SPIRITUAL CAPITALISM: AN OXYMORON

TERM PAPER

BY

SHOAIB UL-HAQ

PhD Management
07080001

1
Modern capitalism emerged in the early 19 th century in Western Europe and gradually
spread from Europe, across political and cultural frontiers, to the rest of the world.
Recognizing the unparalleled dynamism of this new socio-economic system, Marx and
Engels predicted in 1848 that capitalism would spread to the entire world. Writing in The
Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels portrayed the newly emergent capitalist system
of Western Europe as historically unprecedented in its dynamism and productivity, so
dynamic and productive in fact, that the whole world would become capitalist, forced to
change in response to the awesome capacity of Western economies.

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production,

by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the
most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of its commodities
are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with
which it forces the barbarian’s intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to
capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the
bourgeoisie mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls
civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeoisie themselves. In one
word, it creates a world after its own image.

By the end of the 20th century, that prediction was confirmed. Today, most of the world
nations have re-oriented their social economic systems towards capitalism. Business
organizations, spawned by capitalism, have become instrumental in creating economic
wealth and have helped in creating a complex and highly technological social system
around the world. Due to the ever-increasing influence of the capitalistic form of
economic organization, it is utmost important to study the assumptions made by this
system about human nature and its social impact.

Assumptions of Capitalism about Human Nature and Values

Self-interest
With the publication of Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes (1651/1929) identified self-interest as
the most powerful drive in man, a status it enjoys to this day. Hobbes saw self-interest as
a prime mover among the various motives in a human being and emphasized its great
personal and social importance (see Myers, 1983 for a review). This self interest
assumption has a venerable history in classical economic theory. The grandfather of
capitalistic thought, Adam Smith, treated the individuals’ pursuit of self-interest as the
gravitational law for economic life. He wrote in “The 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. We address
ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them
of our own necessities, but of their advantages. (Smith, 1776)

Smith believed that the system of Capitalism works best when capitalists, laborers and
consumers are each able to pursue their own self-interest to the maximum extent possible.
This prompted Sen to write,

2
 “The first principle of Economics is that every agent is actuated only by self-
interest.”… This view of man has been a persistent one in economic models,
and the nature of economic theory seems to have been much influenced by
this basic premise. (Sen, 1977)

This assumption about human nature implies that owners of the means of production are
not expected to create products and hire laborers for the social good, but rather as a
means of creating profit and accumulating further capital for their own self-interest. But
laborers, too, act in their own self-interest, selling their time, energy and skills not for the
social good but instead for the highest possible wage. Finally, consumers also enter the
marketplace and use the income they have acquired in order to purchase the goods and
services that they desire, i.e., that serve their self-interest. Of course, consumers’ self-
interest is best served if they can buy products or services for the lowest possible price
and thus expend as little income as possible, even if this lowers profits for capitalists and
wages for laborers.

Competition for Limited Resources

The pursuit of self-interest implies competition among individuals as each pursues his/her
own interests, often in opposition to the interests of others. Scholars ranging from Adam
Smith to Milton Friedman have argued that competition is necessary in order to promote
efficiency and wealth. They look at competition as a natural state of affairs. According to
Smith in his book, The Wealth of Nations, a competitive free market is best not because
people ought to be free to buy and sell as they please but because any other form of
economic organization will do violence to man’s basic nature. This competition for
limited resources will lead individuals to prosperity. For example, the capitalist, who
hopes to maximize profit by keeping costs (including wages) low and prices high; the
laborer, who hopes to have high wages; and the consumers, who hopes that the costs of
products and services will be low. Further, when capitalists compete with each other,
producers who provide excellent goods and services at relatively low prices will
assumedly attract more customers, and therefore generate more profit, than producers
who make poor goods and services and/or charge relatively high prices. Similarly,
laborers who provide more valued skills for lower pay will be more likely to obtain
wages than will laborers whose skills are common, poorly developed, and/or who
demand higher pay. Capitalists are also in competition with each other for labor, and thus
there is some pressure on them to pay relatively high wages and offer good jobs in order
to obtain workers. Finally, consumers compete with each other; if many people want a
particular product or service, and the supply is limited, the price goes up.

By pitting individuals against one another within the survival of the fittest atmosphere,
capitalism fosters the notion of competition as a prerequisite to capitalist society.

Consumption
In earlier times, consumption meant waste, squandering and a loss to economic, moral
and political flows of value (Williams, 1976). By the 18 th century, however, the word can
be used technically and neutrally within economic and other discourses to signify a

3
natural part of these flows and at the same time their logical goal. Adam Smith placed
consumption at the heart of the market society, writing

Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production and the interest of
the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for
promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self-evident, that it
would be absurd to attempt to prove it. (Smith, 1776)

This changed the meaning of consumption from waste to active seeking of personal
gratification through material goods. Moreover, it leads to the “monotonicity” assumption
which depicts that men have an insatiable demand to consume more of a desirable
commodity (Schwartz, 1986). Nicholas Barbon, one of the first proponents of the free
market, wrote in his book, A Discourse of Trade,

The Wants of the Mind are infinite, Man naturally Aspires, and as his Mind is
elevated, his Senses grow more refined, and more capable of Delight; his
Desires are inlarged, and his Wants increase with his Wishes, which is for
everything that is rare, can gratifie his Senses, adorn His body and promote
the Ease, Pleasure and Pomp of life………. The main spur to Trade, or rather
to Industry and Ingenuity, is the exorbitant Appetites of Men which they will
take pains to gratifie, and so be disposed to work, when nothing else will
incline them to it; for did Men content themselves with bare Necessities, we
should have a poor World (Barbon, 1690)

Thus, consumption became a mechanism through which people indulge themselves,

seeking gratification immediately and tangibly. The major purpose of business in society
is to provide people with the good life through the production of more and more goods
and services to be consumed.

Self-Esteem
According to the philosophies and values underlying the capitalistic system, one’s wealth
is an indicator of one’s worth to society (Smith, 1776/1976; Weber, 1905/2002;
Younkins, 2002). Specifically, Capitalism needs individuals to believe that their relative
worth is reflected in their accumulation of wealth and capacity to consume, as such
beliefs increase the likelihood that people will work hard to earn money which they will
then spend on goods and services that in turn create a profit for corporations. For the
individual person, self-worth may be judged by the size of a person’s bank account and
stock portfolio, and the number and quality of his/her possessions. A principal means by
which worth or esteem is demonstrated under capitalism is through financial success.

Another key to understanding what possessions mean is recognizing that, knowingly or

unknowingly, intentionally or unintentionally, we regard our possessions as parts of
ourselves (Belk, 1988). The premise that we regard our possessions as parts of ourselves
is not new. William James (1890, pp/ 291-292), who laid the foundation for modern
conceptions of self, held that:

4
 A man’s self is the sum total of all that he CAN call his, not only his body and
his psychic powers, but his clothes and his house, his wife and children, his
ancestors and friends, his reputation and works, his lands, and yacht and
bank-account. All these things give him the same emotions. If they wax and
prosper, he feels triumphant; if they dwindle and die away, he feels cast down
– not necessarily in the same degree for each thing, but in much the same
way for all.

If we define possessions as things we call ours, James is saying that we are the sum of
our possessions.

To summarize, the basic premise of capitalism is that members of society will be

provided with the opportunity to get what they want through competing with each other
and pursuing their self-interests. Moreover, such competition is assumed to lead to the
highest quality goods and services at the lowest price to the consumer, thus benefiting
society as a whole.

I now turn to the spiritual turn in capitalism by first elaborating spirituality in general and
workplace spirituality in particular.

Spiritual turn in Capitalism

Management researchers have frequently drawn attention to the metaphorical use of
religious language suggested to characterize its practice. Some have described the level
of belief involved in selling new management ideas to employees as ‘religious fervor’
(Bank, 1992) or ‘messianic zeal’ (Pettigrew, 1985). ‘Mission’ and ‘vision’ are terms
suggested to be ‘redolent with theological meaning’ (Vinten: 2000) yet they are widely
used in business and management, and it has become commonplace to draw attention to
the way in which the management ‘guru’ occupies a prophetic role. Direct selling
organizations such as Tupperware and Mary Kay Cosmetics have been described as
‘quasi-religious’ (Bromley, 1998).

