This article was downloaded by: [University of Western Ontario]

On: 11 November 2014, At: 05:47

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Journal of Management,
Spirituality & Religion
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmsr20

Wealth Maximization, SelfRealization, and the Spiritually

Sustainable Enterprise
a

Ed Vos & James Barker

a

Waikato University ,

Waikato University ,
Published online: 18 Mar 2010.
To cite this article: Ed Vos & James Barker (2007) Wealth Maximization, SelfRealization, and the Spiritually Sustainable Enterprise, Journal of Management,
Spirituality & Religion, 4:3, 355-383, DOI: 10.1080/14766080709518669
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766080709518669

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 4(3)

- 355 -

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

Wealth Maximization, SelfRealization, and the Spiritually

Sustainable Enterprise

EdVos
Waikato University

James Barker
Waikato University
We argue for a spirituality-based, self-realization perspective on
organizational ethics and action that stands in contrast to the more
commonly held wealth maximization perspective. We first
describe the wealth maximization perspective paying particular
attention to its power, pervasiveness, and ability to shape what we
consider to be organizational ethics. Then, we develop an
alternative perspective that rests on a more metaphysical and
collective consideration of self realization as an alternative
orientation for guiding our ethical determinations. We argue that
engaging organizational ethics from the perspective of self
realization provides a more solid foundation for conceptualizing
and creating sustainable enterprises and for mitigating many of the
ethical dilemmas that arise from the dominance of wealth
maximization.

Keywords Sustain ability, Self-Realization, Connectedness, Ethics, Agency

Theory

- 356 -

Spiritually Sustainable
Vos and Barker

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

e begin by observing that the contemporary assumption of

"shareholder wealth maximization" as our overriding moral
measuring stick in the organization rests uneasily in many. The
relatively new (within the last 70 years or so) "moral" imperative of wealth
maximization suits well the rationalist economic view that individual
(separate) investors must maximise heterogeneous utility functions. The
medium of money permits individuals to agree that more money is better than
less because money enhances our ability to maximize our own unique utility
functions. In the extreme, organizational ethics in the wealth maximization
paradigm is neatly served by a simple rule: If shareholder value increases, it
must be right; if not, it must be wrong.
But, what might the other extreme be? How would this other extreme present
a different moral measuring stick? And, following logically, how can we
better comprehend the necessary space between the two extremes? The
answer to these questions begins with the core wealth maximization
assumption that we are each separate utility maximizers. When we view this
assumption as a premise, we find three important points:
The notion that we are "separate" honors knowing and nonjudgmentally accepting, as constrained by government, each person's
right to be unique; each individual has choice.
The acknowledgement that each of us seeks to "maximize utility,"
which implies that each of us is continually "seeking" and making
choices about our seeking.
The underlying foundational belief that money could facilitate the
acquisition of whatever each of us is seeking.
We can, however, readily bring to mind a worldview with different
assumptions. Certainly, we as human beings have desires, but for what?
Imagine a perspective from the opposite extreme of wealth maximization; a
perspective in which "connectedness" (as opposed to separateness) is the
overriding (but not exclusive) assumption. And imagine a perspective in
which we are certain both that money will fail to give us what we truly desire
(let us call it "transcendent peace" - or "reference points," "harmony,"
"meaningfulness," "nirvana," "salvation," or just simply "happiness") and that
money presents a potential obstacle on the path to such "peace" (Matthew
6:24-26, The Bible 1998).

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 4(3)

- 357-

From such a standpoint, what we seek, then, is a resolution to our search for
the meaning of life. Saints and sages over the centuries and into the present
have, in their time, in their place, to their peoples, addressed this quest -usually in the context of finding meaning in individual ethical behavior,
giving us transcendent moral reference points (e.g., "Thou shalt not ...").
Indeed, the individual's perception is that we assume to have philosophical
importance. The organization, per se, is just an accompaniment to individuals
on their journeys to find peace.
But we see a dilemma here: Given the increasing importance that
organizations playas the transcendent moral center of our lives (e.g., Cunha,
Rego, and D'Oliveira, 2006; Smith, 2004), how can we define ethical
organizational behavior in a "real" world that includes money and still
recognize that each of us also lives a spiritual existence in which we seek a
meaningful transcendence that brings us the inner peace of happiness? This
difficult dilemma has several dimensions: How can we address organizational
ethics in ways that reconcile apparently different assumptions? Are we
separate (or is this a mistaken impression)? If so, is honoring that separateness
sufficient moral behavior? Or, are we all ONE, connected? What normative
ethical imperatives for organizations result when we attempt to reconcile these
perspectives? We address these issues in the present paper as we assess the
impact of wealth maximization on our ethical behavior and then seek to
reconcile the wealth maximization perspective on ethics with an alternative
perspective of self-realization.
We first assess the wealth maximization imperative in greater detail, including
situating this imperative within a logos-mythos framework. We discuss how
the logical implications of this imperative require a foundation in mythos for
us to gain wisdom. This move permits us to explore ways to reconcile the
wealth maximization imperative with an alternative imperative of selfrealization, which, we argue, will lead organizations down a more sustainable
and ethical path.
We present a framework that illustrates how all
organizations embrace, to a greater or lesser extent, elements of the differing
perspectives presented here. Finally we discuss how we can use such a postmodem mystical analysis in future research as we move toward articulating
how organizations can choose to enhance their ethical awareness and
sustainability.

- 358 -

Spiritually Sustainable
Vos and Barker

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

THE ETHICAL CONSEQUENCES OF WEALTH

MAXIMIZATION
An organizational ethic based primarily on wealth maximization can be
logical and result in positive outcomes, as seen in the way property rights
form a cornerstone of our economic systems. By conveying property rights I
to peasants in China in the late 1970s, Deng Xiaoping put in place a system
that honors separating property and effort. His combining property rights
with an ethic based on the slogan "to get rich is glorious" lifted over 200
million Chinese out of poverty (Asia Week, 1999). In the West, the
establishment of public corporations enabled the application of larger capital
pools to projects. The railroads across the United States, for example, were
built because many separate individual investors pooled their money together
and hired management to work on their behalf (what we call a win-win-win
relationship).
Such individual investors have unique utility functions. They pool their
money because they have one common agreement: to have more money (in
present value terms) is a win outcome because individual investors now can
better pursue their own personal utility.
Management wins since
organizations can focus on their core competencies, resulting in more efficient
and expertly run organizations.
Society at large wins by being the
beneficiaries of the goods and services resulting from economies of scale and
scope now possible with larger pools of capital.
Notice, however, that the relationship between the individual investors and the
organization is based on (a) an agreement about the underlying purpose of the
organization and (b) an agreement that individual investors preserve the right
to pursue their own separate utility uniquely. This is possible because of our
clarity on the reason for hiring management: to achieve wealth maximization
through positive net present value investing, within the context of the business
purpose. (For example, see Berk and DeMarzo, 2007, p. 65, for a discussion
of the "separation principle," which states that the financing and investing
decisions are separate and that, given arbitrage free markets, the financing
decisions are not profitable thus making the "added value" due to
management emerge from the positive net present value investing decisions
that they make.)
Consider the extreme case in which managers and investors are completely
separate entities and, further, that the group of investors has heterogeneous
utility expectations. In this case, the relationship between investors and
managers has as its central focus the flow of money into the business for the

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 4(3)

