See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322235156

Spiritual Knowledge

Chapter · January 2018

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8318-1.ch004

CITATIONS READS

0 1,901

1 author:

Constantin Bratianu
Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies
197 PUBLICATIONS   2,036 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Global Forum of Intellectual Capital View project

Social Welfare: Collection of bibliographic references and the win-win-win papakonstantinidis model View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Constantin Bratianu on 03 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Chapter 4
Spiritual Knowledge
Constantin Bratianu

This is a chapter from the book:

Bratianu, C. (2015). Organizational Knowledge Dynamics: Managing Knowledge
Creation, Acquisition, Sharing, and Transformation. Hershey: IGI Global.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8318-1.ch004

ABSTRACT

In this chapter I will present the third fundamental component of the triple helix of knowledge: the
spiritual knowledge. It is an emergent field of research, especially as an integral part of spiritual
intelligence and spiritual capital. Spiritual knowledge is about the deep human concerns of our
existence, and of our connection with the whole universe. From a more practical perspective, spiritual
knowledge is about our values in society and organizations, and how these values influence the
managerial decision making. Promoting positive values we realize business performance and affirm
corporate social responsibility. Understanding spiritual knowledge becomes this way a key success
factor in understanding the essence of the new business in creating value for society and not being
trapped in profit maximization. Spiritual leadership incorporates spiritual knowledge and spiritual
intelligence and shapes the vision and mission of any organization.

INTRODUCTION

Spiritual knowledge constitutes the third component of the triple helix of knowledge (Bratianu,
2013a). If rational knowledge reflects our understanding about the physical world we are living in, and
emotional knowledge reflects our understanding about our bodily emotions and feelings, spiritual
knowledge reflects our understanding about the meaning of our existence. It goes beyond the
tangibility of our body and of external environment. It integrates at individual level possible answers
to deeper questions concerning our existence: Who am I? Why am I here? What is my connection with
the universe? Why do I die? As Gandhi states, “The purpose of life is undoubtedly to know oneself.
We cannot do it unless we learn to identify ourselves with all that lives” (Fisher, 1962, p.316).
Integrating the rational knowledge, emotional knowledge and spiritual knowledge into the triple helix
of knowledge it will help us to discover the richness and significance of what is of value in this life:
“We have to learn to see aspects of the world around us: stones, people, trees, sky. Equally, we have to
learn to see meaning and value in the world around us, in our environment, in events, in human actions
and lives” (Maxwell, 2007, p.274).

Also, spiritual knowledge reflects possible answers to questions concerning the meaning of people’s
working life. Work has been central to our existence since ancient times. The meaning of work goes
beyond the need for food and shelter. Work has more than just a biological dimension. It has also a
psychological one. Work can be viewed as an extension of personality, and a tangible way in which an
individual can measure his or her worth (Drucker, 1993a). If people don’t find meaning in what they
are doing for their living, they will become dissatisfied and unproductive. People will come close to
the perspective of the Old Testament that presents work as a curse laid on man, rather than a blessing
or an opportunity. That may become critical especially for knowledge workers, since the essence of
their work is quite different than that of industrial workers. A knowledge worker is thinking for his
living. His business is thinking. The main tasks of a knowledge worker are related to creation,
distribution, or application of knowledge (Davenport, 2005). Knowledge is an intangible asset that is
processed by intelligence and not by technological equipments, like the physical raw materials.
Individual knowledge cannot be owned by the company, and it cannot be controlled fully by the
managers. Knowledge workers own and control their knowledge and the only way to make this
knowledge productive is to motivate them (Davies & Ikeno, 2002; Drucker, 1993b; Kermally, 2002;
Osterloh, 2007; Stam, 2007). As Peter Drucker remarks in his seminal book The age of discontinuity.
Guidelines to our changing society, “Knowledge workers cannot be satisfied with work that is only a
livelihood. Their aspirations and their view of themselves are those of the ‘professional’ or the
‘intellectual.’ If they respect knowledge at all, they demand that it becomes the base for
accomplishment. For this reason, it is crucial that knowledge workers be challenged to achieve”
(Drucker, 2008, p.289).

Thus, a knowledge worker aspires to the top level of the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which is self-
actualization. Assuming that all the other levels of needs have been achieved, self-actualization
reflects the need for personal meaning and spiritual and psychological growth. “We know today that
human beings are by definition primarily creatures of meaning and value (that is, of ‘self-
actualization’). We need a sense of meaning and driving purpose in our lives. Without it we become ill
or we die” (Zohar & Marshall, 2004, p.17).

Living and working in a community generates questions of understanding social values and the value-
congruent behavior (Moosmayer, 2012). Such a community develops in every organization, and it
creates a specific organizational culture that reflects shared beliefs, values, traditions, success stories
and aspirations. Organizational culture is an intangible phenomenon with a powerful influence on the
decision making processes, especially in those organizations that have a significant history. Schein
(2004, p.17) defines the culture of a group as “a pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned
by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked
well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to
perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems”. Organizational values are usually set up by the
founders of that organization and are closely related in time to the leadership philosophy.

When an organization has a new leadership with a different organizational philosophy and vision than
the previous one, there will be significant changes in the organizational culture as well. However,
values have a high knowledge density and due to their gravity fields they have strong inertial forces
that oppose any change. “Barriers associated with the organization’s culture, for example, are
extremely difficult to remove completely until the end of each change project, after performance
improvements are clear” (Kotter, 1996, p.111). That means that changing values and creating a new
organizational culture can be effectively achieved only after a major change has been accomplished.

When spiritual knowledge is built up on positive values and on a dynamic organizational culture
managers can implement successfully their strategies, and can lead their organization toward
managerial performance and sustainable competitive advantage (Collins, 2001; De Geus, 2002; Dess,
Lumpkin & Eisner, 2006; Johnson, Whittington & Scholes, 2011; Warren, 2008). As Collins remarks
(2001, p.194), “Enduring great companies don’t exist merely to deliver returns to shareholders.
Indeed, in a truly great company, profits and cash flow become like blood and water to a healthy body:
They are absolutely essential for life, but they are not the very point of life”. Their vision is based on
creating value for society and developing an intrinsic corporate social responsibility-CSR (Basu &
Palazzo, 2008; Flammer, 2013; Matten & Moon, 2008; Pless, Maak & Waldman, 2012). According to
Matten & Moon (2008, p.405), “At the core of CSR is the idea that it reflects the social imperatives
and the social consequences of business success. Thus, CSR (and its synonyms) empirically consists
of clearly articulated and communicated policies and practices of corporations that reflect business
responsibility for some of the wider societal good”. When, unfortunately, some managers think only
for their own interests and make their decisions based on negative values with respect to their
organizations, then the business orientation is toward managerial non-performance and corporate
social irresponsibility (Lange, 2008; Lange & Washburn, 2012; Lev, 2002; Misangyi et al., 2008;
Pinto, Leana & Pil, 2008).

The purpose of this chapter is to challenge once again the prevailing thinking of the explicit
knowledge-tacit knowledge dyad with the triple helix of knowledge by describing spiritual knowledge
as one of fundamental knowledge field of any organization. Spiritual knowledge field is intrinsically
related to the vision and values of organization leadership. In the next sections I will discuss the
meaning of spiritual knowledge and its relation to spiritual intelligence and spiritual capital. Then I
will present some ideas concerning organizational values and organization’s vision. The concept of
spiritual knowledge I am going to discuss in the followings has no interference with the concept of
spirituality used in religion.

THE FIELD OF SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE

Spirituality and Religion

The field of spiritual knowledge is a fundamental component of the triple helix of knowledge. In the
literature, searching for spiritual knowledge leads you toward spirituality as a realm of religions, or
toward spiritual intelligence and spiritual capital that integrate the concept of knowledge. However,
some authors make a clear distinction between spirituality and religions (Benefiel, 2005; Dalai Lama,
1999; Fry, 2003; Fry et al., 2007; Mitroff & Denton, 1999; Reave, 2005; Zohar & Marshall, 2000;
Zohar & Marshall, 2004). For instance, Dalai Lama (1999, p.22) explains clearly the different
meanings assigned to religion and to spirituality, respectively: “Religion I take to be concerned with
faith in the claims of one faith tradition or another, an aspect of which is the acceptance of some form
of heaven or nirvana. Connected with this are religious teachings or dogma, ritual prayer, and so on.
Spirituality I take to be concerned with those qualities of the human spirit – such as love and
compassion, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, contentment, a sense of responsibility, a sense of
harmony – which bring happiness to both self and others”.

A similar viewpoint has been formulated by Neck and Milliman who consider spirituality as
“expressing our desires to find meaning and purpose in our lives and is a process of living out one’s
set of deeply held personal values” (Neck & Milliman, 1994, p.9). Also, the difference between
religion and spirituality is clearly shown by Mitroff and Denton (1999, pp. 88-89): “In contrast to
religion that is organized and communal, spirituality is highly individual and intensely personal. You
don’t have to be religious in order to be spiritual…Spirituality is inextricably connected with caring,
hope, kindness, love, and optimism. It cannot be proved logically or scientifically that these things
exist in the universe as a whole. Spirituality is the basic faith in the existence of these things. Faith is
exactly the thing that renders strict proof unnecessary”.

Spiritual knowledge contains possible answers for questions concerning our existence in society, on
Earth, and in Universe. The famous Hamletian question To be, or not to be might be considered a
quintessence of this type of questions. Spiritual knowledge embraces our deepest sense of existence,
living aspirations and motivations, values and ethical principles we live by, and ways of embed these
in our lives and work. Spiritual knowledge has the power of driving people to think beyond their own
interests, to think for their community or country. For instance, Gandhi saw himself as a driving force
of humanity for promoting the brotherhood of man, a deep purpose going beyond his own, or his
family interests: “My mission is not merely brotherhood of Indian humanity. My mission is not merely
freedom of India, though today it undoubtedly engrosses practically the whole of my life and the
whole of my time. But through realization of freedom of India I hope to realize and carry on the
mission of brotherhood of man” (Fisher, 1962, p.191).
The word spiritual comes from its Latin root spiritus, which means that which gives life or vitality.
“The spiritual in human beings makes us ask why we are doing what we are doing and makes us seek
some fundamentally better way of doing it. It makes us want our lives and enterprises to make a
difference” (Zohar & Marshall, 2004, p.29). In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, spiritus is defined as
“an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms”. Spiritual knowledge reflects
people’s aspirations for a better life and ideals for a better possible future for the whole community.
Thus, what makes the difference between spiritual knowledge and the other forms of knowledge is its
emphasis on human desire to achieve. That means to distinguish between ends and means to achieve
them. As Russell remarks, “If we desire to achieve some end, knowledge may show us the means, and
this knowledge may loosely pass as ethical. But I don’t believe that we can decide what sort of
conduct is right or wrong except by reference to its probable consequences” (Egner & Denonn, 1961,
p.374). Thinking of these probable consequences becomes a trigger of behavior. Unlike physical
events that have causes to trigger them, behavior has reasons to trigger it.