More recently, however, spirituality and management have become conjoined in an

association that is less metaphorical and more actual. Evidence of this shift can be seen in
the increase in popular business and management literature during the 1990s that
explicitly addressed the emerging theme of workplace spirituality advocating a corporate
soul (Whyte, 1994), spiritual leadership (Fairholm, 2000), servant leadership (Spears,
1998; Greenleaf, 1977, 1978), stewardship (Block, 1993), spiritual laws of success
(Chopra, 1994), and values-based leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2001; Vaill, 1998;
Williams & Houck, 1992). This literature promotes a view of the organization as a
spiritual-social system composed of employees whose existential needs must be
supported if the organization is to flourish. In his defense of capitalism as a source of
vocation, Novak (1996) claims that the language of business and economic textbooks has
silenced the moral and sacred purpose of business organizations. He advocates that
morally sensitive businesses should begin to take responsibility for their role as locales of
human economic creativity and that business should be seen as a fundamentally sacred
enterprise. In the words of Weber,

5
 It is horrible to think that the world could one day be filled with nothing but
those little cogs, little men clinging to little jobs and striving towards bigger
ones … that the world should know no men but these: it is such an evolution
that we are already caught up, and the great question is, therefore, not how
we can promote and hasten it, but what can we oppose to this machinery in
order to keep a portion of mankind free from this parceling-out of the soul…
(From a 1909 speech, quoted in Reinhard Bendix, Max Weber: An
Intellectual Portrait, 1960)

This spiritual movement began primarily in the US (Hicks, 2003) but has become much
more international in recent years. Key organizations include International center for
Spirit at Work, European Baha’i Business Forum, World Business Academy and
Spiritual Business Network. In the late 1990s, the Academy of Management formed a
special interest group called the Management, Spirituality and Religion Interest Group.
This is a professional association of management professors from all over the world who
are teaching and doing research on spirituality and religion in the workplace. This action
by the Academy of Management was a significant step in legitimizing workplace
spirituality.

However, as suggested by Bell & Taylor (2003), workplace spirituality represents a

contemporary discourse through which the meaning of work is located within a wider
moral and societal context. Therefore, in order to understand the importance of workplace
spirituality, we first need to explore the cultural resonance of this discourse in society as a
whole.

Spirit at Work in the 21st Century

In modern times, spirituality has emerged as a term where ‘the thrust is towards a
transcendent, but not necessarily supernatural, point of reference’ that recognizes the
strengths derived from the whole person, the interconnected nature of the human and the
non-human environment, and the global nature of social and natural processes (Beckford,
1992). Hence the spiritual search for meaning and understanding is a matter of choice for
many people, who are increasingly exposed through cross-cultural interpenetration of
ideas to multiple religious traditions. In addition, such changes have given rise to the
emergence of the “New Age Spirituality”, an umbrella term that covers a wide variety of
forms of religious and spiritual experimentation. Most participants in this spiritual
movement draw upon multiple traditions, styles and ideas simultaneously, combining
them into idiosyncratic packages. New Age is thus referred to as “do-it-yourself-religion”
(Baerveldt, 1996), “pick-and-mix religion” (Hamilton, 2000), “religious consumption a’
la carte” (Possamai, 2003) or a “spiritual marketplace” (Bowman, 1999). In their book,
Beyond New Age: Exploring Alternative Spirituality, Sutcliffe & Bowman, wrote

This diffuse movement exists in dynamic tension with both established

religion and science, attempting to combine the values of post-materialist
society with an ideology of self-fulfillment and self-discovery by repackaging
religion, psychology and therapy in a way that makes them particularly

6
 suited to the conditions of industrial and post-industrial society. (Sutcliffe &
Bowman, 2000).

The emerging discourse of workplace spirituality can be located within this broader
rubric of the New Age, having been introduced into organizations by “New Age
Professionals” (Heelas, 1992) who claim that their beliefs can be practiced in the world
of business. The growing interest in this topic can also be a reactive response to the social
and business upheaval that has resulted in alienated employees (Mitroff & Denton, 2000;
Cash et. al., 2000), and a desire to recapture the connection between employer/employee.

It is interesting to note that while the attention to workplace spirituality is growing, there
is debate as to what is spirituality. Therefore I now turn to the multiple views of this
concept.

Defining Spirituality
It is an indisputable fact that for proceeding to a systematic and thorough analysis of an
inquiry field it is of vital importance to clearly define the core constructs. However,
spirituality is a new concern for business scholars and as is true of any new concept has
many different definitions and is used in many different contexts. Thus, Brown (2003)
underlines the fact that there is a plethora of terms, not all of them equally successful, for
describing spirituality. The variance of definitions can be mainly attributed to two
factors: first, to the fact that “workplace spirituality is a complex and multi-faceted
construct” and second, to the fact that “the concept is highly personal and abstract”
(Milliman et al., 2003. P. 428).

Definitions of spirituality have ranged from the best of that which is human (Twerski,
1998), to a quest for existential meaning (Doyle, 1992), to the transcendent human
dimension (Mauritzen, 1988). Table 1 provides a sample of definitions of spirituality.

SOURCE DEFINITION OF SPIRITUALITY

International Center for It is a state or experience that can provide individuals with
Spirit at Work (2007) direction or meaning, or provide feelings of understanding,
http://www.spiritatwork.org support, inner wholeness or connectedness.
Pava (2007) It is the planned experience of blending integrity and
integration through acceptance, commitment, reasonable
choice, mindful action and continuous dialog
Gibbons (2001) The search for direction, meaning, inner wholeness and
connectedness to others, to non-human creation and to a
transcendent.
Emmons (2000) The personal expression of ultimate concern
Twerski (1998) Best of that which is human
Fairholm (1996) It implies a relationship with something intangible beyond
the self
Bregman and Thierman How the individual lives meaningfully with ultimacy in his
(1995) or her responses to the deepest truths of the universe
Armstrong (1995) The presence of a relationship with a higher power that

7
 affects the way in which one operates in the world
Doyle (1992) A quest for existential meaning
Emblen (1992) A personal life principle which animates a transcendental
quality of relationship with God
Dale (1991) That human striving for the transforming power present in
life; it is that attraction and movement of the human person
toward the divine
Nevard (1991) Any religious or ethical value that is concretized as an
attitude or spirit from which one’s actions flow
Benner (1989) Our response to a deep and mysterious human yearning for
self-transcendence and surrender, a yearning to find our
place
Elkins et al. (1988) A way of being and experiencing that comes about through
awareness of a transcendent dimension and that is
characterized by certain identifiable values in regard to
self, life, and whatever one considers to be the ultimate
Mauritzen (1988) The human dimension that transcends the biological,
psychological and social aspects of living
Shafranske & Gorsuch A transcendent dimension within human experience …
(1984) discovered in moments in which the individual questions
the meaning of personal existence and attempts to place the
self within a broader ontological context
McKinght (1984) The animating force that inspires one toward purposes that
are beyond one’s self and that give one’s life meaning and
direction
Tart (1975) That vast realm of human potential dealing with ultimate
purpose, with higher entities, with God, with life, with
compassion, with purpose

Schmidt-Wilk, Heaton & Steingard (2000) suggest that definitions of spirituality fall into
three categories: 1) those that define it as a personal inner experience; 2) those that focus
on values; and 3) those that focus on outer behaviors. MacDonald (2000) conducted a
factor analysis of 20 psychological measures of spirituality and concluded that there were
five dimensions to spirituality:

1. Beliefs, attitudes and perceptions

2. Transcendental experiences
3. Sense of meaning for existence
4. Belief in the paranormal
5. Religious behavior and practice

It is possible that the definitions of spirituality are complementary rather than mutually
exclusive. In other words, the definitions are more incomplete than incorrect. Each
definition focuses on one part of spirituality. However, when put together the definitions
seem to indicate that spirituality is a multi-dimensional phenomenon (Mohamed,
Wisnieski, Askar & Syed, 2004).

8
Finally, it is also important to consider the relationship between spirituality and
religiousness. Traditionally, psychologists of religion did not distinguish between these
constructs (Wulff, 1998). More recently, however, writers have begun to contrast the two,
with some suggesting that religion is institutional, dogmatic and restrictive, whereas
spirituality is personal, subjective and life-enhancing (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003a;
Cavanagh, 1999; Nadesan, 1999). On the other side, empirical studies have indicated that
most people appear to define themselves as both religious and spiritual (Zinnbauer et al.,
1997). Moreover, both religion and spirituality can be expressed individually and
socially, and both constructs have important points of overlap (Hicks, 2003). I prefer to
use the term religion as a broad individual and institutional domain that serves a variety
of sacred purposes. Spirituality represents the key and unique function of religion and
contrasting them would be equivalent to surgically dividing conjoined twins.