- 359-

sake of investing. In return for this, investors expect managers to provide a

positive (more is better than less) financial return. The emergence of agency
theory as a way of understanding the transaction costs involved in aligning the
interests of investors and managers confmns that this financial relationship
between owners and managers requires monitoring. As we shall see later, we
can view agency costs as a byproduct (or friction) of a system that assumes
separate individual action, whereas we can view sustainability, on the other
hand, as the byproduct of behavior based on the principal of connectedness
(Vos, Yeh, Carter and Tagg, 2007).
Wealth maximization, then, is somewhat like electricity: its use has positive
outcomes, but it can also be destructive. The industrial revolution in England
led observers like Hegel to notice that wealth maximization may be great for
the providers of capital, but the people in the organization could be treated as
grist for the wealth generating mill, not as fellow equal human beings. Enron,
WorldCom, and the tobacco companies are but recent examples of
organizations that, in the name of wealth maximization, permitted harm to
individual people.
In light of this tendency, we argue that wealth maximization in an
organization is insufficient on its own to generate an organizational ethical
framework that will produce reliably positive outcomes (lately called
sustainability). At the individual level, we know that wealth alone fails to
bring happiness. We commonly think of wealth as the means to an end, not
the end itself. Indeed, Alain de Botton (2004) reminded us that while we see
personal financial success as the path to increased status, we also must be
cautious of this warning from Adam Smith: "Riches leave a man always as
much and sometimes more exposed than before to anxiety, to fear and to
sorrow." Happiness, in other words, is a goal at the individual level - and
wealth can serve as an obstacle.
By taking the perspective of the individual's underlying desire to find
happiness, that sense of inner peace, into account, we can inform ourselves
from the collection of spiritual teachings about the ways and means to "find
happiness." We can then integrate these principles into an organization's
ethical framework by first considering how imperatives such as wealth
maximization create meaning for us.

LOGOS, MYTHOS, AND ETHICS

At a fairly simple level, we can view logos and mythos as philosophical terms
representing essential characteristics of humans as imaginative, discursive

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

- 360-

Spiritually Sustainable
Vos and Barker

beings. Logos refers to our rational and pragmatic side. Logos is all about
what works in the world, that is, how mythic values become translated into
useful, rational action. Mythos refers to our reference points for generating
meaning, our commonly and communally-held beliefs, values, and attitudes,
the value-laden "mega discourses" that shape who we think we are and how
we think the world is (Sewell and Barker, 2006). For example, both
spirituality and capitalism offer us a powerful mythos for their respective
realms: quite practical paths to profitability on the one hand and "liberation"
on the other. From mythic values we discern logical rational action; thus, our
mythic values and logical rational action form essential elements both of our
humanness and of our scholarly common sense, as presented in the powerfully
influential Weberian model of values leading to rational action (Barker,
1993).
Foundations of Organizational Myth

From an organizational perspective, we are familiar with Weber's tension

between zweckrational, instrumental rationality, and wertrational, value
rationality. Weber's (1958; also see Barker and Cheney, 1994; Tompkins,
1987,2005) famous concern was that instrumental rationality would come to
dominate our work, pushing us to lose focus on the ultimate values, the
wertrational, that should guide our organizational lives. Weber's concern is
remarkably similar to the religion scholar Karen Armstrong's (2000)
observation that we modems have become consumed with logos and lost
connection to the underlying mythos, or meaningfulness of our lives.
Religion scholars see the problem of modernity in the alienation from mythos;
social scientists see the problem in Weber's warning of instrumentalism's
domination over guiding values, form over substance.
Weber's (1958) concept of ultimate values, the wertrational, becomes a useful
starting point for us as we seek a fuller understanding of wealth maximization.
Briefly (and following Tompkins, 2005), ultimate values are the shared
organizational values that give our work life meaningfulness and purpose.
They are those unquestioned value premises that lead to meaningful
conclusions regarding why and how we work - the intrinsic, instrumental, and
normative connection". Weber's ultimate values have a mythic quality; and
we will use the more helpful term mythic values to refer to these sets of
powerful, foundational values.
Our organizational mythic values are
generative (Barker, 1999). We use these values, our organizational mythos, to
reason rational ways of acting together in an organization, our organizational
logos. Thus, at the source of any organizational activity lie sets of powerful
mythic values that generate action - such as what we in the West call the

Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 4(3)

- 361 -

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

"Golden Rule": treating others as we want to be treated". In an organization,

if a team or other work unit sees profitability (i.e., wealth maximization) as a
mythic value, then its members will make ethical decisions about their
behavior that enact this value, such as working overtime to meet a production
deadline.
Further, consider the famous work of Joseph Campbell (1991) on myth,
psychological
specifically his argument for four functions of myth:
(individual oriented), sociological (collective moral ordering), spiritual (the
source of meaningfulness), and cosmological (seeing ourselves in relation to
the universe).
Organizationally-minded scholars normally work in the
sociological realm. Sociology as science tells us how our values work as
rationality, as in Weber's value rationality or instrumental rationality. But, to
recall Armstrong, mythos (working from Campbell's spiritual and
cosmological realms), not science, gives us answers to questions about what
should be our values", To be successful, an organization's members need a
spiritual and ideological mythos for working together (Cunha, Rego, and
D'Oliveira, 2006). They need a set of mythic values that they can use as a
foundation from which to discern how to behave in the physical and social
world of day-to-day organizational activity - a way for navigating the natural
tension between creativity and control, a set of transcendent moral reference
points

Discerning Organizational Action from Mythos

We now expand on our use of the word mythos. While we have made
reference to philosophers of religion, we need to take our discussion of
mythos - on an organizational level - outside the spiritual realm, which is a
tricky task given that Weber (1958), himself, saw mythic values as deriving
from religious inspiration. Weber's process works like this: We draw our
understanding of mythic values from a spiritual-religious mythos that helps us
to make sense of the mystery and uncertainty of day-to-day life. Essentially,
referring back to Campbell's famous typology, we use spiritual mythos to
create a meaningfulness in life that will generate sociological sense making
and moral ordering - the big picture experience telling us how to make sense
of the physical and social experience. As mentioned before, the Golden Rule
serves as an effective example. What we call the "Golden Rule" in the
Western tradition functions as a spiritual mythos because it transcends the
differences of the world's religions (Smith, 1995). "Treating others as we
want to be treated" is an effective mythic value for making sense of the
mystery confronting us as we try to discern how to deal with other people in
the world. Many elements may function for us as mythos - traditional

- 362-

Spiritually Sustainable
Vos and Barker

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

religion, science, capitalism, or ideology. Regardless of what values comprise

our organizational mythos, we need the mythic and rhetorical power those
values generate.
But how do we make the leap to an organizational level of analysis? Given
that today's global businesses readily cross cultures, economies, and belief
systems, we need an equally capable global mythos for organizational living
from which we can build a practical ethics. To do this, we must return back to
the task of discerning the instrumental and normative (logos) values from
organizational mythos.
As contemporary writers on religious belief (e.g., Armstrong, 2000; Shermer,
2000) point out, we humans of today are neither fully logical nor fully mythic,
we lie in between 5 . Schermer (2000, pp. 34-43) made a particularly
interesting case for the necessity of both logos and mythos in human
reasoning (a hard-wired need to believe in both logos and mythos), a case that
draws on the familiar logos terms of Type 1 and Type 2 Errors.
Shermer argued that humans, as pattern-seeking animals, need to believe in
both logos (the scientific provable) and mythos (the faith-based improvable)
to form patterns of action that enable us to engage reality functionally.
Shermer described how while we still make Type 1 errors ("Believing a
falsehood") and Type 2 errors ("Rejecting a truth"), we use mythos and logos
to form functional patterns that enable us to minimize these errors and
maximize our ability to make Type 1 hits ("Not believing a falsehood") and
Type 2 hits ("Believing a truth") (p. 38). Drawing on both logos and mythos
to create functional patterns of rational action can help us to lead moral lives
and to run successful organizations by making more frequent Type I and
Type 2 hits than misses.
Mythos and Organizational Wisdom