Everybody is willing to live a good life, although the meaning of such a good life differs from people
to people, from culture to culture, and from historical period to other historical period. For Russell
(Egner & Denonn, 1961), a good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. But not love
without knowledge, or knowledge without love since consequences could be quite different than the
anticipated ones. Both love and knowledge can be extended and renewed continuously, such that life
can be always improved. Zohar & Marshall, two experts in spiritual intelligence and spiritual capital,
consider that “We must live our lives as a vocation, as a calling to the service of those deepest values.
To do that, we must act from the higher motivations that can drive human behavior. This is a long-
term project, requiring tenacity and commitment” (Zohar & Marshall, 2004, p.34).

Spiritual Knowledge and Economics Education

Analyzing the most significant values and motivations of people living in today’s capitalism, many
authors remark that “We live in a culture riddled with corrupt self-interest, fueling both distrust and
terrorism. The prominent position of such an amoral business culture driven by self-interest and greed
lowers the moral standards of society at large” (Zohar & Marshall, 2004, p.36). Business culture is
built up on the principle of competitiveness, economic metrics, greed and tangibility. Competitiveness
may go deep down to the natural struggle for survival where the big fish eats the smaller one. In
business, competitive people reap most of the rewards, and the winner takes all. Losers remain with
frustrations, anger and fear. Economic metrics and tangibility are centered on money and physical
goods. Greed represents one of the driving forces of business, and the psychological state of having
not of being. According to Moosmayer (2012, p.156), “More generally, behavior rooted in economic
values reduces personal well-being and diminishes value for community (Kasser, 2002). With their
basis in such economic values, current business practices often foster greedy behaviors (Wang,
Malhotra & Murnigham, 2011), and fail to deliver sustainable service to humanity”.

Analyzing the balance between performance and acts of greed of many CEOs researchers uncovered
some outrageous situations. For instance in the paper just mentioned above, Wang, Malhotra &
Murnigham (2011, p.643) remark the fact that “even when no laws were broken, the Financial Times
(2002) reported that as the 25 largest bankruptcies between 1999 and 2001 wiped out $210 billion in
shareholder value and almost 100,000 jobs, top management walked away with a combined $3.3
billion in compensation. In the same year, Fortune reported that executives and directors of 1,035
corporations pocketed $66 billion even as their companies’ stock prices fell more than 75%”.

The business culture makes it rather difficult to differentiate self-interest from greed. That is because
one of the main hypotheses of economics is that individuals are rational people. From a rational
perspective, self-interest is a driving force for gains maximization and losses minimization. However,
in this rational decision making process there is no limit, no stop point, which leads to a greedy
behavior. The idea of self-interest as a driving force has been introduced in economics by Adam Smith
in his famous book Wealth of Nations: “it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or
the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest” (Smith, 2007, pp.9-
10). But where is the limit between self-interest and greed nobody can show and argue because this
limit is perceived differently from inward and outward of any individual. Wang, Malhotra &
Murnighan 2011, p.545) try to distinguish between self-interest and greed as follows: “Self-interest is
a motivation, widely presumed to drive most economic behavior, which aims to increase personal
well-being. In contrast, greed is self-interest taken to such an extreme that, based on prevailing social
norms regarding the effects of one’s behavior on others, it may be perceived as unacceptable or
immoral”.

The problem with greed is that it is a reinforcing phenomenon, like an upward spiral: the more you
have the more you want. “There is a phenomenon called the treadmill effect, similar to what we saw
with neomania: you want to make more and more to stay in the same place. Greed is antifragile –
though not its victims” (Taleb, 2012, p.408). Taleb introduces the concept of antifragile as the
opposite of fragile. As a property of things or systems, antifragility means something beyond
resilience or robustness. The resilient objects resist shocks and remain in the same shape; the
antifragile get better. Thus, greed is a phenomenon with a positive feedback and no feedforward.
“Greed is not merely the unlimited or unrestrained accumulation of money, but can also be the
unrestrained pursuit of power” (Mitroff & Denton, 1999, p.91). Unfortunately, economic education
emphasizes only the self-interest inner force and does not examines the danger of greed. That leads to
a positive correlation between economics education and attitudes toward greed. According to
researchers who studied this relationship, business schools and their faculty should find some ways to
minimize the undesirable, unintended consequences of their curricula (Moosmayer, 2012; Rutherford
et al., 2012; Wang, Malhotra & Murnigham, 2011). Business schools should have in their curricula
dedicated courses to spiritual knowledge to make students understand that the real mission of any
business is not maximizing the profit but creating value for society. Also, business education should
emphasize the fact that “managers are moral beings with value systems and personal and collective
loyalties” (Mathur & Kenyon, 1998, p.418).

Spiritual Knowledge and the Motivational Scale

Ian Marshall, one of the authors of the seminal books SQ: Spiritual intelligence. The ultimate
intelligence (2000), and Spiritual capital. Wealth we can live by (2004), is a practicing medical
psychiatrist and psychotherapist. Based on more than 40 years of clinical observation of patient
behavior, he developed a scale of motivation similar to the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, but
containing 16 levels of motivations instead of five. There are eight levels of positive motivations, and
eight levels of negative motivation: “These are arranged in a hierarchy from -8 to +8 and have the
unique property that the positive and negative legs of the scale mirror one another. Thus +3, power-
within, mirrors and is paired with -3, craving; +1, exploration, mirrors and is paired with -1 self-
assertion, and so on” (Zohar & Marshall, 2004, p.38). The author considers that each level of
motivation constitutes a paradigm of thinking and decision making. For instance, a leader who is
driven by fear (-4) will adopt reactive and defensive strategies much more than another leader who is
driven by self-assertion (-1). Fear as a state of mind leads to an attitude that is risk adverse, while self-
assertion may lead to overconfidence. The whole motivation scale integrates the field of emotional
knowledge with the field of spiritual knowledge, and it is important in understanding leadership styles
and decision making processes. According to Ian Marshall, “any move up or down the scale of
motivations also represents a paradigm shift”, and “Shifting motivations is the only stable way to shift
behavior” (Zohar & Marshall, 2004, p.40). These motivations act like integrators (Bratianu, 2013b)
since they integrate emotions, attitudes, assumptions, values, thinking processes, and strategies. The
16 motivations of the Marshall’s scale are briefly presented in the followings (Zohar & Marshall,
2004, pp.48-59).
(0).Neutral. This level of neutrality does not reflect a motivation. It is only a neutral position
for a short period of time, when some people change their motivations from negative to positive or
vice versa. It is like waking up in the morning and starting to think for the day’s agenda.
(+1).Exploration. This level is associated with curiosity and openness toward future and life.
People characterized by this motivation are willing to explore new domains and learn from the new
experiences of life. Searching for new knowledge and meanings comes naturally and effortlessly.
 (-1).Self-assertion. This level of motivation is associated with thoughtlessness,
competitiveness, pride, self-centeredness, and aggression. Leaders who have this level of motivation
want to conquer the market and to destroy the competitors. Self-assertive people have a will to power
that generates conflicts when they meet individuals with strong personality who express different
views from theirs.
(+2).Gregariousness and cooperation. People having this level of motivation enjoy being
together with other people and share together values and goals. They are good team members and
work efficiently in cooperation with other people. They are good negotiators since they accept
different views from other people and have the driving force of getting a common ground of interests.
(-2).Anger. This level of motivation means much more than just an emotional state. For some
people it is a way of life and work. People from this category are generally irritable, explosive, and
never satisfied with the recognition they received from their colleagues or from a larger community.
Frustration becomes a generic characteristic. In business, leaders of this level of motivation will be
looking for strategies able to destroy the competition.
(+3).Power-within. This level of motivation is associated with power. But not with power-
over to dominate other people from their position of authority. It is a power-within that yields
confidence and trustworthiness. People of this level of motivation know very well their value and
their position in a certain community. They don’t feel the need of demonstrating how good they are.
As managers, these people will develop strategies to empower and stimulate the others for decision
making and innovation.
(-3).Craving. According to Buddhism craving is the root of all suffering. Craving reflects a
sense of never having enough, and wanting always to have more. People of this motivation lack
power-within and they are never satisfied with what they have. They are greedy, and adopt strategies
of grasping. They feel that other people have more than they have and become envious people.
Craving is the basis of all addictions – overeating, gambling, alcoholism, or drug addiction.
(+4).Mastery. This level of motivation shows the capability of leadership. That means to go
beyond your power-within and share your energy and thinking with the whole team or community. If
the level of power-within is centered in deep personal values, mastery reflects the interpersonal values
and skills – especially those of a profession, a tradition, or some shared vision. People of this level of
motivation show always a sense of inner discipline.
(-4).Fear. The mental state of fear is associated with anxiety, suspicion, a sense of being
threatened or of being vulnerable. Fear is the opposite of the mental state of being a master of the
situation. Being in this level of motivation one thinks that there are always threats and enemies in his
environment. The spiritual knowledge in this level is related mostly to protection and survival. In
business, fear generates risk adverse attitudes, and avoidance of any innovation or exploration.

Ian Marshall considers that the domain of these above motivations is characteristic for
statistically average people. The next eight motivations (i.e. from -5 to -8, and from +5 to +8) are “the
realms of greatness at the one extreme and of psychiatric illness at the other. No more than 4 percent
of the general population is driven by these higher or lower motives. These are the people whose
personalities differ from the norm, perhaps up to the extreme of incipient madness” (Zohar &
Marshall, 2004, p.54). Although there are very few people on the positive part of the scale, their
presence is important in any community since they are able to raise the motivational level of a culture,
as a result of their spiritual knowledge and creativity.