Workplace Spirituality
It is an undeniable reality that workplace spirituality is a construct widely discussed over
the last decade (Bell & Taylor, 2004; Casey, 2004; Driver, 2005; Duchon & Ashmos,
2005; Fry, 2003; Hicks, 2003; Krishnakumar & Neck, 2002; Lips-Wiersma, 2003; Lips-
Wiersma & Mills, 2002; Lund-Dean et al., 2003; Tischler, 1999), gaining the interest of
both scholars and practitioners (Hicks, 2003; Kinjerski & Skrypnek, 2004). In their
attempt to employ workplace spirituality in a way that does not preclude generalizations
or abstract theorizing, Giacalone & Jurkiewicz (2003a) offer the following definition:

“Workplace Spirituality is a framework of organizational values evidenced in

the culture that promotes employees’ experience of transcendence through
the work process, facilitating their sense of being connected to others in a
way that provides feelings of completeness and joy” (Giacalone &
Jurkiewicz, 2003a, p.13).

Other researchers (e.g., Ashmos & Duchon, 2000) have suggested that workplace
spirituality has three main components:

1. It involves the recognition that employees have a inner life related to their soul
and accessed through practices such as meditation, self-reflection and prayer
2. It assumes that employees need to find work meaningful
3. It suggests that the organization provides the context or community in which
spiritual expression can take place.

Guillory (2000) believes that in order to be creative and innovative in today’s workplace,
we must reunite with our spirituality and make it a legitimate part of the working
environment.

The advocates of workplace spirituality are driven by the belief that:

Unless organizations become more spiritual, the fragmentation and

ambivalence felt by individuals cannot be repaired. Unless organizations

9
 become more spiritual, they cannot reap the benefits of the full and deep
engagement of their employees, their so-called most valuable resource. In the
plainest terms, unless organizations not only acknowledge the soul but also
attempt to deal directly with spiritual concerns in the workplace, they will not
meet the challenges of the next millennium (Mitroff & Denton, 1999: 7)

Within the framework of this discourse, it has been attempted to relate workplace
spirituality to a wide variety of organizational functions and practices. Mitroff and
Denton (1999) propose a model of the spiritual organization, claiming that organizations
that identify with spirituality tend to have employees who perceive their companies as
more profitable and who are more able to be creative and intelligent at work. Further,
some evidence exists that suggests a link between workplace spirituality and enhanced
individual creativity and intuition (Freshman, 1999; Guillory, 2000; Harman & Hormann,
1990), increased honesty and trust within the organization (Wagner-Marsh & Conley,
1999), enhanced sense of personal fulfillment of employees (Burack, 1999), increased
commitment to organizational goals (Delbecq, 1999) and positive effect on leadership
practices (Fairholm, 1996; Fry, 2003; Hicks, 2002; Korac-Kakabadse et al., 2002; Reave,
2005).

Practices of Workplace Spirituality

There are numerous recent examples of organizations that have sought to increase the
extent of employees’ spiritual awareness through the deliberate introduction of spiritual-
cultural practices. Xerox sent a team of senior executives to a Native American desert
retreat in New Mexico, and the World Bank in New York is involved in a project that
aligns corporate values with spiritual aims (Overell, 2001). In both the UK and the US,
corporate chaplains provide workplace counseling to employees in many companies
(Cash & Gray, 2000).

Several examples of spiritual-ethical businesses in the US and Europe have been used to
illustrate the spiritual work organization. The examples include Southwest Airlines,
whose CEO claims that the company’s success is founded on humor, love and soul
(Petzinger, 1995; Milliman et al., 1999)

From my discussion above, it is clear that workplace spirituality assumes that individuals
hold a set of moral beliefs that inform their sense of right and wrong in the workplace. By
acting upon these beliefs, individuals achieve a sense of sacredness in their actions and in
the world. But moral beliefs that inform a sense of right and wrong are embedded in the
way people act in their environment and stem from some kind of implicit assumptions
about human nature, the way the world is and how it fits together. So let’s analyze those
assumptions in some detail.

Assumptions of Workplace Spirituality about Human Nature and Values

It should be recognized that workplace spirituality is a complex and multi-faceted
construct (DiPadova, 1998; Milliman et al., 2003; Spohn, 1997) and it can encompass a
wide dimension of human experience, and can include a variety of values, attitudes,
perspectives, beliefs and emotions (Elkins et al., 1988). However, Giacalone &

10
Jurkiewicz (2003b) suggests ten key values which are highly correlated with individual
spirituality:

1. Benevolence, or the consistent expression of kindness and consideration toward

others
2. Generativity, or a demonstrated concern for the long-term impact of one’s actions
3. Humanism, or the practice of treating others with dignity
4. Integrity, or the adherence to a code of conduct
5. Justice, or the equitable treatment of others
6. Mutuality, or recognizing the value of individual contributions in creating the
whole
7. Receptivity, or an open-minded orientation
8. Respect, or treating others with esteem and value
9. Responsibility, or following through on goal attainment,
10. Trust, or being one on whom others can consistently depend

Table I below (reproduced from Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003b) depicts the theoretical
support from which the above ten values were drawn.

In this article, I have modified these values to include Altruism and exclude Humanism
Integrity, Justice, Receptivity, Respect, Responsibility and Trust. The following
dimensions of human nature were chosen in part because I postulated they are more
likely to have closer relationships with my intended study objective of comparing
capitalistic and spiritual assumptions about human nature.

11
Altruism
The word “Altruism” was coined by Auguste Comte (1798-1857) “to displace terms
burdened by a theological history” (Post et al., 2003, p 3). Comte viewed the
subordination of altruism to egoism as the source of human evil. In common usage,
altruism refers to helping another being without expectation of benefit to oneself. There is
no expectation of gain for the altruist which excludes any self-interest.

Jean Kristeller & Thomas Johnson, focusing on relationships between altruism, empathy
and meditation, suggest with Stephen Post (2002) that self-transcendence, a key facet of
spirituality, is a necessary precursor to altruism (Kristeller & Johnson, 2005. 393). Other
studies have also demonstrated that altruism is a core component of spirituality, a notion
that reflects common discourse and many descriptive studies (e.g., Greenwald & Harder,
2003, Koss-Chioino, 2006).

Benevolence
Benevolence values are motivated by the goal to preserve and enhance the welfare of
those people with whom one is in frequent personal contact. In the Theory of Moral
Sentiments, Adam Smith wrote,

How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles
in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their
happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the
pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion we feel
for the misery of others when we see it, or are made to conceive it in a very
lively manner. (Smith, 1759/1976)

Paradoxically, this principle in man’s nature which no doubt is a true principle, may be
thought to negate the doctrine of the Invisible Hand.

Participation in benevolence is considered the fullest experience of spirituality (Post et

al., 2003), giving rise to inner peace and kindness, as well as to active works of love.
Benevolent activities that engender positive emotions result in improved employee
attitudes about work (Milliman et al., 2003), which in turn translate into enhanced
performance. Research has shown that employees who are shown organizational kindness
are more motivated toward task accomplishment (Schulman, 1999).

Generativity
An enhanced emphasis on spirituality and transcendence can be found in those with
higher levels of generativity (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003a, b; McAdams, 1985).
According to Erik Erikson’s (1963) formulation of the construct, generativity reflects a
selfless concern for the welfare of future generations and for the world at large that may
be expressed in diverse ways, including mentoring, communal, political, and
environmental activism, or through more privatized creative activities. Generativity
produces mutuality in that it strengthens both the doer and the recipient (Erikson, 1963).
As other scholars have argued, many generative acts are a manifestation of a deeply felt
need for interpersonal givingness and caring, and the desire to attain fusion with others

12
(McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992; McAdams et al., 1998), characteristics that are the
hallmark of spirituality. Although we know that employees who are happy at work
usually carry that happiness and regard into their lives outside work, and vice versa
(Diener & Larson, 1984), individuals who are high in generativity are interested in
leaving something behind for those who follow. The expectation that spirituality should
lead to an increase in generative interests fits well with diverse psychological theories
that link spiritual growth to higher levels of cognitive development and/or self-
actualization. Moreover, individuals who score high on spirituality should be engaged in
generative activities that have a creative dimension, are aimed at personally impacting
others, or leaving a legacy that outlives the self (Kotre, 1996). Finally, Dillon, Wink &
Fay (2003) have empirically demonstrated that both religiousness & spirituality have
correlated positively with overall scores on measures of generativity.