Proceeding, then, within the paradigm of logos, we logically arrive at the issue
of wisdom. We commonly define wisdom as good sense and good judgment
that come from both knowledge and experience (Barker, 2005; also see
Rooney and McKenna's recent work on wisdom, e.g., 2005). The religious
philosopher Huston Smith (1995, chapter I) added a more specific note by
defming wisdom as acting with appropriateness and proportion. Essentially,
we gain wisdom from our knowledge of mythos and logos and from our
experience in using mythos and logos to make Type I and Type 2 hits while
avoiding Type 1 and Type 2 errors. Said another way, we draw on mythos to
understand what is appropriate and logos to understand how to act
appropriately in proportion. It is appropriate that our organization is

Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 4(3)

- 363 -

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

profitable (a Type 2 hit), but we go outside the bounds of proportion if, for
example, we demand excessive overtime to reach high profits (a Type I
error).
As we get good at working with mythos and logos, we gain wisdom; we know
how to translate good values into good rational action that is appropriate and
proportional. Essentially, we gain the capacity to be ethical actors. In terms
of organizations, we gain the capacity to be ethical managers in the world of
work. Wisdom is all about knowing how to bring values into appropriate and
proportional ethical action. We become adept at making both Type I and
Type 2 hits.
Our perspective on wisdom puts us management scholars, as scholars of
social science, in a difficult position. Our scholarly mythos privileges logos.
The logic of wealth maximization reigns supreme as the source of ethical
behavior - we do what we have to do to make a profit (from working overtime
even to cooking the books). But, our ability to gain a deeper wisdom for
generating organizational ethics requires an ever deepening personal
understanding (or self-realization) of mythos.
We are very effective at
applying the rigors of science to the study of organizations, but we are less
successful at dealing with meaningfulness and its sources.
A Perspective for Engaging Mythos
Unfortunately, contemporary religious philosophers and scientists readily
assert that "science" can tell us little about what our most meaningful intrinsic
values should be (e.g., Smith, 1995, Chapter I especially). We management
scholars have much to say about logos (how to make a business profitable) in
the organization, but much less to say about mythos (how that business ought
to cultivate meaningful values). What works as good moral sense and good
moral judgment in an organization is a rather difficult proposition for us, so
for the most part we stick with logos (e.g., wealth maximization) and use the
scientific method to enhance logos-based outcomes.
This is not to say that management scholars refrain from dealing with ethical
issues and mythic values. We certainly do deal with them. Yet the more
important concern is our need for personal engagement in those issues and
values. To engage wisdom (the good judgment and good sense needed for
appropriate and proportional management practice) as the prime operating
ethic requires us to shift our orientation by becoming more engaged with the
light that shines on logos from mythos.
How ought we to do this? How ought we to move into the philosophical
realm of wisdom? We start by considering the mythic values that lead to

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

- 364-

Spiritually Sustainable
Vos and Barker

appropriate and proportional rational action. The possibility lies in shifting

our orientation so that we are aware that logos alone is insufficient and
accepting mythos as an essential element of our analysis. We need a counter
perspective to wealth maximization because on its own, wealth maximization
fails to address the desire in people to be happy, to fmd peace, a point readily
found in both conventional wisdom and modem self help (e.g., Shumaker,
2006; Tolle, 1997). Rather wealth maximization simply assumes that with
money individuals (investors, not other stakeholders) can "buy" utility. We
need an understanding of the search for ultimate individual happiness. By
including an understanding of what individuals are actually seeking into an
organization's ethical framework, the organization can facilitate both the
creation of wealth and the spreading of happiness.

SELF-REALIZATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE
PERSPECTIVE
According to the mystics, to be "Self-realized" is to "know God," to become
enlightened, to find a transcendent sense of peace and fulfillment - in short,
happiness (e.g. The Gurbani, Sri Guru Granth Sahib, The holy Sikh
scripture,1205)6. Only in this knowledge is happiness possible, and the
pursuit of such knowledge certainly is in our Self-interest (with a capital S).
Interestingly, the ethical framework suggested by the mystics for obtaining
Self-realization requires serving "others" as if they were indeed your own self:
a simple ethical principle to "serve Others" (capital 0 indicates that one sees
others as ones' Self, not separate, but a mirror of your own projections).
However, we find a bit of circular logic here: We pursue Self-realization
because doing so is in our own personal interest (i.e., to become happy).
Thus, we pursue Self-realization for our own selves. But, to do this we must
serve Others, not ourselves. The unseen implication here is that the
organization actually is a wonderful vehicle that we can use to serve Others.
To gain enlightenment (get into the perspective of mythos), one must "get
past" money. Organizations can never do this, since they are -- by definition - collections of individuals living in a logos-based world. Organizations need
money to continue to operate in this physical world. A "collectivity" can,
however, reflect the spirit of the individuals as they move in the direction of
"service to Others ( or "love" or "the light"). When this happens, when an
organization facilitates the pursuit of Self-realization via serving Others rather
than solely focusing on wealth maximization, an ethical framework emerges
that results in both the spreading of happiness and a sustainable business
model. Sustainability emerges when the spirit of service based on love rises

- 365 -

Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 4(3)

above the desire to accumulate wealth. To live in a sustainable world, we

must base our organizational ethic on a clear purpose of service, not wealth
accumulation.

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

Self-Realization, Sustainability, and Agency Theory

In a way, and as argued by Vos, Yeh, Cater and Tagg (2007) for small and
medium sized enterprises (SMEs), we can see sustainability as the "flip side"
of agency theory. Agency theory centers on the premise that each individual
is separate from the other and, therefore, monitoring is required (but not
sufficient) to ensure the organization moves in the agreed direction.
Sustainability, on the other hand, derives from the premise that each
individual is really connected not only to all other individuals, but to the entire
universe, and acts accordingly by "serving Others." Figure I presents agency
theory as symmetrical to sustainability in the extreme case.
Figure 1 Sustainability as the Flip-side of Agency Theory
A "Connected" Business
(e.g. a SME)

Sustainability, Love, Happiness

A "Separate" Business
(e.g. a publicly listed finn)

ners . .