(+5).Generativity. This is a special manifestation of creativity. It is creativity driven by love

and passion. People with such a motivation enjoy their creative work that represents essentially their
life. Their work is their life. Albert Einstein loved mathematics and physics, and Isaac Newton felt a
great awe and love for the universe he was exploring. Generative people create playful strategies that
try to answer to the What if? type of questions. Learning and discovery are the main attractors for this
kind of people. Thinking for some examples of generative people from today’s business field we may
consider Steve Jobs of Apple Computers, Konosuke Matsushita who created Japan’s electricity
industry, Henry Ford, Bill Gates, and Richard Branson of Virgin Group. Branson could be a typical
generative personality since he has been always looking for fun and adventure. He lists having fun as
one of the Virgin’s core company values.
 (-5).Anguish. Being the opposite of generativity, anguish is a motivation with a blocked
generative process. This mental state arises from a sense of being lost or helpless in this world.
Anguish people don’t know what to do and what kind of decisions to make since they have no
perspective. For them, almost everything looks impossible. Anguish people don’t have the energy
necessary to synchronize with other people from the team or community.
(+6).Higher service. This mental state is characteristic for the most dedicated form of
leadership. Great leaders are capable of serving their community, their nation or humanity. They
always put the interests of community above of their own, and serve transpersonal values like
goodness, justice, truth, the alleviation of suffering, and enlightenment of others. “They have a sense
of vocation, of being called to serve, and in answering to this they find their own deepest peace, their
own destiny” (Zohar & Marshall, 2004, p.56). They make the impossible to become possible. For
instance, Buddha, Moses, and Jesus Christ were such kind of spiritual leaders. For the recent history
we may think of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, and Nelson Mandela.
(-6).Apathy. People in this state of mind cannot see any sense of living in this world since they
cannot imagine any role for them to play. They don’t see any game to play and make no effort to
discovered one. Their energy is very low, just enough to keep them alive. Apathy is a deep form of
depression, when life has lost its meaning and attraction.
(+7).World Soul. This is a mental state oriented toward divinity. People at this stage of
motivation don’t feel anymore the tangibility of this world and want to integrate in the infinity of the
universe and in its immortality. “Some people enter this realm prematurely, as an escape from worldly
problems. Their worldly personalities are often immature or damaged, and many of the great among
them have ended their lives in early death or madness” (Zohar & Marshall, 2004, p.58).
(-7).Shame and Guilt. This is a mental state quite opposite of the World Soul. People from
this category lost any meaningful or deeper level of reality, and they experience a huge pressure from
shame and guilt. They want to destroy themselves being unworthy anymore for living among other
people. Sometimes, in this category enter people who lost their face or honor since they betrayed their
ideals and the society’s norms. The samurai tradition of hara-kiri resulted from loss of face (i.e. shame
and guilt), as did the practice of disgraced Roman generals’ falling on their swards.
(+8).Enlightenment. This is a mental state that is difficult to be described in words, because it
is beyond any worldly existence. It is about a total absorption or annihilation of self in the absolute or
nothingness. It is difficult to describe the absolute or nothingness. Buddhists describe it as an
emptiness that is full. In the Book of No-Thing Miyamoto Musashi states that “The Way of the warrior
is based on no-thing-ness. No-thing-ness is not to be understood as a ‘thing’ because it then would be
based on a conception of something, which would not be no-thing” (Kaufman, 1994, p.104).
(-8).Depersonalization. An individual who reaches enlightenment can be considered
metaphorically like a light spectrum, without any physical appearance. A person who has undergone
depersonalization can be considered like a shell without any core. This could be the case of a burnt-
out alcoholic or drug addict. This is the inner world of the hospitalized schizophrenic.

The purpose of presenting this scale of motivations is to suggest the fact that spiritual
knowledge has a large spectrum of manifestation, and that people being aware of it can take advantage
and try to move upward on the scale. These motivations work like some powerful attractors but
nobody can be kept in a given level of motivation. As Marshall finally remarks, “It is possible to shift
our motivations, either upward or downward. Upward motivation requires that we pump psychic
energy into our system; downward shift happens when a situation or an underlying belief or value
system drains us of this energy” (Zohar & Marshall, 2004, p.60).

SPIRITUAL INTELLIGENCE

Understanding Spiritual Intelligence

When Howard Gardner, Professor of Cognition and Education at the Harvard Graduate School of
Education, published his seminal book Frames of the mind: The theory of multiple intelligences
(1983), he defined only eight fundamental intelligences: linguistic intelligence, logical-mathematical
intelligence, musical intelligence, spatial intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, naturalist
intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence and interpersonal intelligence. Based on critics and many
viewpoints expressed with respect to the new theory, he started to analyze the possibility of including
in this spectrum of fundamental intelligences a ninth intelligence: “Recently, I have pondered whether
there may be a ninth, or existential, intelligence” (Gardner, 2006a, p.40). Developing further the
Gardner’s model, Halama and Strizenec (2004) define existential intelligence “as an ability to find and
realize meaning in life” (Amram & Dryer, 2008, p.4). Looking for differences between existential
intelligence and spiritual intelligence, they found that both concepts are mutually related and even
overlapping. For Emmons (1999, p.163), “spiritual intelligence is a framework for identifying and
organizing skills and abilities needed for adaptive use of spirituality”. Emmons (2000) identifies four
components of spiritual intelligence: a) ability to utilize spiritual knowledge to solve problems; b)
ability to enter heightened states of consciousness; c) ability to invest everyday activities and
relationships with a sense of sacred; and d) capacity for transcendence of the physical and material.
Vaughan (2002, p.19) defines spiritual intelligence as “a capacity for a deep understanding of
existential questions and insight into multiple levels of consciousness… it implies awareness of our
relationship to the transcendent, to each other, to the earth and all beings”. Thus, for Vaughan spiritual
intelligence can be seen as an ability: a) to process answers to existential questions; b) to use multiple
levels of consciousness in problem solving; and c) to interconnect all beings to each other and to the
transcendent.

Danah Zohar and Ian Marshall preferred the formulation of spiritual intelligence instead of the
Gardner’s formulation of existential intelligence and developed it consistently in their well-known
books (2000; 2004). They consider spiritual intelligence (SQ) as the third fundamental intelligence,
after cognitive intelligence (IQ), and emotional intelligence (EQ): “This is the intelligence with which
we have access to deep meaning, fundamental values, and a sense of abiding purpose in our lives, and
the role that this meaning, values, and purpose play in our lives, strategies, and thinking processes”
(Zohar & Marshall, 2004, p.64). People whose motivations are generativity, higher service, world
soul, or enlightenment have developed significantly this spiritual intelligence. The main feature of this
intelligence is that it makes us to be whole entities, by integrating many fragments of our lives,
activities, and being. It helps us to understand what is our identity and sense of life. Also, it helps us to
develop a vision about what we could become in a desirable future. Thus, spiritual intelligence is a
dynamic force that processes spiritual knowledge we create and develops a vision of our possible
evolution on the generic scale of motivations. Briefly, spiritual intelligence is a driving force toward
the unknown and in could-be situations.

Spiritual intelligence can be a powerful transformational force since it is able to extend our
understanding of the reality from the daily routines of work and life to the existential limits, and to
change the rules of game for our individual behavior or some organizational behavior. Matthieu Ricard
is an interesting example of a young scientist with doctoral studies in molecular genetics at the famous
Pasteur Institute in Paris, having the French Nobel Laureate Franҫois Jacob as academic adviser, who
decided to change completely his life becoming a Buddhist Monk. He started a new life in the
Himalaya Mountains studying with Kangyur Rinpoche and other great masters how to control his
mind and to eliminate negative emotions. After years of meditations and searching for spiritual
knowledge, he reached eventually the level of being the happiest man in the world, according to
popular media. He accepted to be a subject in a series of experiments done at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison on happiness, experiments in which he scored significantly higher than the
average subjects. Matthieu Ricard demonstrated this way the capacity of spiritual intelligence to
transform completely the life of an individual (Ricard, 2007). Also, the transformational power of
spiritual intelligence can be seen during adolescence that is “the period in which the foundation for
future education, major life roles, relationships, and working toward long-term productive goals are
established” (Hosseini et al., 2010, p.179).

Zohar and Marshall (2004, p.79) illustrate the powerful force of transformation of spiritual intelligence
by identifying 12 principles “that allow SQ to dissolve old motives and create new ones”. Briefly,
these 12 principles of transformation, based on an analysis of complex systems, are the following:
self-awareness, spontaneity, vision and value led, holistic, compassion (feeling-with), celebration of
diversity, field-independent, asking why?, reframe, positive use of adversity, humility, and sense of
vocation. The last two principles have no counterpart in complex systems. They are specific only for
human beings. The authors emphasize the fact that these 12 principles or qualities are very important
for any transformational process at individual or organizational level. “In the cultivation and practice
of these qualities and transformation processes lies our ability to use our whole brains, our ability to
know and practice our deepest meanings and purposes, our ability to bring transformation to our lives
and to the situations in which we operate, and our ability to think at the edge of chaos” (Zohar &
Marshall, 2004, pp.80-81).

These 12 principles may act as powerful shifting forces for the levels of motivations presented above.
Zohar and Marshall (2004) designed a chart showing how these forces may change the levels of
motivations such that each person can understand and use them efficiently. I shall use an arrow to
show the impact of a certain principle on a specific level of motivation, to expose the main spiritual
knowledge contained in that chart.

 The negative levels of motivations. Humility → Self-assertion (-1); Holism → Anger (-2);
Vision and value led → Craving (-3); Positive use of adversity →Fear (-4); Celebrate diversity
→ Anguish (-5); Sense of vocation → Apathy (-6); Grace → Guilt and shame (-7) &
Depersonalization (-8).
 The positive levels of motivations. Spontaneity → Exploration (+1); Self-awareness →
Gregariousness and cooperation (+2); Field independence → Power-within (+3); Reframing
→ Mastery (+4); Asking why? → Generativity (+5); Compassion → Higher service (+6);
Grace → World soul (+7) & Enlightenment (+8).

To understand how these principles work Danah Zohar tells us her own story, how from an A straight
student she lost at the age of 13 any interests in school and education. However, two important events
– an excellent lecture on atomic physics and the fact that Russians launched in space the first Sputnik
– change completely her motivation and started to think life differently. From her personal experience
we learn how the force Sense of vocation shifted her underlying motivation from Apathy (-6), to
Higher service (+6). But we may consider any of other shifting forces to see how they change our
mental states. For instance, the force of Humility could shift a motive from Self-assertion (-1) to
exploration (+1), and a sense of Holism could shift a person’s motive from Anger (-2) to Cooperation
(+2). In conclusion, “The chart can provide more insight into the full dynamics of possible shift, but
first it is necessary to understand the basic conditions required to make shift possible” (Zohar &
Marshall, 2004, p.112).