Are Spiritual Values Consistent with Capitalistic Values

I have discussed in the start of the paper that one of the basic assumption of capitalism is
that people are primarily self-interested and competitive, and that the acquisition of
material goods promote happiness. Many psychological theories propose that a focus on
self-interest and competition reflects immature psychological development and/or
psychopathology; these perspectives instead recognize that humans have co-operative,
altruistic motives as well, values espoused by spirituality. Other research questions the
material acquisitions and financial success to happiness. For example, substantial
research on psychological well-being demonstrates that, past the point of meeting basic
needs for food, shelter, etc., wealth does little to increase happiness (Diener & Seligman,
2004). Further, when the types of materialistic aims encouraged by capitalism, namely
goals such as wealth, fame or image, are relatively important to people, lower well-being
is reported (Kasser, 2002).

Moreover, substantial evidence suggests that when the values and goals necessary for the
smooth functioning of capitalism become increasingly central to individuals and to
institutions, the result is a corresponding conflict with three other aims: concern for the
broader community and the world; close, intimate relationships; and feeling worthy and
autonomous (Kasser, Cohn, Kanner & Ryan, 2007).

As support, consider the model of values and goals presented in the figure below:

13
 Figure 1: Circumplex model of aspiration, Grouzet et al., 2005.

The model above is based on substantial cross-cultural empirical work examining how
the aims that people hold as important in life are organized psychologically (Grouzet et
al., 2005). In this model, human values and goals have been shown to be well-represented
by a “circumplex” in which aims that are consistent with each other are adjacent in the
circle, whereas aims in conflict are on opposite ends of the circle.

Capitalism’s aims are identifiable in Fig. 1 as the extrinsic aspirations studied by Kasser
& Ryan (1993, 1996, 2001). Extrinsic goals are those focused on external rewards and
other people’s praise, and include strivings for financial success, as well as for image and
status. In a study of over 1800 individuals from 15 nations, Grouzet et al. (2005) found
that these aims consistently emerged as basic aspirations across cultures, and fall closely
together in the circumplex model.

As noted, a circumplex model assumes that a focus on one set of values and goals is
associated with caring less about and feeling conflict concerning the values and goals on
the opposite side of the circumplex. In the model above, one can clearly see that the
values of competitive achievement, power and the goal of financial success encouraged
by capitalism oppose those for spirituality, community feeling, affiliation and self-
acceptance. That is, concern for wealth and possessions conflicts with working “to
improve the world through activism or generativity,” having “satisfying relationships
with family and friends,” and feeling “competent and autonomous” (Kasser, Cohn,
Kanner & Ryan, 2007). S. Schwartz (1992) described the conflict between these sets of
aims well when he wrote “acceptance of others as equals and concern for their welfare
interferes with the pursuit of one’s own relative success and dominance over others.”

14
Many thinkers in the social sciences have commented on this tension between the self-
interested values of capitalism and the aim of being a good community, national and
global citizen. For example, the political scientist Inglehart (1977) has noted how
materialistic values oppose broader “post-materialistic” cares for the broader world. In
sociology, Putnam (2000) suggested that involvement in community activities has
dropped as the individualistic consumer mentality has spread. Political economist Hirsch
(1976) described how capitalism erodes the “social capital” (i.e., social connections and
solidarity) on which the system depends for efficient market exchanges. Others have
discussed how market society has lead the role of “citizen” to be usurped by that of
“consumer” (Landau, 2004), leading to less participation in the democratic and social
institutions that help bind communities together.

Many well-known psychological theories would seemingly agree that the individualistic
and consumeristic desires often encouraged by capitalism and by economic globalization
oppose those for generosity and for generativity. Indeed, some would view these different
types of desires as indicative of different levels of maturity (Nikelly, 2000). For example,
psychodynamically inspired psychologists typically hold that healthy development
involves movement from a strong concern for one’s own self-interest towards social
interest (Adler, 1956) or generativity and care for the world (Erikson, 1959/1980,
McAdams et al., 1993, Loevinger, 1976). Cognitive theories of moral development
(Kohlberg, 1969; Gilligan, 1982), also argue and empirically demonstrate that lower
stages are typified by self-interested motivations whereas higher stages involve a concern
for people’s feelings and the welfare of society as a whole. Maslow’s (1954) humanistic
theory similarly suggests that people move from self-interested, deficiency needs to
higher-level self-actualization needs that incorporate issues like helping the world and
seeking knowledge and beauty (i.e., universalism values). Clinically, some forms of
pscychopathology (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) and family dysfunction
(Minuchin, 1974) are understood as occurring because individuals focus on their own
self-interest and lack concern and empathy for others (Ryan, Deci, Grolnick & La
Guardia, 2006). Thus, each of these theories suggests that healthy functioning and higher
development involve a move away from the self-interested, competitive values, and goals
encouraged by capitalism and towards the altruistic, community feeling goals and
generative values as advocated by spirituality.

A number of studies in the psychological literature would appear to buttress the

conclusion that those who most embrace the materialistic ethos of capitalism are less
likely to act in ways reflective of universalism and community feeling values and goals.
For example, studies show that materialistic values are associated with lower generosity
(Kasser, 2005), as well as fewer prosocial (Sheldon & Kasser, 1995; McHosky, 1999)
and more anti-social activities such as cheating and petty theft (Kasser & Ryan, 1993;
Cohen & Cohen, 1996; McHoskey, 1999). The importance placed on goals for financial
success is also associated with greater disagreeableness (Roberts & Robins, 2000), lower
empathy (Sheldon & Kasser, 1995), more Machiavellian tendencies (McHoskey, 1999),
and more racial prejudice (Duriez, Vansteenkiste, Soenens & DeWitte, 2005). Social
dilemma research also shows that those who have taken on the values of capitalism treat

15
others in more competitive and less cooperative ways (Sheldon & McGregor, 2000
Sheldon, Sheldon & Osbaldiston, 2000) and share less (Kasser, 2005).

The quality as well as the quantity of interpersonal relationships suffers under

capitalism’s values. As B. Schwartz (1994) suggested, the focus on competition, self-
interest, and consumption typified by capitalism leads people to form “exchange
relationships” in which other people are considered for “what they can do for me”.
Similarly, Kasser (2002) suggested that the focus on things and objects in capitalism
leads to increased “objectification” in relationships. That is, rather than pursuing “I-thou”
relationships (Buber, 1958) in which others are treated as subjective, experiencing beings
with their own concerns and perspectives, capitalism conduces to “I-it” relationships in
which other people are often considered in terms of how they can be used for one’s own
purposes.

Taking the argument further, let’s look at the tension between spirituality and
consumption which links back at least as far as Plato’s distinction between body and soul,
or spiritual versus material existence. Objects and services are provided in the material
world, and spiritual existence is nonmaterial. Most religions associate spirituality with
asceticism, that is, self-denial of material pleasures. Similarly, modern philosophers like
Fromm (1976) attack social norms that encourage acquisitiveness, or “radical hedonism”,
on the grounds that it discourages community and individual social development. He
argues that self-identity based on possessions exposes an individual to ultimate loss.
People define themselves by what they have and they fear that losing any of their
possessions is like losing part of their body. As Erich Fromm (1976) said,

If I am what I have and if what I have is lost, who then am I?

He suggests that developing an identity based on sharing, giving and sacrificing should
replace identity based on ownership. Similarly, Schor (1998) argues that hedonic
consumption displaces attention to family, community and religious affiliations. Other
philosophers argue that it is the disconnection between production and consumption that
leads to spiritual damage. Kovel (1991) argues that the way production and consumption
are bound together in primitive cultures builds the spiritual into everyday life; thus, “the
universal exists in and cannot be split from the concrete particular”. Similarly, Borgmann
(2000) suggests that self-production of goods and services, associated with technically
primitive settings, encourages spiritual identity with objects. He argues that
“sophisticated and impenetrable machinery” of production has “changed the nature of
consumption fundamentally”. This separation between production and consumption is
argued to diminish the spirituality inherent in preparing and using the objects that sustain
and enhance life and living.

