus spent most of his time in
the marketplace, in the fields, and by the lakeshore with the businesspeople and laborers of his
time, and his parables were designed to teach certain values as they applied to everyday life and
work (Tucker, 1987: 44; see also Moxnes, 1988: 56, 62).
Of the numerous teachings attributed to Jesus in the biblical text, we are especially
10
interested in the ones that are the most frequently used in the management literature. We
therefore completed an inventory of all the biblical texts cited in a sample of fourteen books that
apply biblical ideas to the area of management and business.2 Ten of the books sampled were
written to help managers integrate their Christian faith in the workplace (Blanchard, Hybels, &
Hodges, 1999; Briner, 1996; Chewning, Eby & Roels, 1990; Johnson, 1988; Kroeker, 1998;
Manz, 1999; Marshall, 2000; Winston, 1999; Wood, 1999; Zigarelli, 2002). The remaining four
books included an “audit” of spiritual practices in the workplace (Mitroff & Denton, 1999),
Weber’s (1958) classic work and a more recent variation thereof (Novak, 1982), and the work of
an economist (Meeks, 1989).
In total, 497 different biblical texts were cited in these books, 356 of which came from
the New Testament. Obviously we cannot review all of these, so we focus on a short-list of the
most-frequently cited. In this way we chose to highlight Jesus’ teaching called the “The Parable
of the Talents,” which has become a “poster child” passage in the literature. It is cited by Weber
(1958), and it also shares the status as the most frequently-cited parable in the first ten years of
the Journal of Biblical Integration in Business (Dyck & Starke, 2005). We felt that it would be
instructive to demonstrate how this parable—at the forefront of the Conventional
interpretation—could also be plausibly interpreted from a Radical perspective. We analyze this
parable in some depth, and then look briefly at several other frequently-mentioned teachings of
Jesus and show how they, too, can be interpreted from a Radical perspective. Our goal here is
not to convince the reader that one interpretation is right and the other is wrong—that is for the
reader to decide. Rather, our goal is to demonstrate that there are plausible alternative
interpretations of the very same prophetic teachings that have been used to support the
Conventional approach to management.
11
The Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25: 14-30; cf Luke 19: 11-27)
The pervasiveness and influence of this parable is evident in how the word “talent” today
refers to the different abilities or aptitudes that people have (e.g., someone can be “talented” in
singing or in drawing). Originally, the term “talent” simply referred to a material unit of weight
(between 58 and 80 pounds, or 26 to 36 kilograms), and specifically to the weight of a certain
amount of money: one talent was the same as 6,000 denarii, where one denari was a coin
equivalent to about one full day of wage labor (Carson, 1984: 516). Over time, as this word
came to be used to describe different strengths of humans, it symbolizes how human skills
became monetized. From a Conventional viewpoint this may seem entirely appropriate,
especially if people with exceptional abilities are seen to deserve more money. However, it also
has the effect of confusing the extrinsic worth of our abilities with our intrinsic worth as human
beings.
The parable. Jesus said: “Again, it [the kingdom of heaven] will be like a man going on
a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. To one he gave
five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to
his ability. Then he went on his journey.
The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work
and gained five more. So also, the one with two talents gained two more. But the man
who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s
money.
After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled account with
them. The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. “Master,” he
said, “you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.” His master
replied, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things;
I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!”
The man with two talents also came. “Master,” he said, “you entrusted me with
two talents; see I have gained two more.” His master replied, “Well done, good and
faithful servant. You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of
many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!”
Then the man who had received the one talent came. “Master,” he said, “I knew
that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you
have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground.
See here is what belongs to you.” His master replied, “You wicked, lazy servant! You
knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed?
12
Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I
returned I would have received it back with interest.
“Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has ten talents. For
everyone who has will be given more, and he will have abundance. Whoever does not
have, even what he has will be taken from him. And throw that worthless servant outside,
into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Interpretation of the Parable from a Conventional Moral-Point-of-View
According to a Conventional moral-point-of-view, the meaning of this parable is simply
that good managers double their owners’ assets (or at the very least collect interest from a bank).
In modern-day terms, effective managers maximize shareholder wealth. The Conventional
interpretation rests on three main assumptions: 1) the master in the parable represents God; 2)
managers who double the talents given to them by their master are to be commended; and 3)
managers who fail to use their talents to acquire more wealth are lazy and wicked, and will be
punished by God. In the Conventional interpretation, the first two servants are heroes, while the
“third servant is almost universally vilified” (Herzog, 1994: 153).
Little wonder this is the parable most frequently cited when biblical texts are used to
discuss management and business. Reference to this parable dates back at least as far as Weber
(1958: 268, 163), who describes how a Conventional interpretation of this parable points to “the
direct parallel between the pursuit of wealth in the Kingdom of Heaven and the pursuit of
success in an earthly calling.” Contemporary business scholars in our sample of books concur:
“The parable of the talents is an excellent explanation of what God expects from
Christians in business. … So also should the Christian in business deal with the
resources at his [sic] disposal. God will deal with us harshly if we do not take care of
what is his” (Winston, 1999: 65, 66).