Measuring Spiritual Intelligence

Based on previous experiences with IQ and EQ tests, researchers started to design scales for
measuring spiritual intelligence (SQ). Since there are different perspectives on the concept of spiritual
intelligence, there are different approaches in designing spiritual intelligence scales and tests. I shall
present some of these scales, only to understand the main issues in designing and applying these scales
for evaluating spiritual intelligence.

In her Doctoral Dissertation entitled Spiritual orientation in relation to spiritual intelligence: A new
consideration of traditional Christianity and New Age/individualistic spirituality, Dagmar Dasha
Nasel (2004, p.42) defines spiritual intelligence as the “ability to draw on one’s spiritual abilities and
resources to better identify, find meaning in, and resolve existential, spiritual, and practical issue”. In
her research, Nasel developed the Spiritual Intelligence Scale (SIS), which is a 17-item self-report
measure of spiritual intelligence rated on a 4 point Likert scale from 1 (never) to 4 (almost always). As
remaked by Amram and Dryer (2008), although the scale proved to have an overall reliability, and
construct validity, SIS was designed to measure spiritual intelligence only from two specific
perspectives: Christianity and New Age/individualistic spirituality. Thus, SIS cannot be used in
solving more practical problems.
Amram and Dryer (2008) developed the Integrated Spiritual Intelligence Scale (ISIS). They made
several pilot tests and compared their results with results obtained from similar tests, especially from
INSPIRIT – Index of Core Spiritual Experiences (Kass et al., 1991), and SWLS – Satisfaction With
Life Scale (Pavot & Diener, 1993). Finally they designed a self-report test, based on the previous
experience of 6-12 months of each individual to be tested, evaluated with a six point Likert scale with
the following meanings: rarely or almost never, very infrequently, somewhat infrequently, somewhat
often, very frequently, and always or almost always. The ISIS scale contains 83 items covering 22
subscales: Beauty, Discernment, Egolessness, Equanimity, Freedom, Gratitude, Higher-self, Holism,
Immanence, Inner-wholeness, Intuition, Joy, Mindfulness, Openness, Practice, Presence, Purpose,
Relatedness, Sacredness, Service, Synthesis, and Trust. From a different theoretical approach, these 83
items could be clustered into five super classes that reflect much better the domain of spiritual
intelligence: Consciousness, Grace, Meaning, Transcendence, and Truth (Amram & Dryer, 2008).

Cynthia Wigglesworth, President and Founder of Conscious Pursuit, Inc. (2003) has been inspired by
Daniel Goleman in analyzing emotional intelligence and developed a 2x2 matrix with the main
features of the spiritual intelligence arranged according to two dimensions: self focused, and other
focused. The four quadrants of this model are the following (Wigglesworth, 2003, p.10):

 “Self-Awareness. Knowing that you have an ego self (small s) and a Higher Self (cap S);
being aware of when each is active/ in control.
 Self-Mastery. Able to keep Spirit in charge most of the time; able to maintain inner and outer
peacefulness regardless of situation (equanimity), stays in the present moment.
 Universal Awareness. Awareness of the eternal nature of the Universe and the
interconnectedness of all life; mindful of the beauty of all things.
 Spiritual Presence. Acts with compassion and wisdom, a calming presence, an agent for
transformative change.”

Starting from this matrix, the author developed a matrix containing 21 competences. For each of the
21 competences she has described in behavioral terms the levels of achievement in that skill. Using
this list of levels of skill attainment an individual can self-assess from 0 to 5. Also, the assessment can
be done by another person, which means a very helpful feedback for the assessed person. Finally each
person can think for himself the level at which would like to be. Thus, each person may define for
himself a target level that can be achieved. The target can be changed during lifetime. “Thus I believe
we can measure SQ and use that measurement as a means of coaching ourselves and others to continue
growing towards our personal SQ goals” (Wigglesworth, 2003, p.12).

ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUALITY

Spiritual Leadership

Spiritual knowledge and spiritual intelligence have a great impact on leadership. Spiritual leadership
can be considered a direct spin-off of these two powerful individual and organizational forces (Bass&
Riggio, 2006; Benefiel, 2005; Daft, 2008; Fry, 2003; Fry et al., 2007; Gardner, 2006b; Reave, 2005).
Fry (2003, p.694) defines spiritual leadership as “comprising the values, attitudes, and behaviors that
are necessary to intrinsically motivate one’s self and others so that they have a sense of spiritual
survival through calling and membership”. That implies:

 To have a shared vision for all organization’s members in order to experience a calling for a
meaningful work. “This vision, when combined with a sense of mission of who we are and
what we do, establishes the organization’s culture with its fundamental ethical system and
core values” (Fry, 2003, p.697).
  To generate an organizational culture based on altruistic love able to care for both self and
others. This organizational culture will produce a sense of membership and appreciation. That
means a complete different culture than that based on fear of the command-and-control
management.

Spiritual leadership develops a new rewarding system based on intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic
motivation is a result of a materialistic perspective of life, and on an economic metric that means
better salaries, better offices, and more tangible advantages. Extrinsic motivation depends on profit
maximization results and it is decided by managers from the upper hierarchical levels. Intrinsic
motivation depends on the inner field of forces, and on a personal system of values. “Intrinsic rewards
involving task involvement are internal and under control of the individual and satisfy higher order
needs for competency, self-determination, and self-fulfilment” (Fry, 2003, p.699). Spiritual leadership
creates intrinsic motivation by defining some shared goals, a shared vision for organization and shared
values for all employees. Achieving these shared goals becomes a driving force in “satisfying one’s
higher order (spiritual) needs for self-esteem, relatedness, and growth. It is through this process that
behaviors perceived to be instrumental to goal attainment acquire value and become intrinsically
rewarding” (Fry, 2003, p.700).

Classical management is based on rational knowledge and scientific principles based on the
Newtonian logic. Also, classical economics is based on linear thinking and the axiom that man is a
rational decision maker. Operating with clear Newtonian and Cartesian thinking models, profit
maximization and capital tangibility came as logical consequences. Moreover, the whole process of
decision making is based on full rationality and complex mathematical models. In this managerial
construct there was no place for emotional knowledge and spiritual knowledge. However, the new
turbulent economy and global competition impose a new managerial paradigm able to integrate
rational knowledge with emotional knowledge and spiritual knowledge, and rationality with
irrationality in decision making (Ariely, 2010; Gladwell, 2010; Goleman, 1999; Heath & Heath, 2013;
Kahneman, 2011; Taleb, 2007). As Mitroff and Denton (1999, p.91) remark with respect to the
separation of spiritual knowledge from the management, “We have gone too far in separating the key
elements. We need to integrate spirituality into management. No organization can survive for long
without spirituality and soul. We must examine ways of managing spirituality without separating it
from the other elements of management”.

Spiritual leadership is based on the triple helix of knowledge that contains rational knowledge,
emotional knowledge and spiritual knowledge that interact dynamically. Having a more complex
construct than the canonical management, spiritual leadership has the capacity of embracing all types
of individual’s needs and to create a shared vision of where the organization wants to be in a desirable
future. As Kotter (1996, p.68) explains, “Vision refers to a picture of the future with some implicit or
explicit commentary on why people should strive to create the future”. Vision is the driving force of
any strategy implementation that results in an organizational change. Vision is organically related to
the mission of organization, that reflects the reason for its existence. A mission should be able to
define the existential purpose of the organization, and what are its main values. Thus, a good vision
should balance the present and the future of organization, by preserving its core values and changing
what is needed to achieve the future state. It is a continuous interplay of the ying and yang forces of
change (Collins & Porras, 2002). I would like now to illustrate the vision and mission concepts, or the
company’s philosophy, with examples from some of the most successful companies and most
prestigious universities.

Google (http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy).
Google’s mission “is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and
useful”. Google’s philosophy is concentrated in the “Ten things we know to be true”. Larry Page and
Sergey Brin, the founders of Google, formulated these principles when the company was just a few
years old, and then they check them from time to time to see if they still hold true.
1. Focus on the user and all else will follow.
 2. It’s best to do one thing really, really well.
3. Fast is better than slow.
4. Democracy on the web works.
5. You don’t need to be at your desk to need an answer.
6. You can make money without doing evil.
7. There’s always more information out there.
8. The need for information crosses all borders.
9. You can be serious without a suit.
10. Great just isn’t good enough.

Toyota company (http://www.toyota.com.au/toyota/company/vision-and-philosophy).

Vision: “Our vision: Most respected and admired company”.
Mission: “Our mission: We deliver outstanding automotive products and services to our customers,
and enrich our community, partners and environment”.
Values: “Our four core values: Customer first, respect for people, international focus, and continuous
improvement and innovation”.

Coca-cola company (http://www.coca-colacompany.com/mission-vision-values).

Mission: “Our Roadmap starts with our mission, which is enduring. It declares our purpose as a
company and serves as the standard against which we weigh our actions and decisions.

 To refresh the world…

 To inspire moments of optimism and happiness…
 To create value and make a difference”.

Vision: “Our vision serves as the framework for our Roadmap and guides every aspect of our business
by describing what we need to accomplish in order to continue achieving sustainable, quality growth.

 People: Be a great place to work where people are inspire to be the best they can be.
 Portfolio: Bring to the world a portfolio of quality beverages brands that anticipate and satisfy
people’s desires and needs.
 Partners: Nurture a winning network of customers and suppliers, together we create mutual,
enduring value.
 Planet: Be a responsible citizen that makes a difference by helping build and support
sustainable communities.
 Profit: Maximize long-term return to shareholders while mindful of our overall
responsibilities.
 Productivity: Be a highly effective, lean and fast-moving organization”.

Values: “Our values serve as a compass for our actions and describe how we behave in the world.

 Leadership: The courage to shape a better future.