This argument becomes politicized in that producers (labor) are separated from
consumers (owners), creating societal classes and corrupting individual motivation.
Kovel (1991) notes with Marx that the separation of labor from capital displaces the
focus of society from people to things. Marx argues that capitalistic society encourages a
propensity to acquire objects, which he terms a commodity fetish. By this, Marx

16
(1867/1976) referred to a phenomenon in which participants in commodity production
and exchange experience and come to understand their social relations as relations
between the products of their labor – relations between things, rather than relations
between people. In his own words,

A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social

character of men’s labor appears to them as an objective character stamped
upon the product of that labor, because the relation of the producers to the
sum total of their own labor is presented to them as a social relation, existing
not between themselves, but between the products of their labor. This is the
reason why the products of labor become commodities, social things whose
qualities are at the same time perceptible and imperceptible by the senses ….
This I call the Fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labor, so
soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore
inseparable from the production of commodities (Marx, 1867/1976).

Critics of this consumer culture (Strong & Higgs, 2000) argue that consumption leads to
a life of disengagement, diversion, distraction, and loneliness. As consumers, we become
disengaged from each other, and our social life becomes mediated though a commodity
culture. Consumption is what most of us spend a good deal of time doing and building
our lives around, but our interest in any particular commodity is short lived and the thrills
of consumption are necessarily disconnected from each other resulting in fragmentation.
The irony of consumption is that we destroy the good life we are seeking when we try to
enrich our lives solely through consumption.

Instead of living the good life of creative endeavor, active citizenship, and invigorating
physical adventures, we have become passive consumers, disengaged from and
disburdened of those connections with the physical and social world that give substance
and meaning to life (Buchholz & Rosenthal, 2003). The ongoing and escalating
competition to simply maintain a household’s relative social status assures that these
households experience material insecurity no matter what the level of affluence they have
achieved (D’Souza, 2000). Expanded consumption is experienced as a necessity even
when from a more objective point of view, the contribution that consumption is making
to satisfying “needs” is trivial (Power, 2000).

Let us now turn to the concept of self-esteem in capitalism which involves two
mechanisms familiar to social and personality psychologists: discrepancy creation and
upward social comparison. That is, capitalism promotes particular states (wealth) or
individuals (the wealthy) as worthy ideals to which people living under the system should
compare themselves. The literature on discrepancies and social comparison, comparisons
between one’s present situation and an unmet goal or someone of higher status have the
dual effects of leading individuals to: a) feel unhappy and less worthy; and b) become
increasingly motivated to engage in activities that help them reduce these unpleasant
feelings (Carver & Scheier, 1981; Higgins, 1987; Suls & Wills, 1991). This second
outcome means that citizens will be more likely to engage in activities such as working
long hours, going shopping, investing their money in the stock market etc., in order to

17
help them to reach these ideals. A psychologically costly element of this dynamic,
however, is that these comparison processes rely on creating feelings of insecurity and
unhappiness in individuals by increasing their awareness of discrepancies between their
present state and the ideals defined by capitalism (Richins, 1995). Research shows that
exposure to such idealized messages about financial success in advertisements can in fact
negatively influence people’s self-evaluations (Gulas & McKeage, 2000).

Social theorists like Lasch (1979) have diagnosed contemporary society in terms of a
‘culture of narcissism’. Not to be confused with simple selfishness, narcissism instead
reflects an immaturity in which self-esteem depends upon the constant approval of others.
He argues that contemporary social arrangements aggravate tendencies toward narcissism
through the superficial and often-warlike relationships associated with the consumerism
of a competitive corporate capitalism. As Lasch wrote,

Both as a worker and as a consumer, the individual learns not merely to

measure himself against others but to see himself through others’ eyes” …
People consequently experience a prevailing pressure to see themselves with
the eyes of a stranger and to shape the self as another commodity offered up
for consumption on the open market. (Lasch, 1984, p 29-30).

Another problem regarding self-worth under capitalism is that citizens who internalize its
ideologies often find themselves running on an unsatisfying treadmill. There are a few
reasons for this dynamic. First, as economists and others have pointed out (van Praag,
1993), happiness with regards to financial status depends largely on one’s relative
standing to others. That is, satisfaction depends not so much on how much money one
actually has, but on how much money one has in comparison to other people. Thus, if a
person successfully increases his salary, but everyone else in his comparison group does
as well, he is unlikely to feel happier or more esteemed. Indeed, the research bears this
out fairly well (Stutzer, 2004). A second reason why the social comparisons encouraged
within capitalism can be unending is that the specific means of attaining the “ideals”
proposed are continually in flux, as new products enter the marketplace and are
advertised as desirable.

In short, capitalism’s smooth functioning requires individuals to believe that they are
more worthy to the extent that they receive high salaries, have high status jobs, and
consume particular products and services. Such an analysis also suggests that capitalism’s
ideology encourages a particular form of self-esteem that researchers have called
“fragile” or “contingent” (Deci & yan, 1995; Crocker, 2002; Kernis, 2003). That is, even
highly competent individuals who report high self-esteem sometimes have a fragile,
unstable sense of self-worth that is highly dependent upon external praise and
circumstances. As depicted in Fig 1, the desire for financial success is an extrinsic
aspiration, given that it is focused on rewards and others’ opinions and empirically linked
with both lower self-esteem and with narcissism. Moreover, financial success values
cluster with “popularity” and “image” aspirations that also reflect strong concern with
others’ opinions.

18
Our discussion above leads us to a provocative conclusion: The values and goals most
closely expressive of capitalism’s ideology and institutions are also those that oppose and
potentially undermine spirituality. But this conclusion also leads us to the question that if
capitalism’s values are incongruent with spiritual values then what caused the proclivity
towards spirituality in the capitalist system.

The Dilemma
In order to answer the above question, we have to understand the impossibility of
comprehending the significance of workplace spirituality without also considering the
potential effects on organizational power relations arising from the emergence of this
affective form of management. The incongruence between spiritual and capitalistic
values leads me to suggest that workplace spirituality represents an attempt to mobilize
the individual to serve the interests of the organization through the construction of a
regime of truth based on ideas about potential growth, purpose, meaning and community.

This view is well captured in Kondo’s (1990) ethnographic study of a small

confectionary factory which involved her in a program of company-sponsored spiritual
education. Such programs were developed in Japan in response to the managerial
perception that, owing to an over-emphasis on money, materialism and individuality,
family, state and educational institutions were failing to produce morally and spiritually
educated people suitable for employment. Kondo describes the ethics retreat she
attended, where participants were encouraged to reflect on their individual
responsibilities to the workgroup and physical action was proposed as isomorphic with
spiritual change. Kondo demonstrates that these discourses of self-transformation “are
not innocent with respect to power relationships” (Kondo, 1987: 269). They are intended
to reinforce a particular kind of worker-management relation “in order to recapture an
idealized past of benevolent paternalism and worker loyalty” (Kondo, 1990: 114). Kondo
suggests that these discourses are oriented towards achieving the disciplinary production
of organizational subjects by ensuring compliance in task performance and attitudes to
work.

This perceived ability to establish and maintain total obedience through spiritual
education founded on Eastern religious values and practices is very attractive to Western
managers and management gurus. In an attempt to resolve the ambivalent relationship
between self and organization in the West, it appears managers are turning to the
instrumental use of technologies that appropriate spirituality in order to establish what
they are encouraged to perceive as total obedience among a workforce. Workplace
spirituality thus constitutes an aspect of a broader managerial ideology concerned with
the management of subjectivity and engineering of the human soul (Bell & Taylor, 2003;
Rose, 1990; Townley, 1994)

Conclusion
There is no doubt that capitalism is spreading through the world at a stunning pace, and is
infiltrating more and more aspects of people’s lives. However, we must reawaken to the
reality that quality of life is based on the development of human relationships, creativity,
cultural and artistic expression, spirituality, reverence for the natural world, and

19
celebration of life, and it is not dependent upon self-interest, financial success or
increased consumption of nonbasic material goods.