8anagers

$$$
$$$

Agency Theory

In this example, the "separate" business has owners and managers who are
distinctly different from each other. The owners provide $$$ by way of up
front capital to the firm in return for which managers, acting under the
shareholder wealth maximization principle, return $$$ by way of dividends
and capital gains. Since the participants in this business are separate from
each other, the separate participants must look out for their own best interest
with agency costs being an inevitable byproduct of the relationships. In a
"connected" business, on the other hand, sustainability becomes the byproduct
of the extent to which the participants base their relationship on love and an
honest desire to "serve others."
Self-Realization and Finding Peace
Mystics see the individual and not the organization as the key perceiver of
their message. Mystics are interested in "moral" behavior and most go out of

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

- 366-

Spiritually Sustainable
Vos and Barker

their way to avoid becoming entangled in organizations. Neither Jesus nor

Buddha wished to be a political king, though both had the chance. Why?
Because the better option is to "overcome the world" by knowing the "truth,"
which will make you "free." Individuals have the possibility to realize the
other end of the extreme: We find the possibility to "know" (as oppose to just
"believe") a reality, which while dynamic, is endless. We have the possibility
to move toward mythos until we actually become part of it. The mystics tell
us that we can indeed come to know God, get off the wheel, find peace, Selfrealize.
Our ethic in this circumstance is knowing the "truth," to follow the maxim
espoused by all mystics: serve Others as your Self Therein lies the key to
reaching this understanding of truth. What we sow, we reap. What goes
around, comes around. Karma. If you treat the world as God, then the world
treats you as God. In this "reality," that is to say, from the perspective of Selfrealization mythos, the discursive reality that we see evolving (which makes it
so difficult to nail down specific ethical constructs) is nothing more than a
playing out of the "goes around - comes around" game, at a spiritual level.
To be loved, love Others as though they were, in fact, your Self with a capital
S. By what we think, so we become. We have the power, therefore, to think
ourselves into understanding that we, too, are "one with God," that we can
reach a transcendent peace.
Self-Realization as a Mythos of Connectedness
The Self-realization perspective is, in fact, a very different perspective on
reality than we usually find within the logos or "manifest" world. From this
perspective, we are all One in the real world. Omniscience and Omnipresence
are comfortable concepts within the Self-realized perspective. The imagery of
the Kabala is very helpful here: Imagine God, in the beginning, to have been
a clay jar. Then, the clay jar got smashed into an infinite number of pieces.
Each piece, however, contains all of the essence of the original jar, its entire
DNA, so to speak. And these bits all interact with each other until such time
as they realize (Self-realize) that this is just a game. But behind the game, the
truth is that every part is made up of the same stuff, beyond time. With this
view of "reality," we can understand why the Self-realized believe that all of
us will "get there" eventually. We are all drawn back to understanding the
Oneness, because that is what we are made of - the connectedness of
Oneness.
The dilemma is that un-enlightened individuals (i.e., almost all of us) by
definition fail to "see" this spiritual world as the "real" world; rather we see
the logos reality as real. We operate within logos while still being drawn by

Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 4(3)

- 367-

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

mythos toward a higher reality. And the playing field for this operation is the
logos world in which we live. A consistent message coming from saints and
sages is, "Look! What you see is who you are! So be nice to yourself! Do
unto Others as you would have them do unto you!" The core of this message
is that the underlying reality is not one of separateness, but connectedness.
Perhaps, we can better describe reality as a big videogame in which the
"separate" you is the creator of and player of the game. If all we do is simply
listen to the common theme of all of the saints and sages (including those of
the present day), we find that when the ONE (the transcendent reality, beyond
the physical one) is "known" the truth of this connectedness is experienced
personally. Then we realize who we "really" are and become "Self-realized."
And from the perspective of the Self-realized, the "truth" is that we can "see"
and "be in" a state of awareness that is beyond description (Tao Chapter I)
and beyond the realm of time or logos. Perhaps the better expression is "to
realize," which implies that once we know this truth we see that it lives in
each of us, we just need to realize it. From within this perspective, which is
accessible by unique individuals in their own way, the structure of the
underlying reality is really one of connectedness, or Oneness.
Here we make the important observation that the outside (logos-based) world
does not necessarily have to change for individuals to observe and alter the
way in which they interact with that outside world. Similarly, Jesus taught
that access to "the Truth" did not rely on "the Law," or indeed even organized
religion. When we practice controlling our thoughts and actions and use them
to move down the path of treating the world we encounter as connected rather
than treating it as separate from ourselves, we notice that a by-product of
moving in this direction is an increased level of happiness (again, a point from
ancient wisdom that we often see today repackaged for a modem audience,
e.g., Gurdjieff, 2004; Tolle, 1997).
Certainly, some "have eyes to see and ears to hear" this pursuit of happiness
more so than others, for certainly this is a perception game. The game is not
dependent on the entire world (or anyone else, for that matter) "getting it," or
even on the underlying culture that the individual lives in. Truth is one, paths
are many. Yet, the non-spiritual, physical, separate world is the perception we
have of reality. And that reality provides each and every one of us with food,
shelter, and family. This world will not disappear; it is part of the
evolutionary dynamic that permits us as individuals to learn the "truth,"
become "free," and rest in bliss. We should not, therefore, expect to generate
an ethical moral code and expect it to "save the world," since the world has no
need to be saved. Rather the world, especially the logos world of

- 368-

Spiritually Sustainable
Vos and Barker

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

organizations, is serving its purpose as a spiritual training ground by helping

those who think that they have logos-control to self-realize and, thus, discover
that they really have no control and then are empowered to follow a new path
toward inner peace.
Self-Realization and Discerning Inner Peace.

Is it possible to construct an organizational ethic using such a mystical

framework as we have argued here? Organizations operate within logos, and
always will. Organizations, per se, are unable to achieve God-like knowledge.
While they may well be legal beings, they are not spiritual beings. We are
agreeing here with the view that organizations are living discursive vehicles
with wills of their own (Vos and Kelleher, 2001). Organizations and the
dynamically evolving ideas within them are part of the "mind stuff' that
creates what we perceive to be the real logos world. Organizations are, in a
sense, like a mirror: They show us what we think the world is like. An ethic
that allows for the existence of organizations that trade slaves compared to
one which forbids smoking in public reflect two very different views of our
collective logos, or view of reality within logos. In this example, the move
away from a belief in separateness (slaves treated as property) toward
honoring others' rights to avoid passive smoke for health reasons shows what
some may call a move toward behaving as if we are all truly connected and
part of each other.
Here is the clue needed to formulate a conclusion to the search for a postmodem mystical organizational ethic. Mystics suggest that if "serve Others"
(karma yoga) represents the main operating imperative in the physical world
(the world of logos, where organizations live), then organizations should
simply focus ever more deeply on this goal.

SELF-REALIZATION AS A SUSTAINABLE VALUE

How ought we then to proceed toward using our view of Self-realization as a
sustainable mythic value in organizations? First, taking on this view implies a
careful understanding of who the "others" are from the point of view of the
organization. Far from simply suggesting more stakeholder focus, we see the
primary concern here as the organization's ability to engage individuals with
spiritual awareness. Second, as organizations become more aware of the
"goes round - comes round" rule, they begin to see as good (or ethical)
business processes and procedures that minimize the amount of activity that
results in unfavorable outcomes. (An example of this ethic would be to hate
someone will result in later being hated, so avoid this!) And they then, by

Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 4(3)

- 369-

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

acting unselfishly, can enhance positive outcomes by maximizing their efforts

of serving others. (An example would be to anonymously donate a percentage
of profits to charity.)
Third, the organization that fmds itself full of employees who are passionately
committed to spiritual growth will find itself with a culture that is much more
harmonious since each individual is attempting to serve Others.
Understanding and facilitating the spiritual growth of the firm's employees,
therefore, is a logical ethical imperative.
Fourth, the organization,
understanding the "truth" works from the heart (or mythos) in the first
instance rather than from the wallet (or logos) (see Gilson, Pratt, Roberts and
Weymes, 2000).
We find support for our perspective on spiritual growth in the small and
medium enterprises (SMEs) literature. Cressy (1995) argued that the reasons
for being in an SME are, generally, social rather than financial. Indeed, the
motivations of SMEs include the need to satisfy both internal and material
goals such as the need for independence, autonomy, control, achievement,
intrinsic rewards, family security, and also personal wealth (see, Birley, 1989;
Hisrich, 1986; Kuratko, Hornsby and Naffziger, 1997; Robichaud, McGraw
and Roger, 2001). And recently, Vos, Yeh, Carter and Tagg (2007) examined
SMEs use of external finance to show that SMEs operate with connected
values (spiritual values) above the profit motive (but not 'in lieu of' the profit
motive) as their main drivers (utility maximizers). They concluded that
"SMEs are a form of business that seek independence and control and,
through understanding the value of connectedness, end up finding utility and
happiness" (forthcoming). Simply stated, members within an organizational
ethics oriented on wisdom place spiritual values above the wealth
maximization motive in their operations and behavior.
This is but a beginning in our effort to uncover deeper understandings of how
we can form an organizational ethic. As we discuss later, Self-realization has
considerable scope for future research.