 Collaboration: Leverage collective genius.
 Integrity: Be real.
 Accountability: If it is to be, it’s up to me.
 Passion: Committed in heart and mind.
 Diversity: As inclusive as our brands.
 Quality: What we do, we do well”.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Engineering Systems Division

(http://esd.mit.edu/about/vmv/html)
Vision: “The fundamental principles and properties of engineering systems are well-understood, so
that these systems can be modeled, designed, and managed effectively”.
Mission: “To solve previously intractable engineering systems problems by integrating approaches
based on engineering, management, and social sciences, using new framing and modeling
methodologies. To facilitate the beneficial application of engineering systems principles and properties
by expanding the set of problems addressed by engineers. To position ESD graduates as tomorrow’s
system thinkers and leaders in tackling society’s challanges”.

Values: “Commitment to scholarship that addresses significant global problems by investigating ways
in which engineering systems behave and interact with one another. Development and evaluation of
system-level solutions that are sustainable in terms of social equity, economic development, and
environmental impact. Acceptance of intellectual risk, tackling issues that appear, at least in part, to be
non-quantifiable or vague. Respect for the disciplines encompassed with ESD research including
engineering, social sciences, and management”.

Stanford University. Stanford Graduate School of Business

(http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/stanford-gsb-experience/leadership)

Mission: “Our mission is to create ideas that deepen and advance our understanding of management
and with those ideas to develop, innovate, principled, and insightful leaders who change the world”.

Values: “Our values provide the context within which the school strives for excellence:
 Engage intellectually.
 Strive for something great.
 Respect others.
 Act with integrity.
 Own your actions”.

Reading carefully these statements we discover how spiritual knowledge has been used intrinsically
with emotional knowledge and rational knowledge in representing the intangible essence of each
organization. Spiritual leadership aims at creating spiritual knowledge, processing it efficiently by
using spiritual intelligence and generating this way organizational intellectual capital. I may conclude
this section with the living company idea developed by Aries de Geus (2002, p.236): “A living
company will have members, both people and institutions, who subscribe to a set of common values
and who believe that the goals of the company allow them and help them to achieve their own
individual goals”.

Workplace Spirituality

Although the concept of workplace spirituality is emerging in Knowledge Management in the last
decade, a comprehensive definition of it is difficult to formulate due to the fuzzy semantic status of the
concept of spirituality. Based on literature research, Giacalone & Jurkiewicz (2010b, p.13) provide us
with a working definition of workplace spirituality: “aspects of the workplace, either in the individual,
the group, or the organization, that promote individual feelings of satisfaction through transcendence”.
Here, the spiritual transcendence means the individual capacity to think beyond their immediate needs
of space and time, and to view their life from a larger and higher perspective that integrates individual
values and beliefs into those of the working community. Transcendence may address four major
questions concerning the workplace:
 Who am I? – the identity question.
 Why am I here ? – the meaning question.
 Whom I am belonging to? – the belonging question.
 Who controls me ? – the control power question.

For many people a job means much more than a salary or a negotiated package of money and personal
advantages. First, it comes the question of identity and creativity potential in a certain working
community. It is a matter of matching my aspirations with the job description and its content
dynamics. Then, it comes the question of meaning of my work and my contribution to the social value
created by organization. Although the working economics is focusing on profit and profit
maximization, the meaning of work should come from the final destination of the products and
services provided by organization for society. Meaning is in charge with the whole energy and efforts
an individual is disposed to invest in his or her job. If it is only for money, most people will choose to
work according to the minimum resistance principle. If it is for a certain purpose that gives meaning
and final satisfaction to their work, people will choose the dynamic equilibrium principle between
work requirements and personal involvement. But, if it is for a higher calling, then people will apply
the principle of changing the world, which means no limits anymore for personal energy and
creativity. People who want to change the world integrate their personal life into the working life,
which is a perfect illustration of the spiritual transcendence. Steve Jobs has been always obsessed with
this changing the world principle. For instance, in an interview published by Time on August 19, 1997,
Steve Jobs made a synthetic but inspirational description of the Apple company: “What is Apple, after
all? Apple is about people who think ‘outside the box’, people who want to use computers to help
them change the world, to help them create things that make a difference, and not just to get a job
done” (Beahm, 2011, p.63). The same idea expressed in an Apple’s “Think Different” commercial
(1997): “The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do”
(Isaacson, 2011, p.v). The third question concerns the feeling of belonging to a certain working
community with all your ideas, values and beliefs. This feeling should overcome the individual
competition fear and the failing fear. The last question comes as a logic consequence of the previous
ones, since the power of control should be the inspirational driving force of all the work and not the
ultimate judgment with its alternative forces of punishment and reward.

Workplace spirituality can be defined considering three main directions: a) transcendence of self,
which means going up beyond oneself; b) holism and harmony, which mean synchronization of
individual values with the organizational values; and c) growth, which means a result of self-
actualization. That means that spirituality should be conceived as a dynamic process and not as a
simple static image of one of its sequences. Ashforth and Pratt (2010, p.45) emphasize that
“Spirituality, as the state and process of transcendence, is necessarily about the individual: extending
the boundaries of the self, striving for holism and harmony of the self, and developing the self”.

When people spend most of their precious time working for a company, the workplace represents the
Nonakian Ba (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), where people not only do work, but create knowledge and
enrich their life experience (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2010a). The workplace is the dynamic context in
which people express themselves and strive for their fulfillment. “The experience itself provides
meaning and purpose – in short, the energy to pursue personal growth. In essence, this is the spirit of
the new workplace – the opportunity to transcend the physical and cognitive demands into the world
of emotional connection: doing inspired work” (Dehler & Welsh, 2010, p.67). The prerequisite of this
personal growth is the alignment of personal values with the organizational value system, which
means also to find meanings in the workplace and the work done. Research shows that the resonance
between a person and its organization is often a result of the congruence between the individual and
the organization values, beliefs, and practices (Ashforth & Pratt, 2010; Packard, 1995). For instance,
Giacalone and Jurkiewicz found in their research that “organizational spirituality was positively
related to job involvement, organizational identification, and work rewards satisfaction, and negatively
related to organizational frustration. Personal spirituality was positively related to intrinsic, extrinsic,
and total work rewards satisfaction” (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2010b, p.9).

Richard Barret (2010) explores the interface between organizational culture, corporate consciousness,
and workplace spirituality. He starts with the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and considers that each
level of this hierarchy can be thought of as a state of consciousness, and that the top level of self-
actualization can be expanded further into four levels of spiritual awareness: transformation, cohesion,
inclusion, and unity. That transforms the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs into a new structure with seven
levels representing seven stages in the development of personal consciousness. In the increasing order
of spirituality they are: survival, belonging, self-esteem, transformation, cohesion, inclusion, and
unity. “From a psychological perspective, the first three stages in the development of personal
consciousness represent stages in the development of the human ego, and the last three stages
represent stages in the development (or unfolding) of human soul” (Barret, 2010, p. 256). In the center
of this construct Barret puts the stage of transformation to emphasize its pivotal role. “The process of
learning how to balance the needs of the ego with the needs of the soul is called personal
transformation. Personal transformation occurs when the individual learns how to align the beliefs of
the ego with the beliefs of the soul” (Barret, 2010, p.257). These seven levels of personal
consciousness can be extended to the organizations. Based on the Barret (2010) research I shall
present briefly the main ideas of each level or stage of personal and organizational consciousness.

 Survival. For personal development this is a concerned with physical and biological survival.
That means food, water, clean air, clothes and housing to keep our bodies in a healthy
condition. Our focus in this stage of consciousness is self-preservation. For organizational
development the first stage is concerned with profitability that makes possible organizational
stability and its growth. Thus, financial stability is the main issue at this level of
consciousness.
 Belonging. For personal development this stage is focusing on emotional survival. People
need to know that they belong to a certain community, and they experience a healthy
emotional life. For organizational development this is a stage dedicated to interpersonal
relationship and communication. The focus of this stage is creating a sense of belonging for all
employees and strengthening the relations between the company and its customers.
 Self-esteem. Each of us needs to feel good about himself or herself, and to be respected by
other colleagues and peers. Self-esteem is a result of the appreciation we get from other people
for successful fulfillment of our tasks and activities. Thus, the focus in this stage is on
improving our work and image for the external environment. For organizational consciousness
development this stage is focusing on results, efficiency and productivity. Attention should be
concentrated on best practice and quality. However, the management should be able to avoid
the trap of bureaucracy, which may become a cancer for organization. “The focus of this stage
of consciousness is about using our minds to successfully navigate the external world;
ultimately it is about performance and efficiency” (Barret, 2010, p.260).
 Transformation. This is an important stage when we begin to transform ourselves driven by
our soul. We are looking for an expanded identity in a larger reference system that contains
the others as well. In other words, we want to expand our spiritual knowledge and
understanding. “Instead of reacting emotionally to situations or responding in ways that
suppress how we really feel, or ways that we believe will minimize unpleasant reactions, we
develop the ability to choose responses that are more authentic and affirming of who we really
are” (Barrtet, 2010, p.260). At the organizational level, this stage is important for intellectual
capital renewal, and developing innovation for new products and services. That means to
change the way employees think about themselves. They should get the mind and attitude of
entrepreneurs.
 Cohesion. The fifth stage is characterized by the personal search for meaning. One of the
obsessing questions of this stage is “What is the purpose of my life?” It is a hard question
since many people struggle with it almost all their life, without getting any clear answer. We
need to know that our life has got a meaning and to find out that meaning. Some people try to
unfold the answer from their actions and happenings, others create that meaning by
overcoming any barriers they may have. Some people do believe in a certain mission they
have, a mission able to motivate their soul. For organizational consciousness, this level is
focusing on a certain cultural identity, and a strong sense of community. Leaders integrate
individual values and beliefs into the organizational values and beliefs generating this way a
shared vision. That will make employees to be enthusiastic about their work.
 Inclusion. At this level of personal consciousness we learn to interact with the whole
community by making a difference. We can unfold our purpose and implement it in the
community through our actions. For organizational consciousness, at this level leaders should
expand the organization interface with its community, and make employees to take part in that
strategy. “The critical survival issue internally is to support all employees in finding personal
 fulfillment in their work. Employees find personal fulfillment by taking part in activities that
make a difference” (Barret, 2010, p.265).
 Unity. At this level of personal consciousness we learn that we don’t have any needs. We
think in terms of others. Everything we do for others, we do for ourselves. It is the level of
service for community. It is the way we can implement our mission, transforming thinking
about others into doing for others. For instance, we may think at Bunker Roy who assumed the
mission of empowerment and sustainability for poor villages in India by establishing in 1972
the Barefoot College as a non-governmental organization. For organizational consciousness
this level means a focus on “the deepening of the sense of community within the organization
and the expansion of the external sense of connection to society” (Barret, 2010, p.265).