At the turn of this century, the discourse of workplace spirituality provides us with a new
work ethic which attempt to avoid the disenchantment of organizational life and to revive
a spiritual as well as social sense of purpose. However, in this paper I have used cross-
cultural research on how values and goals are organized to identify the human values
most consistent with capitalism (i.e., self-interest, financial success, competition,
consumption etc) and the values and aims of spirituality (i.e., altruism, benevolence,
generativity etc). Later I reviewed a variety of literatures demonstrating how these two
values oppose each other thereby casting doubt on the likely longevity of the discourse of
workplace spirituality.

20
REFERENCES
1. Adler, A. 1956. The individual psychology of Alfred. Adler, H. Ansbacher & R.
Ansbacher (Eds.). New York: Harper and Row.
2. American Psychiatric Association. 2000. Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders. (4th ed.,). Washington DC.
3. Armstrong, T. 1995. Exploring Spirituality: The Development of the Armstrong
Measure of Spirituality. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American
Psychological Association, New York.
4. Ashmos, D. & Duchon, D. 2000. Spirituality at Work: A Conceptualization and
Measure, Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(2): 134-45.
5. Baerveldt, C. 1996. New Age-Religiosity as a Process of Individual Construction,
In M. Moerland, The Fence, the Hare, and the Hounds in the New Age: Scientific
Reflections on New Age. Utrecht: Jan van Arkel, 19-31.
6. Bank, J. 1992. The Essence of Total Quality Management. Hemel Hempstead:
Prentice Hall.
7. Barbon, N. 1690. A Discourse of Trade. London: Dudley North.
8. Beckford, J. 1992. Religion, Modernity and Postmodernity, In B. Wilson (Ed.)
Religion: Contemporary Issues. London: Bellew.
9. Bell, E. & Taylor, S. 2003. The Elevation of work: Pastoral power and the New
Age work ethic, Organization, 10(2), pp. 329-349.
10. Bell, E. & Tylor, S. 2004. From Outward Bound to Inward Bound: The Prophetic
Voices and Discursive Practices of Spiritual Management Development, Human
Relations, 57(4): 439-466.
11. Belk, R. 1988. Possessions and the Extended Self, Journal of Consumer
Research, 15.
12. Benner, D. 1989. Toward a Psychology of Spirituality: Implications for
Personality and Psychotherapy. Journal of Psychology and Christianity. 5:19-30.
13. Block, P. 1993. Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self-interest. Berrett-
Koehler, San Francisco.
14. Bolman, L. & Deal, T. 1995. Leading with Soul: An Uncommon Journey of Spirit.
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
15. Borgmann, A. 2000. The Moral Dimension of Consumption, Journal of
Consumer Research, 26: 418-422.
16. Bowman, M. 1999. Healing in the Spiritual supermarket: Consumers, courses and
credentialism, Social Compass.
17. Bregman, L., & Thierman, S. 1995. First Person Mortal: Personal Narratives of
Illness, Dying, and Grief. New York: Paragon.
18. Bromley, D. 1998. Transformational Movements and Quasi-Religious
Corporations: The Case of Amway, in N. Demerath, P. Hall, T. Schmitt & R.
Williams (Eds.), Sacred Companies: Organizational Aspects of Religion and

21
 Religious Aspects of Organization, pp. 349-63. New York: Oxford University
Press.
19. Brown, R. 2003. Organizational Spirituality: The Sceptic’s version, Organization,
12(2): 393-400.
20. Buber, M. 1958. I and thou (2nd Ed.). New York: Scribner.
21. Buchholz, R. & Rosenthal, S. 2003. Spirituality, consumption and business. In R.
Giacalone & C. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and
Organizational Performance. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
22. Burack, E. 1999. Spirituality in the workplace, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 12(4), pp. 280-91.
23. Casey, C. 2004. Bureaucracy Re-enchanted? Spirit, Experts and Authority in
Organizations, Organization, 11(1): 59-79.
24. Cash, K. & Gray, G. 2000. A Framework for Accommodating Religion and
Spirituality in the Workplace. Academy of Management Executive. 14(3): 124-34.
25. Carver, C., & Scheier, M. 1981. Attention and self-regulation: A control theory
approach to human behavior. New York: Russell Sage.
26. Cavanagh, G. 1999. Spirituality for Managers: Context and Critique, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 12(3): 186-199.
27. Chopra, D. 1994. The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success. Amber-Allen, San Rafael,
CA.
28. Cohen, P., & Cohen, J. 1996. Life values and adolescent mental health. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
29. Crocker, J. 2002. Contingencies of self-worth: Implications for self-regulation and
psychological vulnerability. Self and Identity, 1.
30. Dale, E. 1991. Bringing Heaven Down to Earth. A Practical Spirituality of Work.
American University Studies, Series 7, Theology & Religion, Vol. 83. New York:
Peter Lang.
31. Deci, E. & Ryan, R. 1995. Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In
M. Kernis (Ed.) Efficacy, Agency and self-esteem. New York: Plenum.
32. Dehler, G. & Welsh, M. 2003. The Experience of Work: Spirituality and the New
Workplace, In R. Giacalone & C. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of Spirituality and
Organizational Performance, pp.108-122.
33. Delbecq, L. 1999. Christian spirituality and contemporary business leadership,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(4), pp. 345-9.
34. Diener, E. & Seligman, M. 2004. Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-
being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5.
35. Diener, E. & Larson, R. 1984. Temporal Stability and Cross-situational
consistency of Affective, Behavioral and Cognitive Processes, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology¸47, 580-592.
36. Dillon, M., Wink, P. & Fay, K. 2003. Is Spirituality Detrimental to Generativity?
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42:3, 427-442.

22
37. DiPadova, L. 1998. The Paradox of Spiritual Management: Cultivating Individual
and community Leadership in the Dilbert Age, Journal of Management Systems,
10: 31-46.
38. Dittmar, H. 2007. The costs of consumer culture and the “cage within”: The
impact of the material “good life” and “body perfect” ideals on individuals’
identity and well-being. Psychological Inquiry. 18(1).
39. Doyle, D. 1992. Addictions Counseling: A Practical Guide to Counseling People
with Chemical and Other Addictions, Burns & Oates.
40. Driver, M. 2005. From Empty Speech to Full Speech? Re-conceptualizing
Spirituality in Organizations Based on a Psychoanalytically-Grounded
Understanding of the Self. Human Relations, 58(9): 1091-1110.
41. D’Souza, D. 2000. The Virtue of Prosperity: Finding Values in an Age of Techno-
Affluence. Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
42. Duchon, D. & Ashmos, D. 2005. Nurturing the Spirit at Work: Impact on Work
Unit Performance, The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5): 807-833.
43. Duriez, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & DeWitte, H. 2005. The social costs
of extrinsic relative to intrinsic goal pursuits: Their relation with right-wing
authoritarianism, social dominance, and racial prejudice.
44. Elkins, D., Hedstrom, L., Huhges, L., Leaf, J. & Saunders, C. 1988. Toward a
Humanistic Phenomenological Spirituality: Definition, Description, and
Measurement. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 28: 5-18.
45. Emblen, J. 1992. Religion and Spirituality Defined according to current use in
Nursing Literature. Journal of Professional Nursing. 8: 41-47.
46. Emmons, R. 2000. Is Spirituality an Intelligence? Motivation, Cognition, and the
Psychology of Ultimate Concern. The International Journal for the Psychology of
Religion. 10(1), pp.3-26.
47. Erikson, E. 1963. Childhood and Society, New York: Norton.
48. Erikson, E. (1959/1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York: W. W. Norton &
Co.
49. Fairholm, G. 1996. Spiritual Leadership: Fulfilling Whole-self Needs at Work,
Leadership and Organization Development Journal. 17(5): 11-17.
50. Fairholm, G. 2000. Perspectives on Leadership: From the Science of
Management to its Spiritual Heart. Praeger, Westport, CN.
51. Fineman, S. 1993. Emotion in Organizations. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications.
52. Frank, R., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. 2000. Does studying economics inhibit
cooperation? In T. Connolly, H.R. Arkes, & K.R. Hammond (Eds.), Judgment
and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (2nd ed.) New York: Cambridge
University Press.
53. Freshman, B. 1999. An exploratory analysis of definitions and applications of
spirituality in the workplace, Journal of Organizational Change Management,
12(4). Pp. 318-27.