“The parable of the talents clearly describes our responsibility for the talents God
provides. … Business organizations should not be equated with God’s kingdom, but the
parable’s truth is transferable. God is keenly interested in our talents and ideas and does
not want them to lie dormant and be wasted” (Chewning et al, 1990: 87).
A Conventional Practitioner Exemplar. This parable has influenced many managers
13
over time. For example, Josiah Wedgwood, an influential role model of Conventional
management practice, encouraged and supported the famous preacher John Wesley who called
the parable’s third servant “wicked, because he was a slothful and unprofitable servant” (see
Langton, 1984; Wesley, orig.1754). Andrew Carnegie also alludes to the parable in his paper
“The Gospel of Wealth,” where he argues that individualism and the accumulation of wealth
contribute to “the best and most valuable of all that humanity has yet accomplished” (Carnegie,
orig. 1889).
A more contemporary manager who exemplifies the Conventional interpretation of this
parable in practice is Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric. He has been called a
visionary “prophet” (Litz, 2003: 671), and a “modern saint” whose “miracles” have inspired a
host of “apostles” (Hegele & Kieser, 2001: 298).3 Under Welch’s leadership, GE experienced
more than two decades of consecutive annual dividend increases, a near-perfect record of everhigher profits, and a greater than one thousand percent increase in the value of its shares
(O’Boyle, 1998). Welch was voted the Most Respected CEO four times by Industry Week,
named the “manager of the century” and America’s toughest boss by Fortune (O’Boyle, 1998:
83), and is viewed as the “gold standard against which other CEOs are measured” by Business
Week (Hegele & Kieser, 2001). He is mentioned more often than any other manager in six topselling management textbooks, which arguably represent secular “bibles” of mainstream
management thought (Daft, 2003; Griffin, 2002; Hellriegel, Jackson, & Slocum, 2002; Jones &
George, 2003; Robbins & Coulter, 2003; Schermerhorn, 2002).
Welch’s decision rule to get rid of any of GE’s businesses that were not #1 or #2 in their
industry—which GE pursued “with almost religious fervor” (Welch, 2001: 392)—exemplifies a
materialist-individualist moral-point-of-view and is eerily similar to what happened in Jesus’
14
parable (where the master retained only the “good and faithful” #1 and #2 servants). Welch is
also famous for the “20/70/10 rule,” which illustrates this principle at the employee level: the
top-performing twenty percent get the bulk of the rewards (“come and share your master’s
happiness … for everyone who has will be given more, and he will have abundance”) and the
bottom ten percent get fired (“and whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from
him”). These two guidelines contributed to the purging of well over 100,000 employees from
businesses that did not meet Welch’s criteria (“and throw that worthless servant outside where
there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth”). Welch was a pioneer in using downsizing as a
way to maximize financial performance, and it often seemed to matter little whether the
businesses that were closed were profitable, or whether they were meeting an important human
need, or whether the persons being let go had been loyal GE employees, or whether the closings
would wreak social havoc on communities (O’Boyle, 1998).
Interpretation of the Parable from a Radical Moral-Point-of-View
A Radical perspective explicitly challenges the three assumptions that underpin the
Conventional interpretation of the parable. First, a Radical interpretation would suggest that
there is a problem with the assumption that the master in the story represents God. The parable
states that the master is a hard man who harvests where he did not sow and who gathers where he
had not scattered seed (Myers, 2001). Moreover, the master explicitly agrees that this is an
accurate description of himself, perhaps because for him successfully exploiting opportunities is
a badge of honor (Herzog, 1994: 165). The master even violates the biblical prohibition of
charging interest. Why would Jesus go to such lengths to describe these negative attributes if the
master is to represent God?4 In contrast to the conventional view, a Radical interpretation takes
the parable more at face value, and sees the master not as God, but simply as an exploitive boss
15
who is pursuing material wealth.
Second, Radical interpreters do not assume that doubling one’s money is inherently
commendable. In particular, they question how the large return on investment was achieved by
the first two servants. Was the money doubled by exploiting others, as per the reputation of the
master? Conventional interpreters may be too eager to assume that: “The nature of the trading
[of the first two servants] is not specified, and is not important” (France, 2000: 185; emphasis
added here). In contrast, a Radical interpretation draws attention to the fact that a return rate of
100 percent on such a large sum of money would have had significant economic and social
implications.5 In that era, the economy was seen as a “fixed pie,” so in order for one person to
gain five talents, others would have had to lose an equivalent amount (i.e., there was not yet any
understanding of the idea of “growing an economy”—see Osiek, 1991). A Radical interpretation
notes that the seven talents that the master gained through the actions of the first two servants—
the equivalent of well over 100 years of day labor—were likely acquired from poorer people.
In any case, a Radical interpretation questions the merit of one individual accumulating
such a vast amount of wealth, especially if there is no indication that it benefits the larger
society. From a Radical perspective, the master would be more God-like if he had dispersed
money to poor people rather than making them poorer. If anything, the opposite is true of this
master, who admits to harvesting where he has not sown. The parable seems to describe a
situation where the first two managers have come under the influence of an exploitive boss, and
who follow his example by exploiting others in order to serve their own self-interests.