There are two conditions for a company to enjoy a long lasting success: a) there must be a strong
alignment between the personal values of employees and the organizational values; b) the top ten
values of the organizational culture should cover the full spectrum of consciousness, not just a part of
it. That means there should be one or two values for each level of the spectrum presented above.

The Samsung Way: The Quest for Spiritual Leadership

Samsung Group is today the largest and the most important business conglomerate of Korea, with 75
affiliate companies in diverse industries. It has nearly 600 facilities in 63 countries performing a
variety of functions, including R&D, product design, production, and procurement. It has a labor force
of 500,000 employees, including all categories of professionals from PhDs to ordinary laborers. In
2014 the company was ranked 21st on Fortune’s “World’s Most Admired Companies” list. In 2013,
the annual revenue of Samsung Electronics, the flagship company of the Samsung Group, amounted to
228 trillion Korean won (about US$201 billion), surpassing those of Hewlett-Packard, Siemens, and
Apple. Samsung Electronics thus held the title of the world’s largest electronics and information
technology (IT) company for the fourth consecutive year, beginning in 2010. In addition, its operating
profits exceeded 36 trillion won (about US$34 billion), making Samsung Electronics the world’s best-
performing manufacturer in terms of profit. In 2012, it overtook Nokia to become the top company in
the mobile phone industry as well (Song & Lee, 2014).

Samsung was established in 1938 by Lee Byun-Chull in Daegu, which is the third largest city in
Korea. It began as a trader and distributor in food industry, especially vegetables and dried seafood. In
1953-1954 Samsung entered into manufacturing industry: electronics, heavy industry, and chemicals.
It developed continuously becoming a large company in the Korea’s economy. In the late 1980s
Samsung started the semiconductor business and became a leading company in Korea. In 1987 the
founder of the company died and the new CEO became Lee Kun-Hee, the third son of Lee Byun-
Chull. Lee Kun-Hee studied at the Seoul National University, Waseda University School of
Commerce in Tokyo, and George Washington University in Washington, D.C., where he received an
MBA degree. Returning from the United States in 1966, Lee began his training as an executive of
Samsung Group, working for Tongyang Broadcasting Company. In 1979 Lee was promoted as vice-
chairman of Samsung Group, working closely with his father. After his father death in 1987, Lee was
installed as the chairman of Samsung Group.

Lee Kun-Hee is a visionary leader. He transformed completely Samsung into a global business group,
becoming number one in electronics, shipbuilding, heavy industry, and chemicals. “In 1987, the year
Chairman Lee took over, the total revenue of Samsung Group was 10 trillion won, but by 2013, this
figure had increased 41 times, to 410 trillion won (US&376 billion). Samsung’s market capitalization
had increased 300-fold, from 1 trillion won to 318 trillion won (US$301 billion) as of April 3, 2014.
Some 25 years after Chairman Lee’s accession, Samsung’s exports had increased 25-fold, while its
share of Korea’s total exports rose from 13 percent to 28 percent” (Song & Lee, 2014, p.4). These
amazing results can be explain by the visionary leadership realized by Lee, a leadership based on a
solid system of values and a deep understanding of the change process. For him, change was the
engine of progress and the force to transform a domestic company into a world-class company.
According to Song and Lee (2014, p.vii), “The effort to achieve these audacious goals was summed up
in Chairman’s Lee directive to his senior executives: Change everything except your wife and
children.” This imperative was congruent with the new management philosophy of using all tangible
and intangible resources to create superior products and services that contribute to a better global
society. Also, it was congruent with the new Samsung ethos expressed in three fundamental ideas: 1)
Be with the customer; 2) Challenge the world; and 3) Create the future.

Spirituality and spiritual leadership have always played an essential role in Samsung. As the company
evolved from a local trader and distributor to a large company in Korea, and from being a leading
company in Korea to become a global leader, Samsung basic values and management philosophy
changed accordingly. By 1973, Samsung had built its management philosophy on the following three
basic values: contribution to the nation, people first, and pursuit of rationality. Contribution to the
nation was important as a driving force for the company to become a business leader in Korea. People
first showed the concern of the management for the employees, following the tradition of the Japanese
companies. Pursuit of rationality refers to the founder’s imperative that managerial decision making
must be sustained by rational analyses and economic data. This approach created a quantitative-driven
management and an economic metric. In 1984, after an executive-level workshop, Samsung enlarged
its value spectrum to comprise also creativity, integrity, excellence, perfectionism, and co-prosperity.
Based on these values the company elaborated a competitive strategy suitable for a fast follower.

In 1993, Lee launched The New Management initiative as a new driving force toward the global
leadership. “The core of Lee’s New Management initiative was the transformation of Samsung from a
quantity-driven company to a quality-driven company in terms of its mindset, systems, and practices.
Chairman Lee firmly believed that Samsung could become a world-class company in the twenty-first
century, but only if put quality first” (Song & Lee, 2014, p.39). The most difficult change proved to be
the mindset change. As a fast follower Samsung stressed the importance of speed in making decisions
for new investments and creating new products and services. That means to have a second-place
mindset. To become a global leader that mindset had to be replaced with another one, with emphasis
on quality. In one of his public addresses, Chairman Lee Kun-Hee underlined that need of change and
the necessity of a new strategic thinking: “The future belongs to those who explore and challenge
earlier than others. In an environment that never stops changing, we need the insight to grasp
opportunity fast, and the wisdom to turn a crisis into an opportunity. With strategic thinking and a
preemptive and challenging mind, we can strengthen competitiveness by using our limited resources
more efficiently” (Song & Lee, 2014, p.77).

In 2005, Samsung evaluated again its core values and adjusted them to match the new management
philosophy and its new business principles. The new management, the core values and the business
principles constitute today Samsung’s Trinity of Values. The company defined 5 overarching
principles, 15 detailed principles, and 42 conduct rules that its employees are expected to follow. The
new management philosophy has been conceived to help Samsung to become a global leader and to
fulfill its social responsibility, while meeting the expectations of its stakeholders. According to the
new management philosophy, “Samsung will devote its human resources and technology to create
superior products and services, thereby contributing to a better global society” (Song & Lee, 2014,
p.111). Samsung’s core values are the following:

 People. This is an enduring value for Samsung set up by its founder Lee Byung-Chull. In
essence, a company means its people. Samsung is dedicated to offer its employees a large
spectrum of opportunities to develop professionally and to reach their full potential. It is
interesting to remark the fact that for Lee Byung-Chull people sought to be hired had to fit the
company profile, which led to a kind of standard employee. For instance, Samsung did not
accept talented people but having strong personality and a well defined sense of independence.
However, once Samsung decided to become a global leader it realized that standard people
cannot be creative and don’t have the courage of thinking to breakthrough ideas. The new
human resources management policy is to search for highly talented, creative and genius-level
talent. To stimulate this king of people to work for Samsung, the company developed a new
performance-based compensation and promotion policy.
  Change. Samsung’s leadership is aware that in a fast change global economy, change and
innovation become key success factors for a global leader. From its foundation Samsung was
searching for the future trying to anticipate business opportunities. Moreover, change has to be
sustained by speed in managerial decision making. Thus, speed became one of the defining
characteristics of the company. “Recently, because of its speed in making and executing
decisions, Samsung has successfully transformed itself from a fast follower to a market leader.
Samsung’s speed is a powerful competitive weapon and a notable strength of its paradox
management strategy” (Song & Lee, p.14).
 Excellence. Everything at Samsung is driven by a recognized passion for excellence. The
transformation from a quantity-driven company to a quality-driven company made Samsung a
house of quality. Chairman Lee Kun-Hee made it clearly: “If Samsung’s business lines or
products are not number one or the only in their industry, they will not survive. In the past,
companies could survive in second place by imitating advanced products. Today, however, it
is almost impossible to survive in the market in the second place” (Song & Lee, 2014, p.117).
 Integrity. From its foundation by Lee Byung-Chull Samsung asked all employees to act
ethically and in concordance with the internal code of conduct. For instance, the dress code
was required up until recently, when it was abolished. Now, employees can come at work with
a casual business dress. “Everything that Samsung does is guided by a moral compass that
ensures fairness, respect for all stakeholders, and complete transparency” (Song & Lee, 2014,
p.112).
 Co-prosperity. Prosperity is a measure of any success in business. However, prosperity should
be conceived not only for employees, but also for the community where the company does its
business. Once Samsung became a global player the meaning of prosperity enlarged to contain
the global corporate social responsibility. This value is necessary also for attracting talented
people all over the world to work for Samsung.

The third pillar of the Samsung’s Trinity Values is represented by the set of five business principles:

 Samsung complies with laws and ethical standards.

 Samsung maintains a clean organizational culture.
 Samsung respects customers, shareholders, and employees.
 Samsung cares for the environment, health, and safety.
 Samsung is a socially responsible corporate citizen.

This Trinity of Values has been embedded into a creative organizational culture. In the 2000s
Chairman Lee began advocating a shift in the company culture from well-managed Samsung to
creative Samsung. “His most significant effort was directed at building a creative organizational
culture, which he regarded as a prerequisite if employees were to be creative and to come up with
ideas that would lead to the realization of creative management” (Song & Lee, 2014, p.113).