23
54. Fromm, E. 1976. To Have or To Be. New York: Harper and Row.
55. Fry, L. 2003. Towards a Theory of Spiritual Leadership, The Leadership
Quarterly, 14(6): 693-727.
56. Giacalone, R. & Jurkiewicz, C. 2003a. Toward a science of Workplace
Spirituality, In R. Giacalone & C. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), The Handbook of Workplace
Spirituality and Organizational Performance. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY.
57. Giacalone, R. & Jurkiewicz, C. 2003b. Right from Wrong: The Influence of
Spirituality on Perceptions of Unethical Business Activities, Journal of Business
Ethics, 46: 85-97.
58. Gibbons, B. 2001. Spirituality and the Occult: From the Renaissance to the
Modern, London: Routledge.
59. Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s
development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60. Greenleaf, R. 1977. Servant Leadership: A Journey in the Nature of Legitimate
Power and Greatness. Paulist Press, NY.
61. Greenleaf, R. 1978. Servant, Leader & Follower. Paulist Press, NY.
62. Greenwald, D. & Harder, D. 2003. The Dimensions of Spirituality, Psychological
Reports, 92 (3): 975-80.
63. Grouzet, F., Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., Fernandez-Dols, J., Kim, Y., Lau, S., Ryan,
R., Saunders, S., Schmuck, P., & Sheldon, K. 2005. The structure of goal contents
across fifteen cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89.
64. Guillory, W. 2000. The Living Organization: Spirituality in the Workplace.
Innovations International.
65. Gulas, C., & McKeage, K. 2000. Extending social comparison: An examination
of the unintended consequences of idealized advertising imagery. Journal of
Advertising. 29.
66. Hamilton, M. 2000. An Analysis of the Festival for Mind-Body-Spirit, London. In
S. Sutcliffe, & M. Bowman, Beyond New Age: Exploring Alternative Spirituality.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 188-200.
67. Harman, W. & Hormann, J. 1990. Creative Work: The Constructive Role of
Business in a Transforming Society, Knowledge Systems Inc., IN.
68. Heelas, P. 1992. The Sacralisation of Self and New Age Capitalism. In N.
Abercrombie & A. Warde (Eds.) Social Change in Contemporary Britain. Pp.
139-66. Cambridge: Polity Press.
69. Hewitt, J. 1998. The Myth of Self-esteem: Finding Happiness and Solving
Problems in America. St. Martins Press, New York.
70. Hicks, D. 2002. Spiritual and Religious Diversity in the Workplace Implications
for Leadership, The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4): 379-396.
71. Hicks, D. 2003. Religion and the Workplace Pluralism, Spirituality, Leadership,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

24
72. Higgins, T. 1987. Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect,
Psychological Review, 94.
73. Hirsch, F. 1976. The social limits to growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
74. Hobbes, T. 1651/1929. Leviathan, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
75. Inglehart, R. 1977. The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles
among Western publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
76. James, Williams, 1890. The Principles of Psychology, Vol. 1, New York: Henry
Holt.
77. Kanner, A. 2005. Globalization and the commercialization of childhood. Tikkun.
20.
78. Kanner, A., & Gomes, M. 1995. The all-consuming self. In T. Roszak, M. Gomes
& A. Kanner (Eds.), Ecopsychology: Restoring the Earth, healing the mind. San
Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
79. Kasser, T. 2002. The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
80. Kasser, T. 2005. Frugality, generosity, and materialism in children and
adolescents. In K. Moore & L. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to
flourish: Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development. New
York: Springer.
81. Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. 1993. A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of
financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 65.
82. Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. 1996. Further examining the American dream: Differential
correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin. 22.
83. Kasser, T. & Ryan, R. 2001, Be careful what you wish for: Optimal functioning
and the relative attainment of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. In P. Schmuck & K.M.
Sheldon (Eds.), Life Goals and Well-being: Towards a positive psychology of
human striving, Goettingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
84. Kasser, T., Cohn, S., Kanner, A. & Ryan, R. 2007. Some costs of American
Corporate Capitalism: A Psychological Exploration of Value and Goal Conflicts,
Psychological Inquiry, 18(1).
85. Kay, A., Wheeler, S., Bargh, J., & Ross, L. 2005. Material priming: The influence
of mundane physical objects on situational construal and competitive behavioral
choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95.
86. Kernis, M. 2003. Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem.
Psychological Inquiry, 14.
87. Kinjierski, V. & Skrypnek, B. 2004. Defining Spirit at Work. Finding Common
Ground, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(3): 165-182.
88. Kohlberg, L. 1969. Stages in the development of moral thought and action. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

25
89. Kondo, D. 1987. Creating an Ideal Self: Theories of Selfhood and Pedagogy at a
Japanese Ethics Retreat. Ethos 15(5): 241-72.
90. Kondo, D. 1990. Crafting Selves: Power, Gender and Discourses of Identity in a
Japanese Workplace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
91. Korac-Kakabadse, N., Kouzmin, A. & Kakabadse, A. 2002. Spirituality and
Leadership Praxis, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(3): 153-164.
92. Koss-Chioino, J. 2006. Spiritual Transformation, Ritual Healing, and Altruism,
Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science. 41(4).
93. Kotre, J. 1996. Outliving the Self, New York: Norton.
94. Kovel, J. 1991. History and Spirit: An Inquiry into the Philosophy of Liberation.
Boston: Beacon Press.
95. Krishnakumar, S. & Neck, C. 2002. The ‘What’, ‘Why’ and ‘How’ of Spirituality
in the Workplace, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(3), 153-164.
96. Kristeller, J. & Johnson, T. 2005. Cultivating Loving Kindness: A Two-stage
model of the Effects of Meditation on Empathy, Compassion and Altruism,
Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science. 40: 391-407.
97. Kunkel, D., Wilcox, B., Cantr, J., Palmer, E., Linn, S., & Dowrick, P. 2005.
Report of the APA task force on advertising and children. Available at
http://www.apa.org/releases/childrenads.html. Accessed on 02.03.08.
98. Landau, S. 2004. The business of America: How consumers have replaced citizens
and how we can reverse the trend. CITY: Routledge.
99. Lasch, C. 1979. The culture of narcissism: American life in an age of diminishing
expectations. New York: W. W. Norton.
100. Lasch, C. 1984. The minimal self: Psychic survival in troubled times. New
York: W. W. Norton.
101. Linn, S. 2004. Consuming kids: The hostile takeover of childhood. New
York: The New Press.
102. Lips-Wiersma, M. 2003. Making Conscious Choices in Doing Research
on Workplace Spirituality. Utilizing the ‘Holistic Development Model’ to
Articulate Values, Assumptions and Dogmas of the Knower, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 16(4): 406-425.
103. Lips-Wiersma, M. & Mills, C. 2002. Coming out of the Closet:
Negotiating Spiritual Expression in the Workplace, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 17(3): 183-202.
104. Loevinger, J. 1976. Ego development: Conceptions and theories. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
105. Lund-Dean, K., Fornaciari, C. & McGee, J. 2003. Research in Spirituality,
Religion and Work. Walking the Line Between Relevance and Legitimacy,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(4): 378-395.
106. MacDonald, D. 2000. Spirituality: Description, Measurement, and
Relation to the Five Factor Model of Personality, Journal of Personality, 68(1).

26
107. Marx, K. 1867/1976. Capital: A critique of Political Economy (Vol. 1),
Chicago: Charles H. Kerr.
108. Marx, K. 1858/1973, Grundrisse. Harmondsworth. Penguin/New Left
Review.
109. Marx, K. 1844/1964, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844.
New York: International Publishers.
110. Maslow, A. 1954. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
111. Mauritzen, J. 1988. Pastoral Care for the Dying and Bereaved. Death
Studies. 12: 111-122.
112. McAdams, D. 1985. Power, Intimacy and the Life Story: Personological
Inquiries into Identity, Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL.
113. McAdams, D. de St. Aubin, E. 1992. A theory of Generativity and its
Assessment through Self-Report, Behavioral Acts, and Narrative Themes in
Autobiography, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1003-1015.
114. McAdams, D., de St. Aubin, E., & Logan, R. 1993. Generativity among
young, midlife, and older adults. Psychology & Aging. 8.
115. McAdams, D. & de St. Aubin, E. 1998. Generativity and Adult
Development: How and Why we Care for the next Generation, American
psychological Association, Washington, DC.
116. McHoskey, J. 1999. Machiavellianism, intrinsic versus extrinsic goals,
and social interest: A self-determination theory analysis, Motivation and Emotion.
23.
117. McKnight, R. 1984. Spirituality in the Workplace. In J. Adams (Eds.),
Transforming Work: A Collection of Organizational Transformation Readings.
Alexandria, VA: Miles River, 138-153.
118. Milliman, J., Ferguson, J., Trickett, D. & Condemi, B. 1999. Spirit and
Community at Southwest Airlines: An investigation of a Spiritual Values-based
Model, Journal of Organizational Change, 12(3): 221-33.
119. Milliman, J., Czaplewski, A. & Ferguson, J. 2003. Workplace Spirituality
and Employee Work Attitudes: An Exploratory Empirical Assessment, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 16(4): 426-447.
120. Minuchain, S. 1974. Families and family therapy. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
121. Mitroff, I. & Denton, E. 1999. A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America: A
Hard Look at Spirituality, Religion and Values in the Workplace. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
122. Mohamed, A., Wisnieski, J., Askar, M. & Syed, I. 2004. Towards a
Theory of Spirituality in the Workplace, Competitiveness Review, 14 (1/2).
123. Myers, M. 1983. The Soul of Modern Economic Man: Ideas of Self-
Interest, Thomas Hobbes to Adam Smith. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