Finally, from a Radical perspective, the third manager—who may represent the least
privileged in society because he was given less than the other two managers—is seen as the real
hero in the parable. The third manager refuses to exploit others. He refuses to participate in
16
institutions and management practices where external goods (profit) trump internal goods (e.g.,
social justice). He refuses even to collect interest on the money (perhaps because he knows that
it goes against biblical law). Because he knows that his master would frown upon redistributing
the wealth, he does not do so, but simply buries the talent. In contrast to the Conventional
interpretation, which vilifies the third steward, in the Radical interpretation:
‘The hero of the parable is the third servant. By digging a hole and burying the
aristocrat’s talent in the ground, he has taken it out of circulation. It cannot be used to
dispossess more peasants from their lands through its dispersion in the form of usurious
loans’ (Herzog, 1994: 167).
At the end of the parable the owner has the third manager thrown “outside, into the
darkness” to join the underclass where people weep and gnash their teeth. The Radical
interpretation is consistent with the ensuing parable of the sheep and the goats, which sheds light
on what it means to be cast “outside, into the darkness” (Matthew 25: 31-46). Jesus’ listeners
would have known that sheep spend nights outdoors, while the goats are brought into the
relatively warm indoors (France, 2000: 190). In the story, the third manager can be seen to be
among the hardy sheep who spend nights in the darkness outdoors, and who are surprised to hear
that they inherit the Kingdom of God. This story suggests that God’s managerial character is
evident in helping and identifying with people who are hungry, distressed and needy. The
relatively-pampered goats are equally surprised to learn that they will suffer for their lack of
feeding the poor, clothing the naked, and giving water to the thirsty (perhaps because they were
busy maximizing their own financial wealth). That the rich and powerful elite among Jesus’
listeners would have understood him in this Radical way is evident in that after he finished
speaking, they plotted to kill him (Matt. 26:1-5).
A Radical Practitioner Exemplar. If Jack Welch illustrates a modern-day Conventional
interpretation of the parable, then Ricardo Semler—the “anti-CEO” of Semco—provides a good
17
example of a Radical interpretation.6 Semler took over his father’s company in 1980 when it had
just 90 employees and generated about $4 million in annual revenues by building marine pumps
for the shipping industry. Today its 3000 employees generate over $200 million per year and are
active in a variety of additional service and high-tech industries. In a poll of 52,000 executives,
Semler was chosen business leader of the year on several occasions.
Like the third manager in the parable, and unlike the master, Semler is not fixated on
maximizing financial productivity. For example, he does not find doubling assets to be
inherently commendable. In fact, it is not unusual for Semler to question the human quality-ofworklife costs that organizational growth may incur. For Semler, profit and growth are
secondary concerns that may undermine the company’s ability to meet its primary mission,
namely, “to find a gratifying way of spending your life doing something you like that is useful
and fills a need” (Vogl, 2004). Thus, for example, unlike the parable where the master rewards
employees based on their productivity, at Semco employees set their own salaries and choose
their own managers. Says Semler:
“Arguably, Semco’s most controversial initiative is to let employees set their own
salaries. Pundits are quick to bring up their dim view of human nature, on the
assumption that people will obviously set their salaries much higher than feasible. It’s
the same argument we hear about people setting their own work schedules in a seven-day
weekend mode. The first thing that leaps to mind is that people will come as late or little
as possible—this has never been our experience.” (cited in Vogl, 2004: 34)
Semler describes Welch’s practice of firing the lowest-performing ten percent of the
workforce as “micro-terrorism” (Vogl, 2004: 35). At Semco, members have the opportunity to
move around within the firm until they find a job where they fit and can make a contribution.
Conventional and Radical Interpretations of Other Frequently-Cited Biblical Teachings
Table 1 lists three additional biblical teachings that are frequently used to develop and
underpin Conventional management theory and practice. The table illustrates how each teaching
18
can be interpreted differently, depending on the assumptions that are made about materialism and
individualism. The Conventional interpretations are more familiar, but the Radical
interpretations are no less plausible.
-----------------------------Insert Table 1 about here
-----------------------------A Conventional interpretation of Jesus’ teaching that “You cannot serve both God and
money” (Matthew 6:24) emphasizes that God should be served, and that money should be
viewed as one of the blessings that comes from serving God. This is consistent with the
Conventional interpretation of the parable of the talents, where the master gives his good and
faithful servants more money to manage. In contrast, a Radical interpretation of the “You cannot
serve both God and money” teaching emphasizes the idea that attempts to maximize financial
well-being may actually inhibit one’s ability to serve God. Again, this is consistent with the
Radical interpretation of the parable of the talents, where the hero is the steward who refuses to
participate in the exploitive agenda of his wealthy master.
Similarly, a Conventional interpretation of Jesus’ teaching to “Seek first God’s kingdom
and God’s righteousness, and all these things [e.g., food, clothing] will be given to you as well”
(Matthew 6:33) emphasizes the point that if people seek the “kingdom of God” as their
destination in the afterlife, then God will give them material wealth in this world (like the first
two stewards). In contrast, a Radical interpretation emphasizes the point that if people try to
manage their lives in this world in a way that is consistent with God’s Radical managerial
character (like the third steward), then their actions will ensure that all members of their
community in this world will have their basic needs met.
Finally, the passage about “turning the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39) is also interesting
19
because of the way that it reinforces the respective interpretations of the parable of the talents.