THE GOLDEN PRESENT

Maximize shareholder wealth. Seek God; find God. These two paradigms
rest, respectively within logos and mythos. As with Moses coming down the
mountain holding God's Word and confronting the golden calf, we can see the
mythic of our search for the meaning of life as a struggle between these
paradigms. From the mystic's perspective, the struggle is an internal one
within each individual. Being selfish and causing harm results in sure pain,

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

- 370-

Spiritually Sustainable
Vos and Barker

but being selfless with love results in being loved. Notice that a mystical
perspective avoids framing this issue as a choice. Money itself is not bad,
rather the mental attachment to money impedes spiritual progress, for with
money comes the illusion of control. Such is our present ethical struggle. (In
fact, within the knowledge of God, time perishes, so there only ever is a
"present" tense.) What role do organizations play in this never-ending drama?
To the extent that organizations are mirrors of our collective consciousness,
they show us what we are collectively thinking. They show us which
discourses are surviving, and, therefore, what our current "mind-stuff'
perceives as real. We must bring wisdom to bear on our ethical constructs
within an organization if we are, collectively and individually, to proceed
toward implementing the prime spiritual imperative of seeking a way out from
under the cycle of mentally creating a reality that brings pain (Tolle, 1997).
Avoidance of pain does not mean that we can simply move into a logos-based
reality and, as management scholars, completely ignore the reality described
by the mystics. Honoring individual choice, as in rational economics, is a
good start. But this alone is insufficient to create an ethical framework as we
can easily tum to honoring selfish behavior when selfless behavior belongs at
the core of any mythos-based ethic. We must avoid creating an organizational
ethic that tips its hat to mythos - when engagement with mythos is required
for wisdom to blossom. And engagement requires personal commitment to
the never-ending (always in the golden present) description of the human
condition. The organization is part of the reality we see in this nonenlightened, logos-based world. For the organization to act ethically within
this mystical analysis, it should actively engage these spiritual principles of
connectedness. The organization should implement systems and processes to
monitor this spiritual engagement for itself as it relates to its outside
stakeholders as well as for its own employees.
With a vibrant and active spiritual engagement based on principles of
selflessly serving others, the organization, through the spiritually-engaged,
can begin to understand another part of the truth - a situation sometimes
called "flow," (Csikszentmihalya and Nakamura, 2005). In a flow situation,
organizations find that their practice of spiritual principles results in their
becoming tuned into answers to ethical issues. Thus flow represents a
dynamic process of engagement with the spiritual, which in tum results in a
dynamic ethical flow (seek, and you will find!). The challenge for the
organization is to implement honest spiritual engagement so that flow can
develop. Through engagement and concentrated focus on the job at hand,
members Self-realize a witness-like observation of results happening - the

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 4(3)

- 371 -

flow state (Diener and Seigelman 2004). As this happens, organizations, as

with enlightened individuals, can rest in the flow of their ethical behavior by
knowing that a sense of transcendent morality (the spirit, or God) after all, is
really in total control. We find the same consideration of flow in chapter 48
from the Tao (as translated by Chao-Hsiu Chen): "In the course of learning,
one increases every day. In the course of Tao, one decreases every day.
Decreasing and decreasing, until doing nothing.
Doing nothing, yet
everything is done... "

A MYTHOS-SPACE FRAMEWORK
We summarize our arguments in the present paper with a mythos-space
framework (Figure 2). In this framework, we plot a series of dualistic
concepts in a "mythos-space" to illustrate how these perspectives position
themselves relative to each other. We begin our discussion with inspiration
from the Tao. The Tao cannot be divided, it is One. Yet within logos, we
find reference points for meaning that are by their character dualistic, or
divided, and not-One. The first part of chapter 2 of the Tao (as translated by
Chao-Hsiu Chen) illustrates several dualistic positions that provide a
continuum of "understanding" which we can use to extract meaning for our
Selves:
The whole world can see the beautiful as the beautiful only because of the ugly.
The whole world can recognize the good as the good only because of the bad.
Something and nothing create each other.
The difficult and the easy complement each other.
The long and the short define each other.
The high and the low counterbalance each other.
Before and after follow each other.

Following this inspiration, we describe the concepts presented in this paper in

a similar way and depict how organizations move within this mythos-space.
First, we plot in Figure 2 an x-axis that represents our preceding discussion of
how the "separate" perspective on humans contrasts with the "connected"
perspective. The z-axis depicts how serving "Others" not "self' forms the key
to finding happiness. To these, we add a "macro - micro" (inward - outward)

- 372-

Spiritually Sustainable
Vos and Barker

Figure 2: A Mythos-space Framework of Agency and Sustainability

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

Micro
(inward)

The U.N.

Saints and Sages

Sustainability

Happiness

Others

------11

Maximize shareholder wealth

Separate .......

Small Businesses
..

Connected

self
Tribal Values

The Economist
Agency Costs

Macro
(outward)

perspective for analysis on the y-axis. Table I provides a further paring of

these axes and mythos space with relevant examples.
Along the x-axis of Figure 2, we see the separate - connected continuum.
Business, as well as individuals, move along this continuum and act according
to their belief structure. Small business must also be profitable to survive and
large businesses must also function as connected within the society to
maintain the relationships required in business. In other words, no business
lives in the extreme position; all operate using varying shades of grey along
the x-axis.
The y-axis provides a perspective for analysis along a "macro - micro"
dimension (having an inward focus as opposed to an outward focus), which
provides a clearer understanding of the various relevant approaches to
organizational behavior. Examples of thinking ("seeing reality") that fit into
the x and y dimensions include,

- 373 -

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 4(3)

The U.N. -- founded and operated on acknowledgement of the

separateness of nations as well as the human (separate) rights of
individuals, many programs of the U.N. take a micro (aimed at
assisting individuals) approach to their activities.

The Economist magazine firmly holds to the view that we are all
separate and uses this assumption to advocate self-interested macro
(universal) polices for all.

Tribal Values are held by communities of older cultures based on the

assumption that all in the tribe are connected to each other. The
macro-perspective of the tribe is considered when settling on the
values required for the entire community.

Saints and Sages, on the other hand, suggest that it is only at the
individual (micro, inward) level that individuals can pass through
logos-based understandings of the world and realize their connected
selves (Self-realization), with happiness as the byproduct.