MANAGEMENT AND ANTIMANAGEMENT

Organizational Values and Antivalues

We need to go back to metaphorical thinking. Let us remember from high school physics about
particles and antiparticles. They are particles with same physical characteristics except one, which has
opposing values in two different particles. For instance, electron and positron are two particles with
the same physical characteristics except electrical charge: electron has a negative electrical charge and
positron has an equal but positive electrical charge. Positrons are produced in natural radioactivity
decay. When an electron and a positron knock against each other they annihilate immediately
producing a pair of gamma rays. Since the electrons and positrons have opposite electrical charge they
will move in opposing directions when introduced into the same electrical field. This physical
phenomenon can be mapped onto an organizational field of forces. In this organizational context we
may find two persons having similar knowledge, competences and intelligences with the only
exception of spiritual values they believe in. For instance, one manager believes in the wellbeing of
the whole organization and in its competitive advantage. The other manager believes in his own
interests and only in profit maximization. If we assign to the first manager a positive value charge,
then the second manager will be charged with a negative value. As a direct result of their opposing
value charges, their decisions will be opposing one to each other. The positively charged manager will
drive the organization toward performance and competitive advantage, while the negatively charged
manager will drive the organization toward non-performance and decline. That means management
and antimanagement. Recent business history contains many examples of companies which collapsed
due to the antimangement practiced by managers being interested only in their own bank accounts.
Examples are even more astonishing when considering the transition economies in the former socialist
countries from the Central and Eastern Europe, where antimanagement has been the rule and
performance management the exception. Thus, the organizational spirituality should be understood in
its both operational states, that of management and, respectively, that of antimanagement. I shall
discuss more about this phenomenon in the following sections by considering Corporate Social
Responsibility and Corporate Social Irresponsibility.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is an emerging and debatable concept both in academic
research and in the organizational practice (Basu & Palazzo, 2008; Devinney, 2009; Flammer, 2013;
Frynas, 2005; Lange &Washburn, 2012; Matten & Moon, 2008; Orlitzky, 2013; Porter & Kramer,
2011). First of all, the concept is supposed to integrate three semantic domains belonging to the
components: corporate, social, and responsibility. If the first semantic domain is clear, the situation is
rather fuzzy for the semantic domains of the concepts “social” and “responsibility”. More specifically,
it is not clear what are the characteristics of these semantic domains that count for the composed
concept CSR. Second, the composed meaning of CSR depends on the business culture and legislation
in each country. Thus, the interpretation of the CSR is context dependent. “Given that different
societies have developed different systems of markets, reflecting their institutions, their customary
ethics, and their social relations, it would therefore follow that we might expect some differences in
the ways in which corporations express and pursue their social responsibilities among different
societies” (Matten & Moon, 2008, p.407). These differences in the national business cultures and
legislation systems lead some authors to distinguish between “explicit CSR” and “implicit CSR”. “By
‘explicit’ CSR we refer to corporate policies that assume and articulate responsibility for some societal
interests” (Matten & Moon, 2008, p.409). Explicit CSR is characteristic for the American
corporations, while implicit CSR for the European corporations. “Implicit CSR normally consists of
values, norms, and rules that result in (mandatory and customary) requirements for corporations to
address stakeholder issues and that define proper obligations of corporate actors in collective rather
than individual terms” (Matten & Moon, 2008, p.409).

In the beginning CSR reflected more the social dimension, which means paying fair wages to
employees and community-based programs; later on CSR included the environmental responsibility
(e.g., the reduction of CO2 emissions). CSR may be considered as a spin-off of organizational
spirituality aiming at balancing somehow the focus on profit maximization without any regards to the
wellbeing of people and the protection of the natural environment. I shall give just an illustrative
example: many power plants using classical technologies for burning coal or oil with a relative high
percentage of sulphur did not install from the very beginning filters to reduce the amount of sulphur
dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. During rains this sulphur dioxide combined with water and
produced acid rains that destroyed vegetation on large land areas. Investing in high technology filters
means a lower margin for profit but a better protection of the natural environment, and a clear
demonstration of the CSR, especially when legislation does not impose certain levels of acceptable air
pollution. CSR in itself does not solve any problems. It must be applied in a specific social,
economical, cultural, and legislative context (Devinney, 2009). “The focus on profit being king has
caused significant negative, unintended consequences. For over a century and a half cheap labor,
damaged lives, a destroyed planet and polluted seas were all irrelevant when set against the need for
profit. But this is changing” (Branson, 2011, p.21).

In a profound analysis made to the vicious circle created by CSR, Porter and Kramer (2011)
demonstrate that organizational spirituality must shift managerial thinking focused on short-term
financial wins toward long-term decision making based on value creation and not on profit
maximization. CSR which has been developed as a peripheral organizational attitude in order to
impose some limits on depletion of natural resources, must become central to managerial thinking and
enriched in its content: “The solution lies in the principle of shared values, which involves creating
economic value in a way that also creates value for society by addressing its needs and challenges.
Businesses must reconnect company success with social progress. Shared value is not social
responsibility, philanthropy, or even sustainability, but a new way of to achieve economic success. It
is not on the margin of what companies do but at the center” (Porter & Kramer, 2011, p.64).

That means a new understanding of spiritual knowledge, spiritual intelligence and organizational
spiritual capital (Branson, 2011; Hamel, 2012; Zohar & Marshall, 2004). As a consequence, that
means a new capitalism, which Richard Branson (2011, p.35) calls Capitalism 24902: “Ultimately,
Capitalism 24902 is all about people, finding the right entrepreneurs to shift to a new way of doing
business and getting every single person in the company excited about playing a part in making a
difference”.

Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CSI)

Lange and Washburn (2012) remark that many authors prefer to discuss about corporate social
responsibility although the core of the problem is generated by the corporate social irresponsibility.
“Irresponsibility, distinct from responsibility, is often not discussed explicitly in the CSR literature,
but the implication is that irresponsibility is simply the opposite side of the responsibility coin – that
is, the failure to act responsible” (Lange & Washburn, 2012, p.300). Business experience demonstrates
that a company that is seen as a bad actor in community, may have difficulties in attracting investors,
employees and even customers. Negative reputation harms any company. Research on emotional and
spiritual knowledge show that social irresponsibility has a much deeper perception than any positive
results of CSR. We should not forget that there is only one positive fundamental emotion and five
negative fundamental emotions, and as Lange and Washburn (2012, p.301) emphasize “corporate
behavior is socially irresponsible only to the extent that observers perceive it as such”. The perception
of the corporate social irresponsibility can be generated by one or a combination of the following three
factors: a) observer assessment that corporate business yields negative consequences for society; b)
observer assessment that the corporation is somehow culpable; and c) observer assessment that the
affected party is at least somehow noncomplicit.

Corporate social irresponsibility could be also a result of antimanagement practice in combination

with any of the above observer’s assessments. The best example is the story with the Enron company
(Benston & Hartgraves, 2002; Chatterjee, 2003; Lev, 2002). Enron Corporation of Houston, Texas,
was one of the largest corporations in the world. On December 2, 2001, Enron filed for bankruptcy
under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. With assets of $63.4 billion, it is the largest
US corporate bankruptcy. As Benston and Hartgraves (2002, p.107) remark, “there is much yet to
learn about the full extent to which Enron’s financial statements were incomplete or misleading, the
effect of these shortcomings on the dramatic decline in the price of Enron’s stock, Andersen’s role in
and responsibility for incorrect numbers presented in Enron’s financial statements, and the extent to
which it is responsible for Enron’s failure or losses incurred by employees and investors”. The Enron’s
story is important also since it uncovers new vulnerabilities of the companies with a high ration of
intellectual capital over the physical capital. Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan in his
Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress (February 27, 2002) underlined this new
knowledge economy’s vulnerabilities giving Enron as an example: “The rapidity of Enron’s decline is
an effective illustration of the vulnerability of a firm whose market value largely rests on capitalized
reputation. The physical assets of such a firm comprise a small proportion of its asset base. Trust and
reputation can vanish overnight. A factory cannot” (Lev, 2002, p.132).

Antimanagement practice generated in many companies significant corruption and white-collar crimes
(Aguilera & Vadera, 2008; Garoupa, 2007; Gottschalk, 2013; Heath, 2008). White-collar crimes refer
to financial crime committed by trusted persons in important business positions. Gottschalk (2013,
p.4) explains that “Corporate crime occurs when, for example, fraud or corruption is being committed
on behalf of an organization, that is, the crime is being committed to benefit the business. Increased
sales, building permits and local monopoly are examples of benefits from corruption”. It is interesting
that these types of crimes are a direct result of organizational spirituality built on negative values,
without direct consequences on those who make such kind of decisions against any business ethics.
Heath (2008, p.600) makes it clear that “Firms engage in corporate crime to improve their financial
performance. Employees break the law in ways that enhance the profits of the firm, but which may
generate very little or no personal benefit for themselves when committing corporate crime”.
However, in an indirect way and based on a nonlinear logic all of these corporate crimes are
committed by managers who think also for themselves and for their future benefits. Their spiritual
knowledge is structured on personal and organizational antivalues, and their behavior reflects a low
level of spiritual intelligence (Zohar & Marshall, 2004).

FUTURE TRENDS

Spiritual knowledge is an emerging concept in the organizational theory research as well as in the
practical management and leadership life. However, spiritual knowledge reflects the essence of any
human aspiration and the kernel of any strategic thinking. Future research should concentrate
especially on the paradox of spiritual knowledge and organizational spirituality, paradox that contrast
the materialistic and profit maximization focus of shareholders with the intangible values of a
sustainable company. Research should also reveal how to design the working place such that to
transform a physical environment into a full spiritual one, in which people can find meaning and
purpose for their work and existence. Knowing that organizational spirituality may have as well a
negative counterpart, it is important to understand the antimanagement process and to prevent its
development in any organization.

CONCLUSIONS

Spiritual knowledge is the third fundamental component of the triple helix of knowledge, and it
integrates dynamically with rational knowledge and emotional knowledge. Spiritual knowledge is
beyond our biological body and the physical environment of the company, and it departs from the
axioms of the Newtonian economics and Cartesian dualism of body and mind. Spiritual knowledge
contains possible answers to some of the fundamental questions of our existence, and our
connectedness to the universe. By expanding our individual knowledge up to the level of organization
we may consider a field of spiritual knowledge reflecting the vision, mission and core values of the
organization. Spiritual knowledge and spiritual intelligence integrating in the concept of leadership
yield spiritual leadership, an emerging concept able to define and sustain the transformational
leadership of any organization. However, organizational spirituality may generates decision making
processes based on negative values leading toward corporate social irresponsibility and even corporate
crimes. It is compelling for economic and business education to find solutions for new mental models
based on spiritual knowledge and intelligence.

REFERENCES
Aguilera, R.V. & Vadera, A.K. (2008). The dark side of authority: Antecedents, mechanisms, and
outcomes of organizational corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 431-449.

Amram, Y. & Dryer, D.C. (2008). The integrated spiritual intelligence scale (ISIS): Developmnt and
preliminary validation. Paper presented at the 116th Annual Conference of the American Psychological
Association, Boston, MA, August 14-17, 2008.