From a Conventional perspective, the passage seems to suggest that even managers who may
appear to be evil (like the exploitive master in the parable of the talents) should be obeyed, and
that by doing so you may be rewarded (like the first two servants). From a Radical perspective,
the teaching is intriguing because it provides a non-violent way to challenge abusive authorities.
By daring an abusive manager to hit him with a fist (rather than a symbolically demeaning backof-the-hand slap), the subordinate was in effect saying: “I have dignity. I refuse to be
intimidated by you.” The challenge for contemporary Radical readers is to find equally creative
ways to challenge Conventional structures and systems that are abusive (see also Yoder, 1972).
DISCUSSION
The recent flurry of articles noting the problems associated with the materialistindividualist self-fulfilling prophecies that characterize Conventional management call for some
radical rethinking about management. This view is evident in the repeated calls for new prophets
to replace the status quo (e.g., Weber, 1958; MacIntyre, 1981; Dyck & Schroeder, 2005; Clegg,
2005). We build on the work of those who argue that: (a) developing a Radical approach to
management theory and practice may be facilitated by considering the teachings of religious
prophets who promote non-Conventional self-fulfilling prophecies; (b) the expectations we bring
to the reading of religious teachings act as self-fulfilling prophecies; (c) the Conventional
materialist-individualist approach was initially undergirded, at least in part, by a materialistindividualist interpretation of the teachings of Jesus; and (d) management theory and practice
would be very different if it were based on a less materialist-individualist interpretation of Jesus’
teachings (Perrow, 1985).
In our Radical interpretation of the same biblical passages that have often been used to
20
support Conventional management theory and practice, we see that Jesus’ teachings in the
parable of the talents support a form of management that does not exploit others and which does
not place primary emphasis on material productivity. Moreover, we also see that maximizing
financial well-being can hinder overall well-being (the “cannot serve both God and money”
passage), that financial wealth is to be used to help everyone meet their basic needs (the “seek
first God’s kingdom” passage), and that managers can act in ways that overcome dysfunctional
structures and challenge the abusive and demeaning use of authority (the “turn the other cheek”
passage).
The Importance of a Moral-Point-of-View
The particular moral-point-of-view that a person holds is important because it influences
the actions the person takes. We join the chorus of scholars and practitioners who challenge
readers to consider their own specific moral-point-of-view and the attendant self-fulfilling
prophecies that they subscribe to. The normative question, “What moral-point-of-view do you
subscribe to?” is relevant for all readers, whether or not they are religious. Our juxtaposition of
the Conventional and Radical moral-points-of-view invites readers to decide which approach is
most consistent with their own moral-point-of-view.
The choice of a moral-point-of-view is ultimately an act of faith (Margolis & Walsh,
2003; Pattison, 1997; Weber, 1958). What will we choose to believe? That competitiveness,
productivity, and efficiency are the most important things, and that a focus on profit-maximizing
behavior is the best way to serve humankind? If so, then we are likely to be followers of a
contemporary prophet like Jack Welch. Or do we believe that social justice, spiritual and
intellectual growth, and sustainable development are as important as competitiveness and
productivity? If we believe that, then we are more likely to be followers of a contemporary
21
prophet like Ricardo Semler.
It is difficult to ignore the theoretical and empirical points that have been made about the
shortcomings of Conventional management. Scholars have repeatedly argued that escaping the
materialist-individualist status quo requires new prophets and prophecies. A new normative
order could be facilitated by a new prophet of management who would de-emphasize
materialism and individualism. Despite ongoing admonitions to reconsider their own moralpoint-of-view, management scholars have been reluctant to do so (e.g., see Bacharach, 1989:
498; Calas & Smircich, 1999; ten Bos & Willmott, 2001).
Why are we reluctant? We think there are several reasons. First, the Conventional
paradigm has been so thoroughly secularized that we have forgotten that it is normative
(Garfinkel, 1964). Second, anyone who challenges ideals like individualism and materialism
may be seen as perverse, irresponsible, or downright subversive (Hardy & Clegg, 1999: 381;
Van Maanen, 1995: 692). Third, we may fear that bringing issues of morality—whether
religiously-based or not—into the scholarly management world will generate uncomfortable
debate on issues like Truth and the Meaning of Life. These issues have not been given much of a
profile on our professional agendas, perhaps because we fear that such an approach will threaten
our identity as scientists seeking “objective truth.” However, if we fail to examine our own
moral-point-of-view, we are sticking our collective heads in the sand and unthinkingly accepting
the status quo Conventional moral-point-of-view by default. When that happens, we are denying
our fundamental nature as moral persons and thus rendering a disservice to those around us
(Naughton & Bausch, 1994; Weber, 1958).
Fourth, management scholars and practitioners may be reluctant to consider normative
issues because they fear being accused of using their status to impose a particular moral-point-of-
22
view on others. But—whether we admit it or not—when we teach and practice Conventional
management, we are already promoting a normative order through the values that are inherent in
the materialist-individualist moral-point-of-view. This is not to suggest that the Conventional
approach is without virtue (McCloskey, 2006). Rather, we find it problematic that this message
is often preached as if it is an objective, value-neutral science. But is this ethical? Isn’t it more
ethical to make explicit that Conventional management is built upon a foundation of materialism
and individualism? If we want to effectively teach students ethics and moral behavior, we must
make such underlying assumptions clear and explicit (Ghoshal, 2005: 87).