T a bl e 1: AS ummary 0 fMIylth os- S

Dualistic
Perspective

Wealth
Maximization
Imperative

Self
Realization
Imperative

Examples

Support in
Literature

x-axis

Underlying
structure of
Reality (mythos)

Separate

Connected

Publicly
Listed Firms - SMEs

Vos, Yeh,
Carter, and
Tagg(2007)

y-axis

Level of
Analysis

Macro
(outward)

Micro
(inward)

Society -Individual

Benefiel
(2005)

z-axis

Internal
motivation

Self

Others

Greed -Compassion

Kanungo and
Medocna
(1996)

By-

Agency Costs

Happiness

product
The z-axis shows that the underlying intention of the actors actually matters.
In any of the quadrants, logos-based participants can intend to serve
themselves (selfish) or Others (selfless). Saints and sages, of course, advocate
the focus on Others and, therefore, are placed in the top, right, rear of this
framework. Thus we can formulate macro economic polices or wealth
maximization business decisions either with Others or self in mind. Thus our
intentions matter on the overall drive to Self-realization.

- 374-

Spiritually Sustainable
Vos and Barker

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

Agency costs are clearer byproducts the further we move to the left and
downward since we intend to be selfish in an assumed separate world. We
enhance sustainability and become happier, on the other hand, the more we
base our actions to the right and up. Self-realization occurs when the
individual intends only to serve Others in a connected mythos-based reality.
Of course we would find it impossible to assign any firm or individual to a
specific segment of this graph since all firms and people are dynamically
evolving their placement as they act on their underlying mythos. As mythos
changes, actions change and the resulting byproducts of either agency theory
or happiness emerge. Thus, we can generate myriad combinations of coordinates. An extreme from anyone axis could be combined with either
extreme from the other two dimensions (e. g., greed:individual:SME or
compassion:society:publicly listed firm). Each unique set of co-ordinates
may, for that moment, best describe the mythos-space placement of that
individual or firm.

SUMMARY AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Mystics welcome academic research using scientific principles. The Dali
Lama, for example, works closely with scientists to study happiness. We
should also note that Self-realization is an accessible, knowable state of
awareness that is not "path dependent." Truth is One, paths are many.
Science must take care in its approach to Self-realization and be aware of the
logos-based limitations within a mythos-space reality. As we have already
discussed, we will find it impossible to describe the Self-realized state with
words.
We argue here that engagement in spiritual practice is necessary and implies
an inward (micro) focus with an honest desire to serve Others while "seeing"
the world as connected. Such engagement results in transformations of people
that, in tum, may be observed by science. But it is the engagement that is
important. Actions matter, and as a by-product of those actions, God-like
traits emerge. What we have been calling "happiness" could also be seen as
"reflection of the Light." And that Light has many facets. Trust, honesty,
devotion, compassion, faith, and so forth (see, for example, Table 1 in Fry,
Vitucci and Cedillo 2005) all emerge from within the person who goes down
their own unique path to the Oneness. "Seek ye first the kingdom of God
(e.g., spiritual practice), and all these things will be added unto you (byproducts)" Matthew 6:33.

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 4(3)

- 375 -

The ongoing spiritual debate between logos and mythos appears to present
Self-realization as juxtaposed dualistically with money. For example, we
have already mentioned the metaphor of Moses, holding God's Words when
confronting the people who were worshiping the golden calf. Jesus said that
"No man can serve two masters ... Ye cannot serve God and mammon"
(Matthew 6:24). We most often fmd this juxtaposition in spiritual warnings
against "sin" or "things of this earth," or money (e.g., the logos based reality
juxtaposed against mythic values). In this age of economists, we now suggest
that suppositions of separateness as a core principle must evoke the question:
What is the opposite supposition? What might the world be like when viewed
from that opposite supposition? And, how does one get to that opposite place
both spiritually and practically? The Saints and Sages give us a consistent
message on how to deal with this dilemma:

"Seek ye first the kingdom of God" (Jesus).

"We cannot reach the goal (Self-realization) by mere words alone.

Without practice, nothing can be achieved." Swami Satchidananda
(1978, p 3; compare Satchidananda's point with the similar arguments
in Weick and Putnam, 2006).

Saints and Sages ask for practice and see logos-based outcomes (food,
clothing, drink, or indeed money) as being of secondary and even trivial
importance to the "seek Self-realization" imperative. And we notice that, in
agreement with Kanungo and Medocna (1996), the only effective way to
reach the goal is to serve Others honestly, not self. Kanungo and Medocna
(1996) and De Blassio (in press) offer effective illustrations of firms moving
to the right and upward on the z-axis in our framework. And, we agree with
Benefiel (2005) who, when discussing business leaders with enhanced
spiritual perspectives wrote (p. 744): "They learn that the spiritual journey is
about their transformation, rather than the material gain they can procure from
it," again describe rightward and upward movement along our y-axis. And
finally, we agree with Vos, Yeh, Carter and Tagg (2007) who describe
positioning along our x-axis: "In the way that agency costs arise from a
presumption of separateness, so too sustainability (or 'contentment,' or
'happiness') emerges as a by-product from seeing the structure of reality as
one of connectedness" (forthcoming). Our mythos-space depiction brings
together these three dimensions into a conceptual framework that calls for
engagement on the part ofthe individual to implement, in the first instance.

- 376-

Spiritually Sustainable
Vos and Barker

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

Observing Self-Realization Practice

When we consider how we might approach future research, let us suppose
what might happen in an organization whose participants are actively working
toward Self-realization. The Self-realized state is a transcended one, beyond
time and space. As discussed earlier, Csikszentmihalya and Nakamura (2005)
described the concept of Flow ("A lack of anxiety about loosing control") as
being a way to understand how the transcendent state maps into the logos
environment, in our terms. We as "separate" individuals are no longer in
control, and further, we are not anxious about it if our awareness rests in
timeless Self-realization.
Yes, there are observable symptoms (by-products) of being relatively more
spiritual and these can be measured (see Fry, Vitucci and Cedillo, 2005;
Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, 2003; van Marrewijk, 2004). But many of these
approaches start from the notion that spirituality can be justified in an
organization only if it is directly mapped to productivity (and thus
profitability).
As Neely (1999) reminded us, businesses have been well established in using
"performance measurement" since at least 1910. And, in reviewing the
literature on performance measurement, Neely argued, "It is widely accepted
that performance measures influence behaviours" (p. 211). We can certainly
assume that organizations that measure spiritual facets of the Self-realization
(see Table 1 in Fry, Vitucci, and Cedillo, 2005) will see the results. So while
it might be traditional business practice to start an analysis of an initiative for
an organization by first assessing its impact on the bottom line, such action
goes against the framework offered here. The primary analysis should be
toward finding Self-realization by looking inward, serving Others, and
"seeing" the world "out there" as a mirror of your true Self. As this happens
Flow results and spiritual traits emerge as by-products. We must be careful to
avoid confusing the reported by-products with honest progress toward the
goal. We must also take care to avoid confusing measurement frameworks
(based in logos words) as clear enough guides for transcendence, since the
ultimate reality lies in how our reality is informed by mythos.
The key difference between our framework and those of, say Fry, Vitucci and
Cedillo (2005) Jurkiewicz and Giacalone (2004) and van Marrewijk (2004) is
that our logos-mythos approach enables us to see the goal of Self-realization
being achieved by moving rightward and upward within mythos-space. Thus
our framework offers a conceptual model that helps meet Hunt's (1995) call
for frameworks that enable future research on spiritual development in
organizations.

Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 4(3)

- 377-

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

Future Research

With this thought in mind, future research should seek ways to facilitate the
Self-realization process in organizations and among organization members.
As Barker (2005) noted, a pressing issue for scholars is to find better methods
for individual members to discern ethical practice from organizational values
- a call that logically follows our discussion here.
By their fruits you will know them (Matthew 7: 15-20). Measurement or
assessment of results is always an essential element of scientific study and
scientists are now refining their abilities to measure well-being both of
individuals and societies (Diener and Seligman 2004). However, we think
that the scientific method can and should be applied to the development of
meaningfulness within an organization, and not just to the measurement of
logical outcomes such as wealth maximization (see Schermer, 2004). We
wish to measure progress, which is by definition is individual progress. But
as individuals progress, they only do so by serving Others. Thus the group at
large (organization and its stakeholders) also "bears fruit."
We see two ways to capture relevant data: from individuals who self-report
their progress and report on the fruits; and from groups of related people who
are, if you will, "basking in the glow" of the progress these individuals have
made (i.e., recipients of their service). These groups will also "bear fruit."
Diener and Siegelman (2004) have demonstrated that we are already on our
way to discovering what evokes happiness. Anonymous acts of mercy (which
are impossible, by definition, to capture on any measurement scale) are an
example of acting toward Others rightward and upward on the z-axis toward
the connected end of the x-axis.
Changing the organization to include a focus on Self-realization implies no
rejection of the profit motive. Rather a Self-realization focus says that both
matter. Logos and mythos both matter, but logos must be informed by
mythos, or "the Truth." Since the treatment of colleagues, customers,
suppliers, and even bankers is up to the heart of each person in the interaction,
the organization can change itself by embedding connected behavioral
patterns into its culture in both traditional and non-traditional ways. Since
wealth maximization and economic growth no longer provide marginal
benefits to happiness in developed nations (Diner and Seligman 2004), we
need to develop alternative measures. In fact, we find a growing impulse in
corporate thinking toward the very ideas we argue here - that long-term
sustainable success lies in commerce oriented on values of global
connectedness (Pratt, 2006).

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

- 378-

Spiritually Sustainable
Vos and Barker

Increasingly, science is better able to define types of activities or practices that

organizations could actively put in place to foster spiritual and ethical
progress toward wisdom. We suggest that these approaches should focus on
what is required for individuals to progress. We are given many clues -- such
as the self-discipline of regular practice in order to make progress (The Yoga
Sutras of Patangali, Book 1 No.1). This practice must be attended for a long
time, without break, and in all earnestness (The Yoga Sutras of Patangali,
Book I No. 14). Future research could pursue the connection between such
regular individual practice and financial and happiness outcomes.
For example, the CEO of Aetna Insurance recently disclosed that his 21 year
habit of daily meditation was instrumental in his approach to leadership
including placing a greater value on individual spiritual development
(Stephen, 2002; also see the relevant leadership discussions in De Blasio, in
press). Research is increasingly telling us that a happy worker is a good
worker (Bateman and Organ, 1983; Barrick and Mount, 1993; Deluga and
Mason, 2000; George and Brief, 1992). Deiner and Seligman (2004) provide
a good review of the science relating organizational outcomes with employee
well-being. Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) are well known for
placing non-monetary objectives above those of money (Vos, Yeh, Carter, and
Tagg 2007). With proper measurement instruments, we see the possibility of
finding relative levels of engagement with mythos across various groups of
businesses, and from this to begin building up a picture of the ethical "fruits"
of such engagement.
Concluding Comments
We realize that our position requires a substantial realignment of fundamental
values, particularly the powerful and individually-oriented value of wealth
maximization in Western culture. But such realignments do occur especially
when powerful market forces arise to compel them, just as we see increased
fuel prices realigning our individual values relative to energy consumption. In
fact, Mickelthwait and Wooldridge (2004) have argued that the apparently
individually-oriented religious forces in the US are quite sensitive to market
pressures. Contemporary self-help spiritualists (e.g., Tolle, 1997) argue that
the unsustainable forces of separateness (as seen in ethnic conflicts and
ecological degradation) will create market forces that push us toward a selfrealized connectedness - a point with which we agree.
We also claim that our perspective here can fmd traction in individuallyoriented cultures, such as the US. Eastern and Western sages agree that
happiness is an individual spiritual pursuit. Essentially then, we are arguing
for aligning individual spiritual practices with collective organizational

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 4(3)

- 379-

activity in a way (via Self-realization) that helps both the organization and its
members pursue happiness. Cunha, Rego, and D'Oliveira (2006) recently
argued that the present impulse toward spirituality in the workplace fails to
find traction because it is grounded in various ideologies - grounded in logos.
As we have argued, we can find such traction only in mythos - a mythos built
on individual Self-realization brought into organizational action.
Thus, we see a change toward Self-realization occurring incrementally as
more organizations and individual members experience its benefits and build
market pressures that favor an ethics based on service to others. We see
potential for the emergence of a "science of business" based not on a mythos
of separateness, as is the current "religion" of economics, but on a mythos of
connectedness. Such an approach would avoid the need to show positive
logos based outcomes (shareholder wealth) for justification, but would begin
looking for positive movement within mythos-space toward Self-realization,
with happiness and profits seen as by-products. We also argue for a
cumulative effect - a gradual wave of ethical action that builds in strength as
more organizations find success by orienting relatively more toward serving
Others and away from solely orienting on wealth maximization.
If we gain an understanding of organizational ethics as requiring honest
spiritual engagement, what we see in the discursive mirror offered by
organizations will, by definition, surely change. As it does, many lives will be
enhanced, for we are advocating an organizational ethical foundation based on
the ageless wisdom of Self-realization through service to Others.
Management scholars who engage with mystical understandings of
organizational ethics can enhance organizational ethical behavior by
providing scientifically convincing research on its effectiveness in both the
world of logos and mythos. Following from the ancient wisdom of saints and
sages, we can create organizations of spiritual practice - sustainable,
connected, ethical organizations that enable Self-realization.

REFERENCES
Armstrong, K. (2000) The Battle for God. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Asia Week (1999) Asian of the Century. Retrieved December 3,2005 from
http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/features/aoc/aoc.deng.html.
Barker, lR. (1993) Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing
teams, Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408-437.
Barker, J.R. (1999) The Discipline of Teamwork: Participation and Concertive
Control. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

- 380-

Spiritually Sustainable
Vos and Barker

Barker, 1.R. (2005) Toward a philosophical orientation on control, Organization,

12(5), 787-797.

