MANAGEMENT, PROPHETS, AND SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECIES*

Bruno DyckFrederick A. Starke

Cal Dueck

University of Manitoba

Please address all correspondence to:Bruno Dyck

I.H. Asper School of BusinessUniversity of Manitoba

Winnipeg, ManitobaCANADA R3T 5V4

Phone (204) 474-8184Fax (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 well-being (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 materialist-individualist

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 anti-

globalization 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 self-

fulfilling 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 moral-

point-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 ever-

higher 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 top-

selling 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-of-

worklife 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 back-

of-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 materialist-

individualist 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 materialist-

individualist 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 moral-

point-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-point-

of-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: Berrett-Koehler.

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 cross-cultural 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): 658-672.

Van Maanen, J. (1995). Fear and loathing in organization studies. Organization Science, 6, 687-692.

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 Hot-Wells. 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

33

Outcomes

1. max. productivity,

efficient, competitive, wealth,

self-interest

2. iron cage

Formal rationality(Conventional

organization and management theory)

Substantive Rationality

(a material-individualistmoral-point-of-view)religious ideas

& prophet

s

secularsocial norms

TABLE 1Additional biblical sayings most commonly referred to in the literature

Jesus’ teaching(biblical passage)

“You cannot serve both God and Money.”(Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13)

“But seek first God’s kingdom and God’s righteous-ness, and all these things will be given you as well.”(Matthew 6:33)

“Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”(Matthew 5:39)

Conventional Interpretation (plus illustrative quote)

Serve God first, and view money as merely a blessing that comes from 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).

If you seek a heavenly afterlife, God will bless you with material wealth in your earthly life.

“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).

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).

Radical Interpretation (plus illustrative quote)

Attempting to maximize your wealth is a distraction from serving God.

“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).

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.

“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

35