In a sobering assessment of business school education, Giacalone (2004: 416) argues that,
unlike some other professions, business education conveys no transcendent goals or higher-order
ideals to students. Rather, emphasis on a “single-minded materialistic value system” means that
students are never forced to ask whether financial riches lead to improvements in society or in
the individual. He challenges readers to help students to think beyond mere profitability and
self-interest.
The current dominance of the individualist-materialist perspective is problematic,
irrespective of whether one agrees or disagrees with the emphasis on materialism and
individualism. We are called to give deliberate thought to the moral-point-of-view that we hold,
and also to provide others with the opportunity to give expression to their moral-point-of-view.
In observing that business schools have lost their taste for pluralism, Ghoshal (2005: 88) argues
that ideological absolutism must be replaced with intellectual pluralism if we hope to produce
better and more useful research. One way to pursue intellectual pluralism is to welcome the
voices of radical prophets and practitioners (religious or secular) who will promote new and
different moral-points-of-view and thus different management theory and practice. In this article
23
we have taken seriously the repeated challenge to identify teachings of religious prophets that
will help us escape the materialistic-individualistic iron cage. However, we are not suggesting
that social change is not possible without religious prophets. Someday the combined voices of
the modern-day management prophets—from Henry Mintzberg to Jeffrey Pfeffer to Sumantra
Ghoshal to Ricardo Semler—be they religious or not, may reach the critical mass necessary to
achieve large-scale social change.
In sum, if we take seriously the calls for new approaches to management theory that are
not steeped primarily in maximizing materialism and individualism, then much work is needed.
One important piece of that work—recognized at least from the time of Max Weber and
increasingly evident in recent years—is the merit of basing this new approach on a moral-pointof-view that challenges the status quo. As an illustrative step in that direction, we have described
how several specific teachings of Jesus which have historically been used to underpin the status
quo can be plausibly reinterpreted to support a more Radical approach to management.
According to Weber, proponents of Radical management who wish to facilitate societal change
would be wise to describe how their agenda for change is consistent with religious teachings,
regardless of whether they themselves are religious. This is but one, albeit important, aspect of
the development of a Radical approach to management.
24
FOOTNOTES
1. They argue that because God’s “Kingdom” is not primarily territorial or national in
nature, a more accurate translation might be the “kingly rule,” “sovereignty,” “reign,” or the
“managerial character” of God. Because the contemporary notion of management would likely
have been foreign in biblical times, we do not argue that these passages are limited only to
applications in the workplace, or that Jesus’ teachings are primarily directed at managers.
2. We used a convenience sample to choose the books—those that were available in our
library, local bookstores, and on our own bookshelves.
3. Although he does not go into detail, Welch does link his business management to his
religious faith (Welch, 2001: 381).
4. If nothing else, those operating from a Conventional perspective are to be admired for
the creative ways in which they try to address this point. For example, a common approach is to
discredit the words of the third manager as character-assassination, and instead emphasize the
[obviously laudable] actions of the first two managers (e.g., see Herzog’s 1994 review of Scott,
1989; Smith, 1937; Manson, 1949; Via, 1967). Another approach is evident in Carson (1984:
517) who explains that, from a Conventional point of view, this is simply a case of Jesus using
an example of “evil to make a point about good.”
5. Temin (2004: 14) suggests that the usual rate was 4 to 12 percent. Anything beyond
that was considered rapacious (Myers, 2001), except in the shipping industry that had rates as
high as 24 or 48 percent, since loss of a ship meant that the owner did not have to repay the loan
(Temin, 2004).
6.
Another example is Dennis Bakke (former CEO and co-founder of AES). According
to Jeffrey Pfeffer, Bakke is a “remarkable man, and AES a remarkable company which has a
25
better way of organizing in a world in which fear often seems to have replaced fun, the search for
profits has replaced the pursuit of purpose, conformity and following the crowd has replaced the
courage to do the right thing and live by principles, and widespread corruption has replaced the
conviction of ideals” (cited in Bakke, 2005). Another example is Aaron Feuerstein, the owner of
Malden Mills, who, after his factory burned down, became famous for voluntarily paying his
three thousand workers during the time his factory was being rebuilt. Both Bakke and Feuerstein
attribute their non-Conventional management styles to their religious values.
26
REFERENCES
Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H. (1992). On the idea of emancipation in management and
organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 17, 432-464.
Bacharach, S. B., (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 496-515.
Bakke, D.W. (2005). Joy at work: A revolutionary approach to fun on the job. Seattle,
Washington: PVG.
Blanchard, K. Hybels, B., & Hodges, P. (1999). Leadership by the book: Tools to transform
your workplace. New York: Waterbrook Press, William Morrow and Company.
Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interests. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler.
Briner, B. (1996). Business basics from the bible: More ancient wisdom for modern business.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing Company.
Brown, L.R. (1998). State of the world. Earthscan.
Burch, M.A. (2000). Stepping lightly: Simplicity for people and for the planet. Gabriola Island,
B.C.: New Society Publishers.