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

Barker, J.R. and Cheney, G. (1994) The concept and the practices of discipline in
contemporary organizational life, Communication Monographs, 61, 19-43.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1993) Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships
between the big five personally dimensions and job performance, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 111-118.
Bateman, T.S., and Organ, D.W. (1983) Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The
relation between affect and employee "citizenship," Academy of
Management Journal, 36, 587-595.
Benefiel, M. (2005) The second half of the journey: Spiritual leadership for
organizational transformation, The Leadership Quarterly, 6(1), 723-747.
Berk. J. and DeMarzo, B. (2007) Corporate Finance. London: Addison Wesley.
Birley, S. (1989) Female entrepreneurs: Are they really any different? Journal of
Small Business Management, 27(1),32-37.
de Botton, A (2004) Status Anxiety. London, Penguin Books Ltd.
Campbell,1. (1991) Myths to Live By. New York: Viking Penguin.
Cressy, R. (1995) Business borrowing and control: A theory of entrepreneurial types,
Small Business Economics, 7, 291-300.
Csikszentmihalya, M. and Nakamura, 1. (2005) The concept of flow, In C.R. Snyder
(Ed), Handbook ofPositive Psychology, London: Oxford University Press,
89-105.
Cunha, M.P., Rego, A. and D'Oliveira, T. (2006) Organizational spiritualities: An
ideology-based typology, Business and Society, 45(2), 211-234.
De Blassio, G.G. (in press) Coffee as a medium for ethical, social, and political
messages: Organizational legitimacy and communication, Journal of
Business Ethics.
Deluga, R.I. and Mason, S. (2000) Relationship of resident assistant
conscientiousness, extraversion, and positive affect with related
performance, Journal ofResearch in Personality, 34, 225-235.
Diener, E. and Seligman, M.E.P. (2004) Beyond money: Toward an economy of well
being, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(1), 1-31.
Fry, L.W., Vitucci, S., and Cedillo, M. (2005) Spiritual leadership and army
transformation: Theory, measurement and establishing a baseline, The
Leadership Quarterly, 16,835-862.
George, J.M. and Brief, A.P. (1992) Feeling good - doing good: A conceptual
analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship.
Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310-329.
Giacalone, R.A. and c.L. Jurkiewicz, c.L. (Eds.) (2003) Handbook of Workplace
Spirituality and Organizational Performance. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 4(3)

- 381 -

Gilson C., Pratt, M.J., Roberts, K. and Weyrnes, E. (2000) Peak Performance.
London: Harper Collins.

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

Gurdjieff,O.A. (2004) Spiritual Realism: The Skeptic's Guide to Happiness. New

York: iUniverse.
Hisrich, R.O. (1986) The art and science of entrepreneurship, In O. Sexton and R.
Smilor (Eds), The Art and Science ofEntrepreneurship, Boston: Ballinger
Publishing, 4-28.
Jurkiewicz, C.L. and Giacalone, R.A. (2004) A values framework for measuring the
impact of workplace spirituality on organizational performance, Journal of
Business Ethics, 49(2), 129-142.
Kanungo, R.N. and Medocna, M. (1996) Ethical Dimensions ofLeadership.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, 1.S., Naffziger, D.W. (1997) An examination of owner's
goals in sustaining entrepreneurship, Journal ofSmall Business
Management, 35 (1),24-32.
Micklethwait, 1. and Wooldridge, A. (2004) The Right Nation: Conservative Power
in America. New York: Penguin.
Neely, A. (1999) The performance measurement revolution: Why now and what
next? International Journal ofOperations and Production Management,
19(2), 205-228.
Pratt, M. (2006) Spiritual daring in a land of plenty, New Zealand Management,
53(2),35.
Robichaud, Y., McGraw, E. and Roger, A. (2001) Toward the development ofa
measuring instrument for entrepreneurial motivation, Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship, 6, 189-20 I.
Rooney, D. and McKenna B. (2005) Should the knowledge-based economy be a
savant or a sage? Wisdom and socially intelligent innovation, Prometheus,
23, 307-323.
Schermer, M. (2000) How We Believe. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Schermer, M. (2004) The Science ofGood and Evil. New York: Times Books.
Sewell, G. and Barker, l.R. (2006) Coercion versus care: Using irony to make sense
of organizational surveillance, Academy ofManagement Review, 31, 934961.
Shumaker, 1.F. (2006) In Search ofHappiness: Understanding an Endangered State
ofMind. Auckland: Penguin.
Smith, O.K. (2004) On Value and Values: Thinking Differently about We in the Age
ofMe. New York: Prentice Hall.
Smith, H. (1995) Religions ofthe World. Boulder, CO: Sounds True.
Stephen, M. (2002) Spirituality in Business: The Hidden Success Factor. New York:
Inspired Productions Press.

- 382-

Spiritually Sustainable
Vos and Barker

Swami Satchidananda: The Yoga Sutras of Patangali (1978) Translation and

commentary by Sri Swami Satchidananda, Yogaville, VA: Integral Yoga
Publications.

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

Tolle. E. (1997) The Power ofNow. Novato, CA: New World Library.
Tompkins, P.K. (1987) Translating organizational theory: Symbolism over substance,
In F.M. Jablin, L.L. Putnam, K.H. Roberts, and L.W. Porter (Eds),
Handbook ofOrganizational Communication, Newbury Park: Sage, 70- 122.
Tompkins, P.K. (2005) Apollo, Challenger, Columbia: The Decline ofthe Space
Program. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
The Bible, King James Version. (1998) New York: Liberty.
van Marrewijk, M. (2004) A value based approach to organization types: Towards a
coherent set of stakeholder-oriented management tools, Journal ofBusiness
Ethics, 55,147-158.
Vos, E. and Kelleher, B. (2001) Mergers and takeovers: A memetic approach,
Journal ofMemetics - Evolutionary Models ofInformation Transmission,
Vol 5 No 2. Retrieved from httpv/www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom
emit/200 I/voI5/index.html#issue2
Vos, E., Yeh, AJ., Carter, S. and Tagg, S. (2007) The happy story of small business
financing. Journal ofBanking and Finance, 31(9), 2648-2672.
Weber, M. (1958) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit ofCapitalism. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons.
Weick, K.E. and Putnam, T. (2006) Organizing for mindfulness: Eastern wisdom and
Western knowledge, Journal ofManagement Inquiry, 15, 275-287.
I The Coase Theorem: Given well-defined property rights, low bargaining costs,
perfect competition, perfect information and the absence of wealth and income
effects, resources will be used efficiently and identically regardless of who owns
them.
2 For a discussion of enthymemic rationality see Tompkins and Cheney (1985) and
Barker ( 1999, Chapter 4).
3 For an empirical account of value rationality as a generative process, see Barker,
1993 and 1999, especially chapters 5 and 6 and see Tompkins, 2005, chapter 8 for a
similar perspective on the usefulness of the Golden Rule.
4 An analogy here is the familiar adage from contemporary cosmology: Science tells
us what and how, but religion tells us why.
s Shermer (2000, pp. 34-43) provides additional sources to justify his arguments.
Additionally, we can find arguments similar to Shermer's in a variety of diverse
literatures such as Campbell's (1991) work on myth and Tompkins' (1987) work on
rhetoric and organizations. We can also quite readily link such contemporary
management perspectives as Rooney and McKenna (2005) on wisdom and Weick
and Putnam (2006) on mindfulness to the general thrust of Shermer's arguments
here.

Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 4(3)

Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 05:47 11 November 2014

- 383 -

Defining "Self-realization" in logos terms is quite difficult, as seen in this excerpt

from the Gurbani (Sri Guru Granth Sahib, The holy Sikh scripture, 1205):
Who can I tell, and with whom can I speak, about this State of Peace and Bliss?
I am in ecstasy and delight, gazing upon God's Blessed Vision. My mind sings His
Songs of Joy and His Glories. I am wonderstruck, gazing upon the Wondrous
God. The Merciful God is all-pervading everywhere. I drink in the Invaluable
Nectar of the Naam. Like the mute, I can only smile-I cannot speak of its
flavor. As the breath is held in bondage, no one can understand its coming in
and going out. So is that person, whose heart is Enlightened by God-his story
cannot be told. As many other efforts as you can think of-I have seen them
and studied them all. My Beloved, Carefree God has revealed Himself within the
Home of my own heart; thus I have realized the Inaccessible God. The Absolute,
Formless, Eternally Unchanging God is Immeasurable. Says Nanak, whoever
endures the unendurable-this State belongs to him alone.

Also see: http://www.gurbanLorg/webart28.htm