Ariely, D. (2010). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. Revised and
expended edition. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Ashforth, B.E. & Pratt, M.G. (2010). Institutionalized spirituality. An oxymoron? In R.A. Giacalone &
C.L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.). Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp.44-
58). 2nd Edition. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Barret, R. (2010). Culture and consciousness. Measuring spirituality in the workplace by mapping
values. In R.A. Giacalone & C.L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.). Handbook of workplace spirituality and
organizational performance (pp.255-275). 2nd Edition. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Bass, B.M. & Riggio, R.E. (2006). Transformational leadership. 2nd Edition. London, UK: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Basu, K. & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking.
Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 122-136.

Beahm, G. (Ed.) (2011). I, Steve. Steve Jobs in his own words. London, UK: Hardie Grand Books.

Benefiel, M. (2005). The second half of the journey: Spiritual leadership for organizational
transformation. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 723-747.

Benston, G.J. & Hartgraves, A.L. (2002). Enron: What happened and what we can learn from it.
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 21, 105-127.

Branson, R. (2011). Screw business as usual. London, UK: Virgin Books.

Bratianu, C. (2013a). The triple helix of the organizational knowledge. Management Dynamics in the
Knowledge Economy, 1(2), 207-220.

Bratianu, C. (2013b). Nonlinear integrators of the organizational intellectual capital. In M. Fathi (Ed.).
Integration of practice-oriented knowledge technology: trends and perspectives (pp.3-16).
Heilderberg, Germany: Springer.

Chatterjee, S. (2003). Enron’s incremental descent into bankruptcy: A strategic and organizational
analysis. Long Range Planning, 36, 133-149.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. Why some companies make the leap… and others don’t. New York,
N.Y.: HarperCollins Publishers.

Collins, J. & Porras, J.I. (2002). Built to last. Successful habits of visionary companies. New York,
NY: HarperBusiness Essentials.

Daft, R.L. (2008). The leadership experience. 4th Edition. London, UK: Thomson South-Western.

Dalai Lama (1999). Ethics for the millennium. New York, NY: Putnam.
Davenport, T.H. (2005). Thinking for a living. How to get better performance and results from
knowledge workers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Davies, R.J. & Ikeno, O. (2002). The Japanese mind. Understanding contemporary Japanese culture.
Boston, MA: Tuttle Publishing.

De Geus, A. (2002). The living company. Growth, learning and longevity in business. London, UK:
Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Dehler, G.E. & Welsh, M.A. (2010). The experience of work. Spirituality and the new workplace. In
R.A. Giacalone & C.L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.). Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational
performance (pp.59-72). 2nd Edition. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Dess, G.G., Lumpkin, G.T. & Eisner, A.B. (2006). Strategic management. Text and cases. 2nd Edition.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Devinney, T.M. (2009). Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad, and the
ugly of corporate social responsibility. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(2), 44-56.

Drucker, P. (1993a). Management: Tasks, responsibilities, practices. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.

Drucker, P. (1993b). Managing in turbulent times. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.

Drucker, P. (2008). The age of discontinuity. Guidelines to our changing society. London, UK:
Transaction Publishers.

Egner, R.E. & Denonn, L.E. (1961). The basic writings of Bertrand Russell. New York, NY: Simon
and Schuster.

Emmons, R. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concerns: Motivations and spirituality in personality.
New York, NY: Guilford.

Emmons, R. (2000). Is spirituality an intelligence? Motivation, cognition and the psychology of the
ultimate concern. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10(1), 3-26.

Fisher, L. (1962). The essential Gandhi. His life, work, and ideas. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Flammer, C. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental
awareness of investors. Academy of Management Review, 56(3), 758-781.

Frynas, J.G. (2005). The false developmental promise of corporate social responsibility: Evidence
from multinational oil companies. International Affaires, 81, 581-598.

Fry, W.L. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693-727.

Fry, W.L., Matherly, L.L., Whittington, J.L. & Winston, B.E. (2007). Spiritual leadership as an
integrating paradigm for servant leadership. In S. Singh-Sengupta & D. Fields (Eds.). Integrating
spirituality and organizational leadership. New Delhi, India: Macmillan India, Ltd.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of the mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic
Books.

Gardner, H. (2006a). Changing minds. The art and science of changing our own and other people’s
minds. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Gardner, H. (2006b). Five minds for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Garoupa, N. (2007). Optimal law enforcement and criminal organization. Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization, 63(3), 461-474.

Giacalone, R.A. & Jurkiewicz, C.L. (Eds.) (2010a). Handbook of workplace spirituality and
organizational performance. 2nd edition. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Giacalone, R.A. & Jurkiewicz, C.L. (2010b). The science of workplace spirituality. In R.A. Giacalone
& C.L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.). Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp.3-
26). 2nd Edition. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Gladwell, M. (2010). The tipping point. How little things can make a big difference. London, UK:
Abacus.

Goleman, D. (1999). Working with emotional intelligence. London, UK: Bloomsbury.

Gottschalk, P. (2013). White-collars criminals in modern management. Modern Management Science

& Engineering, 1(1), 1-12.

Halama, P. & Strizenec, M. (2004). Spiritual, existential or both? Theoretical considerations on the
nature of ‘higher intelligence’. Studia Psychologica, 46(3), 239-253.

Hamel, G. (2012). What matters now: How to win in a world of relentless change, feroucious
competition, and unstoppable innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Heath, J. (2008). Business ethics and moral motivation: A criminological perspective. Journal of
Business Ethics, 83(4), 595-614.

Heath, C. & Heath, D. (2013). Decisive: How to make better choices in life and work. New York, NY:
Crown Business.

Hosseini, M., Elias, H., Krauss, S.E. & Aishah, S. (2010). A review study on spiritual intelligence,
adolescence and spiritual intelligence, factors that may contribute to individual differences in spiritual
intelligence, and the related theories. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 2(2), 179-188.

Isaacson, W. (2011). Steve Jobs. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Johnson, G., Whittington, R. & Scholes, K. (2011). Exploring strategy. Text and cases. 9th Edition.
London, UK: Prentice Hall.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kass, J., Friedman, R., Leserman, J., Zuttermeister, P. & Benson, H. (1991). Health outcomes and new
index of spiritual experience. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30(2), 203-211.

Kasser, T. (2002). The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kaufman, S.F. (1994). The martial artist’s book of five rings. The definitive interpretation of
Miyamoto Musashi’s classic book of strategy. Boston, MA: Tuttle Publishing.

Kermally, S. (2002). Effective knowledge management. A best practice blueprint. New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons.

Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Lange, D. (2008). A multidimensional conceptualization of organizational corruption control.
Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 710-729.

Lange, D. & Washburn, N.T. (2012). Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility.
Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 300-326.

Lev, B. (2002). Where have all of Enron’s intangible gone? Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,
21, 131-135.

Mathur, S.S. & Kenyon, A. (1998). Creating value. Shaping tomorrow’s business. Boston, MA:
Butterworth Heinemann.

Matten, D. & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a
comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2),
404-424.

Maxwell, N. (2007). From knowledge to wisdom. A revolution for science and the humanities. 2nd
Edition. London, UK: Pentire Press.

Misangyi, V.F., Weaver, G.R. & Elms, H. (2008). Ending corruption: The interplay among
institutional logics, resources, and institutional entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Review, 33(3),
750-770.

Mitroff, I. & Denton, E.A. (1999). A study of spirituality in the workplace. Sloan Management review,
40(4), 83-92.

Moosmayer, D.C. (2012). A model of management academics’ intention to influence values. Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 11(2), 155-174.

Nasel, D.D. (2004). Spiritual orientation in relation to spiritual intelligence: A new consideration of
traditional Christianity and New Age/individualistic spirituality. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
South Australia, Australia.

Neck, C.P. & Milliman, J.F. (1994). Thought self-leadership: Finding spiritual fulfillment in
organizational life. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 9(6), 9-16.

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. How Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Orlitzky, M. (2013). Corporate social responsibility, noise, and stock market volatility. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 27(3), 238-254.

Osterloh, M. (2007). Human resources management and knowledge creation. In K. Ichijo & I. Nonaka
(Eds.). Knowledge creation and management. New challenges for managers (pp. 158-175). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.

Packard, D. (1995). The HP way. How Bill Hewlett and I built our company. New York, NY:
HarperBusiness.

Pavot, W. & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction With Life Scale. Psychological Assessment,
5(2), 164-172.
 Pinto, J., Leana, C.R. & Pil, F.K. (2008). Corrupt organizations or organizations of corrupt
individuals? Two types of organization-level corruption. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 685-
710.

Pless, N.M., Maak, T. & Waldman, D.A. (2012). Different approaches toward doing the right thing:
Mapping the responsibility orientations of leaders. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 51-
65.

Porter, M.E. & Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating shared values. How to reinvent capitalism – and
unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, January-February, 2011, 63-77.

Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness. The Leadership
Quartely, 16, 655-687.

Ricard, M. (2007). Happiness: A guide to developing life’s most important skill. New York, NY:
Little, Brown and Company.

Rutherford, M.A., Parks, L., Cavazos, D.E. & White, C.D. (2012). Business Ethics as a required
course: Investigating factors impacting the decision to require Ethics in the undergraduate business
core curriculum. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(2), 174-186.

Schein, E.H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. 3rd Edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

Smith, A. (2007). Wealth of nations (With an introduction and notes by Jonathan B. Wight).
Hampshire, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Song, J. & Lee, K. (2014). The Samsung way. Transformational management strategies from the
world leader in innovation and design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Stam, C. (2007). Knowledge productivity. Design and testing a method to diagnose knowledge
productivity and plan for enhancement. Ph.D. Thesis, Twente University, 20 December 2007.

Taleb, N.N. (2007). The black swan. The impact of the highly improbable. London, UK: Penguin -
Books.

Taleb, N.N. (2012). Antifragile. How to live in a world we don’t understand. London, UK: Allen Lane.

Vaughan, F. (2002). What is spiritual intelligence? Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 42(2), 16-33.

Wang, L., Malhotra, D. & Murnigham, J.K. (2011). Economics education and greed. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 10(4), 643-660.

Warren, K. (2008). Strategic management dynamics. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Wigglesworth, C. (2003). Spiritual intelligence: What is it? How can we measure it? Why would
business care? Retrieved on 29 March, 2014 from www.consciouspursuits.com

Zohar, D. & Marshall, I. (2000). SQ: Spiritual intelligence. The ultimate intelligence. London, UK:
Bloomsbury.

Zohar, D. & Marshall, I. (2004). Spiritual capital. Wealth we can live by. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers, Inc.

View publication stats