Burroughs, J. E. & Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and well-being: A conflicting values
perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 348-370.
Calas, M. B. & Smircich, L. (1999). Past postmodernism? Reflections and tentative directions.
Academy of Management Review, 24, 649-671.
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (Eds.) (2003). Positive organizational scholarship.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Carnegie, A. “The Gospel of Wealth. North American Review, CXLVIII: (June): 653-664.
Found on-line Nov. 6/07 at http://smccd.net/accounts/sullivant/Engl100/ho/wealth.pdf.
Carroll, A. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct.
Business & Society, 38(3): 268-295.
Carson, D.A. (1984). Matthew. In F.E. Gaebelein (Ed), The expositor’s bible commentary
(volume 8: 1-599). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan (Regency Reference Library).
Chewning, R. C., Eby, J. W., & Roels, S. J. (1990). Business through the eyes of faith. San
Francisco: Harper (in conjunction with Christian College Coalition).
Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate
social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 92-117.
Clegg, S. R. (2005). Puritans, visionaries and survivors. Organization Studies, 26(4), 527-546.
Clegg, S. (1996). The moral philosophy of management: Book review. Academy of Management
Review, 21, 867-871.
Cohen, P. & Cohen, J. (1996). Life values and adolescent mental health. Mahway, New Jersey:
Erlbaum.
27
Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities.
Academy of Management Journal, 16(2): 312-322.
Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of
management. Academy of Management Review, 22, 20-47.
Daft, Richard L. (2003). Management (6th edition). Mason, Ohio: Thomson South-Western.
Dees, J. G., Emerson, J., & Economy, P. (2001). Enterprising nonprofits: A tool kit for social
entrepreneurs. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Delbecq, A.L. (2005). Spiritually-informed management theory: Overlaying the experience of
teaching managers. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(3), 242-246.
Dyck, B. & D. Schroeder (2005). Management, theology and moral points of view: Towards an
alternative to the conventional materialist-individualist ideal-type of management.
Journal of Management Studies, 42(4), 705-735.
Dyck, B. & Starke, F. (2005). Looking back and looking ahead: A review of the most frequently
cited biblical text in the first decade of The JBIB.” Journal of Biblical Integration in
Business, Fall, 134-153.
Dyck, B., and J. M. Weber (2006). “Conventional and radical moral agents: An exploratory look
at Weber’s moral-points-of-view and virtues.” Organization Studies 27(3): 429-450.
Evan, W.M., and Freeman, R.E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation:
Kantian capitalism. In T. Beauchamp and N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical Theory in Business.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 75-93.
Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J. & Sutton, R.I. (2005). Economic language and assumptions: How
theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 8-24.
France, R.T. (2000). ‘On being ready,’ in R.N. Longenecker (Ed.), The challenge of Jesus’
parables: 177-195. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing
Company.
Frederick, W. (1998). Moving to CSR4: What to pack for the trip. Business & Society, 31(1):
40-59.
Garfinkel, H. (1964). Studies of the routine grounds of everyday activities. Social Problems,
11(3), 225-250.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75-91.
Giacalone, R.A. (2004). A transcendent business education for the 21st century. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 3(4), 415-420.
Giacalone, R.A., & Thompson. K.R. (2006). Business ethics and social responsibility education:
Shifting the worldview. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5(3):266-277.
Golembiewski, R. T. (1989). Men, management, and morality: Toward a new organizational
ethic. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey in the nature of legitimate power and
greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
28
Griffin, J. (2000). Corporate social performance: Research directions for the 21st century.
Business & Society, 39(4): 479-491.
Griffin, R. W. (2002). Management (7th edition). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Hardy, C. & Clegg, S.R. (1999). Some dare call it power. In S.R. Clegg and C. Hardy (Eds.),
Studying organization: Theory and method: 368-387. London: SAGE.
Hegele, C. & Kieser, A. (2001). Control the construction of your legend or someone else will:
An analysis of texts on Jack Welch. Journal of Management Inquiry, 10(4), 298-309.
Hellriegel, D., Jackson, S.E., & Slocum, J.W. (2002). Management: A competency-based
approach (9th edition). Cincinnati, Ohio: Thomson South-Western.
Herman, S. W. (1997). Durable goods: A covenantal ethic for management and employees.
Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Hershberger, G.F. (1958). The Way of the Cross in Human Relations. Scottdale, Pennsylvania:
Herald Press.
Herzog II, W.R. (1994). Parables as subversive speech: Jesus as pedagogue of the oppressed.
Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press.
Jackall, R. (1988). Moral mazes: The world of corporate managers. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Johnson, S. (1988). Values-driven people : A christian approach to management. Dallas,
Texas : Probe Books.
Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics.
Academy of Management Review, 20(2): 404-437.
Jones, G. R., & George, J.M. (2003). Contemporary management (3rd edition). Boston, Mass.:
McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Kalberg, S. (1980). Max Weber’s types of rationality: Cornerstones for the analysis of
rationalization processes in history. American Journal of Sociology, 85: 1145-1179.
Kasser, T. (2003). The high price of materialism. Cambridge, Mass.: Bradford Book, MIT
Press.
Kasser, T. & Ryan, R.M. (2001). Be careful what you wish for: Optimal functioning and the
relative attainment of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. In P. Schmuck and K.M. Sheldon
(Eds.), Life goals and Well-Being: Towards a positive psychology of human striving:
116-131. Goettingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.
Khanna, S. and Kasser, T. (2001). Materialism, objectification, and alienation from a crosscultural perspective. Unpublished manuscript.
Kroeker, W. (1998). God’s week has 7 Days: Monday musings for marketplace christians.
Waterloo, Ontario: Herald Press.
Langton, J. (1984) The Ecological Theory of Bureaucracy: The Case of Josiah Wedgwood and
the British Pottery Industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29 (3): 330-354.
Langton, J. (1985). Reply to Perrow. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 284-288.
29
Litz, R. (2003). Book review essay: Looking at both sides--Jack Welch in review. Academy of
Management Review, 28, 670-673.
MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame, Indiana: University
of Notre Dame Press.
Manson, T.W. (1949). The sayings of Jesus. London: SCM.
Manz, Charles C. (1999). The leadership wisdom of Jesus: Practical lessons for today. San
Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Margolis, J., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by
business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268-305.
Marshall, R. (2000). God@work: Discovering the anointing for business. Shippensburg, Penn.:
Destiny Image Publishers.
Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: toward an extended theoretical
conceptualization. Academy of Management, 30(1): 166-179
McCarty, J.A., & Shrum, L.J. (2001). The influence of individualism, collectivism, and locus of
control on environmental beliefs and behavior. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,
20(1), 93-104.
McCloskey, D.N. (2006). The Bourgois virtues: Ethics for an age of commerce. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
McHoskey, J.W. (1999). Machiavellianism, intrinsic versus extrinsic goals, and social interest:
A self-determination theory analysis. Motivation and Emotion, 23, 267-283.
Meeks, M.D. (1989). God the Economist. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press.
Mitroff, I. & Denton, E.I. (1999). A spiritual audit of corporate America: A hard look at
spirituality, religion, and values in the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moxnes, H. (1988). The economy of the kingdom., Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Myers, C. (2001). The biblical vision of sabbath economics. Washington, D.C.: Tell the Word.
Nash, L. L. (1994). Believers in business. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Naughton, M. J. & Bausch, T. A. (1994). The integrity of a Catholic management education.
California Management Review, 38(4), 119-140.
New American Dream (2004). More of what matters survey report. www.newdream.org.
Novak, M. (1982). The spirit of democratic capitalism. New York: Touchstone.
Oakman, D. E. (1986). Jesus and the economic questions of his day. In Studies in the Bible and
early Christianity. Vol. 8. Lewiston, N.Y.: The Edwin Mellen Press.
O’Boyle, T. F. (1998). At any cost: Jack Welch, General Electric, and the pursuit of profit.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Osiek, C. (1991). Jesus and money, or did Jesus live in a capitalist society? Chicago
Studies, 30(1), 17–28.
Pattison, S. (1997). The faith of the managers: When management becomes religion. London:
30
Cassell.
Perrow, C. (1985). Comment on Langton’s ‘Ecological theory of bureaucracy’. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 30, 278-283.
Pfeffer, J. (1982). Organizations and organization theory. Marshfield, Mass.: Pitman
Publishing Inc.
Porter, Michael E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: The Free Press.
Redekop, C., Ainlay, S. C., & Siemens, R. (1995). Mennonite entrepreneurs. Baltimore: The
John Hopkins University Press.
Rees, W.E. (2002). Globalization and sustainability: Conflict or convergence? Bulletin of
Science, Technology and Society, 22(4), 249-268.
Richins, M.L. & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its
measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19,
303-316.
Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2003). Management (7th edition). Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Schermerhorn, J. R. (2002). Management (7th edition). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Scott, B.B. 1989. Hear the parable: A commentary on the parables of Jesus. Minneapolis:
Fortress.
Semler, R. (2004). The Seven-Day Weekend: Changing the Way Work Works. New York:
Penguin/Portfolio.
Sheldon, K. M. & Flanagan, M. (2001). Extrinsic value orientation and dating violence.
Unpublished manuscript.
Sheldon, K.M. & Kasser, T. (1995). Coherence and congruence: Two aspects of personality
integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68:531-543.
Smith, B.T.D. (1937). The parables of the synoptic gospels. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Steingard, D.S. (2005). Spiritually-informed management theory: Toward profound possibilities
for inquiry and transformation. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(3), 227-241.
Temin, P. (2004). A market economy in the early Roman Empire. Retrieved December 22,
2004. www.stanford.edu/group/sshi/Papers/classics/temin.pdf.
ten Bos, R., & Willmott, H. (2001). Towards a post-dualistic business ethics: Interweaving
reason and emotion in working life. Journal of Management Studies, 38: 769-793.
“The Mensch of Malden Mills.” (2003). CBSNews.com, 60 Minutes, July 3.
Thurow, L. (1996). The future of capitalism: How today’s economic forces shape tomorrow’s
world. New York: Penguin Books.
Tucker, G. (1987). The faith-work connection. Toronto: Anglican Book Centre.
31
Turban, D. B. & Greening, D. W. (1996). Corporate social performance and organizational
attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3): 658672.
Van Maanen, J. (1995). Fear and loathing in organization studies. Organization Science, 6, 687692.
Via, D.O., Jr. (1967). The parables: Their literary and existential dimension. Philadelphia:
Fortress.
Vogl, A.J. (2004). The Anti-CEO. Across the Board, May/June, 30-36.
Walsh, J.P., Weber, K., & Margolis, J.D. (2003). Social issues and management: Our lost cause
found. Journal of Management, 29(6): 859-881.
Weber, M. (1958). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. (transl. T Parsons). New
York: Scribner’s.
Welch, J. (with Byrne, J.A.). (2001). Jack: Straight from the gut. New York: Warner Business
Books.
Wesley, J. (1754) John Wesley’s notes on the whole Bible: The New Testament. Bristol HotWells. Found online on Nov 6/07 at Christian Classic Ethereal Library,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/notes.i.ii.xxvii.html
Winston, B.W. (1999). Be a manager for God’s sake. Virginia Beach, Va.: Regent University
School of Business Press.
Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review,
16(4): 691-718.
Wood, J. (1999). Christians at work: Not business as usual. Scottsdale, Penn.: Herald/Pandora
Press.
Wright, S.I. (2000). Parables on poverty and riches. In R.N. Longenecker (Ed.), The challenge
of Jesus’ parables: 217-239. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdman’s
Publishing Company.
Yoder, J.H. (1972). The Politics of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans.
Zigarelli, Michael A. (2002). Ordinary people, extraordinary leaders: A landmark study of
Christians in business and ministry: How they lead, where they stumble, what helps them
succeed. Gainesville, Florida: Synergy Publishers.
32
FIGURE 1:
Simple overview of Weber’s basic argument
Substantive Rationality
(a material-individualist
moral-point-of-view)
religious
ideas &
prophets
secular
social
norms
Formal rationality
(Conventional
organization and
management theory)
Outcomes
1. max. productivity,
efficient, competitive,
wealth, self-interest
2. iron cage
33
TABLE 1
Additional biblical sayings most commonly referred to in the literature
Jesus’ teaching
(biblical passage)
Conventional Interpretation
(plus illustrative quote)
Radical Interpretation
(plus illustrative quote)
“You cannot serve
both God and
Money.”
(Matthew 6:24;
Luke 16:13)
Serve God first, and view money as
merely a blessing that comes from God.
Attempting to maximize your wealth is a
distraction from serving God.
“Choosing God, in this context, means
conceptualizing our financial
resources, our talents, our time and our
other blessings as God’s property and
God’s providence” (Zigarelli, 2002:
27).
“The economic system is overwhelmingly
influential in our lives. It sets the goals,
defines the processes, requires its
sacrifices, pays its rewards. The majority
of people serve it as if it were the only
option. Its message tends to be not parallel
to the kingdom’s but the opposite. We can’t
give our lives to both God and the
economic system” (Wood, 1999: 40).
“But seek first
God’s kingdom and
God’s righteousness, and all these
things will be given
you as well.”
(Matthew 6:33)
If you seek a heavenly afterlife, God
will bless you with material wealth in
your earthly life.
If you manage your life here on earth in a
way that God desires, then your actions will
help to ensure that everyone’s needs will
be met.
“Aim at Heaven and you will get ‘earth
thrown in.’ Aim at earth and you will
get neither” (Blanchard et al, 1999:
74).
God promises us empowerment and
blessing if we, with the right motive, ask
for them” (Zigarelli, 2002: 43).
“Do not resist an
evil person. If
someone strikes you
on the right cheek,
turn to him the
other also.”
(Matthew 5:39)
Submit to individuals who have
authority over you, even if they misuse
it—maybe they will treat you better.
“ [Jesus] suggested that we should
treat people well, as we would like to be
treated, even when they don’t deserve
it, and even when they act in ways that
are harmful to us. He went so far as to
suggest that if they attack us (strike us
on the cheek) we should not fight back
but allow them to attack (turn the other
cheek)” (Manz, 1999: 75).
“Many times evil people (poneros)
mistreat those under them just to see
those of lesser status react negatively.
Consider the evil one who does not get
a ‘rise’ out of the victim; he will soon
seek another victim” (Winston, 1999:
37).
“We live, work, experience life in a setting
of brokenness and alienation from trusting
God. Yet right amid that world, we live a
totally different system based on radically
different premises. The picture here is not
of a safe and isolated haven from a broken
world” (Wood, 1999:28; emphasis in
original).
Challenge people who misuse their
authority.
This passage is not about a fist-fight; it is
about a demeaning symbolic act. To punch
someone’s right cheek would require using
a left-handed fist, which would have been
unheard of because in those days the left
hand was used only for unclean tasks.
Thus, the passage refers to being slapped
on the right cheek with the back of the
striker’s right hand. As Jesus’ listeners
would have known, this was a common way
that a manager kept subordinates in line
(indeed, it was illegal to strike subordinates
with a fist, and the penalty for a
backhanded slap of a peer was ten time
greater than hitting a peer with a fist). By
turning their left cheek, subordinates were
in effect claiming equality (in today’s
idiom: ‘hit me like a real man’) (see Wink,
1992:177).
34