27
124. Nadesan, M. 1999. The discourses of corporate spiritualism and
evangelical capitalism, Management Communication Quarterly, 13(1): 3.
125. Nevard, L. 1991. Management – A ‘Spiritual’ Foundation, Management
Education and Development, 22(3): 188-96.
126. Nikelly, A. 2000. Globalization and community feeling: Are they
compatible? Journal of Individual Psychology. 56.
127. Novak, M. 1996. Business as a Calling: Work and the Examined Life.
New York: Free Press.
128. Overell, S. 2001. Spirituality in Business. Financial Times. 20-21.09.2003.
129. Pava, M. 2007. Spirituality In (and Out) of the Classroom: A pragmatic
approach. Journal of Business Ethics. 73: 287-299.
130. Pettigrew, A. 1985. The Awakening Giant: Continuity and Change in
Imperial Chemical Industries. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
131. Petzinger, T. 1995. Hard Landing. New York: Random House.
132. Possamai, A. 2003. Alternative Spiritualities and the Cultural Logic of
Late Capitalism. Culture and Religion. 4: 31-45.
133. Post, S. 2002. Unlimited Love: Altruism, Compassion, Service.
Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press.
134. Post, S., Johnson, B., McCullough, M. & Schloss, J. 2003. Research on
Altruism and Love: An Annotated Bibliography of Major Studies in Psychology,
Sociology, Evolutionary Biology and Theology, Philadelphia: Templeton
Foundation Press.
135. Power, T. 2000. Trapped in Consumption: Modern Social Structure and
the Entrenchment of the Device. In Eric S. Higgs, Andrew Light, and David
Strong (Eds.). Technology and the Good Life, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
136. Putnam, R. 200. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American
community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
137. Reave, L. 2005. Spiritual Values and Practices Related to Leadership
Effectiveness, The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5): 655-687.
138. Richins, M. 1995. Social comparison, advertising and consumer
discontent. American Behavioral Scientist, 38.
139. Roberts, B. & Robins, R. 2000. Broad dispositions, broad aspirations: The
intersection of personality traits and major life goals. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin. 26.
140. Rose, N. 1990. Governing the Soul. London: Routledge.
141. Ryan, R., Deci, E., Grolnick, W. & LaGuardia, J. 2006. The significance
of autonomy and autonomy support in psychological development and
psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.) Developmental
Psychopathology, Vol. 1: Theory and Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.

28
142. Schmidt-Wilk, J, Heaton, D. & Steingard, D. 2000. Higher Education for
higher consciousness: Maharishi University of Management as a model for
spirituality in management education., Journal of Management Education. 24(5).
143. Schor, J. 1998. The Overspent American: Why we want what we don’t
need, New York: HarperPerennial.
144. Schor, J. 2004. Born to buy: The commercialized child and the new
consumer culture, New York: Scibner.
145. Schulman, P. 1999. Applying Learned Optimism to Increase Sales
Productivity, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management. 19, 31-37.
146. Schwartz, B. 1986. The Battle for Human Nature. New York: W. W.
Norton.
147. Schwartz, S. 1996. Values priorities and behavior: Applying of theory of
integrated value systems. In C. Seligman, J. Olson & M. Zanna (Eds.). The
psychology of values: The Ontario symposium. 8. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
148. Schwartz, S., Sagiv, L. & Boehnke, K. 2000. Worries and Values, Journal
of Personality, 68:2.
149. Sen, A. 1977. Rational fools: A critique of the behavioral foundations of
economic theory. Philosophy and Public Affairs. 6.
150. Shafranske, E. & Gorsuch, R. 1984. Factors associated with the perception
of spirituality in psychotherapy. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology. 16: 231-
241.
151. Sheldon, K. & Kasser, T. 1995. Coherence and congruence: Two aspects
of personality integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 68.
152. Sheldon, K. & Krieger, L. 2004. Does legal education have undermining
effects on law students? Evaluating changes in motivation, values, and well-
being. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22.
153. Sheldon, K. & McGregor, H. 2000. Extrinsic value orientation and the
tragedy of the commons. Journal of Personality. 68.
154. Sheldon, K., Sheldon, M., & Osbaldiston, R. 2000. Prosocial values and
group assortation in an N-person prisoner’s dilemma. Human Nature. 11.
155. Simmel, G. Conflict and the web of Group Affiliations. Glencoe, IL: Free
Press.
156. Smith, A. 1776/1976. An Inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth
of nations. New York: Random House.
157. Smith, A. 1759/1976. The Theory of Moral Sentiments, New York:
Clarendon Press.
158. Spears, L. 1998. Insights on Leadership: Service, Stewardship, Spirit and
Servant Leadership. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
159. Spohn, W. 1997. Spirituality and Ethics: Exploring the Connections,
Theological Studies, 58, 109-124.

29
160. Strong, D., & Higgs, E. 2000. Borgmann’s Philosophy of Technology. In
Technology and the Good Life, ed. Eric S. Higgs, Andrew Light, and David
Strong. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
161. Stutzer, A. 2004. The role of income aspirations in individual happiness.
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 54.
162. Suls, J., & Wills, T. (Eds.) 1991. Social comparison: Contemporary
theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
163. Sutcliffe, S. & Bowman, M. 2000. Beyond New Age: Exploring
Alternative Spirituality. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
164. Tart, C. 1975. Transpersonal Psychologies, New York: Harper & Row, p.
3-7.
165. Tischler, L. 1999. The Growing Interest in Spirituality in Business. A
Long Term Socio-Economic Explanation, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 12(4): 273-279.
166. Townley, B. 1994. Reframing Human Resource Management: Power,
Ethics and the Subject at Work. London: Sage.
167. Twerski, A. 1998. Twerski on Spirituality, Brooklyn, NY: Shaar Press.
168. Vaill, P. 1998. Executive Development as Spiritual Development. In S.
Srivastva, D. Cooperrider & Associates, Appreciative Management and
Leadership: The Power of Positive Thought and Action in Organizations. Jossey-
Bass, San Francisco, pp. 323-353.
169. Van Praag, B. 1993. The relativity of the welfare concept. In M.
Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
170. Vinten, G. 2000. Business Theology, Management Decision, 38(3).
171. Weber, M. 1905/2002. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.
172. Wagner-Marsh, F. & Conley, J. 1999. The fourth wave: The spiritually
based firm, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(4), pp. 292-301.
173. Whyte, D. 1994. The Heart Aroused: Poetry and the Preservation of the
Soul in Corporate America. Currency-Doubleday, New York.
174. Williams, O. & Houck, J. 1992. A Virtuous Life in Business. Rowman &
Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.
175. Williams, R. 1976. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society.
Glasgow: Fontana.
176. Wulff, D. 1998. Rethinking the Rise and Fall of the Psychology of
Religion. In A. Molendijk & P. Pels, Religion in the Making: The emergence of
the Sciences of Religion, BRILL.
177. Younkins, E. 2002. Capitalism and commerce: Conceptual foundations of
free enterprise. Lanham, MD: Lexington.

30
178. Zinnbauer, B., Pargament, K., Cole, B., Rye, M., Butter, E., Belavich, T.,
Hipp, K., Scott, A. & Kadar, J. 1997. Religion and Spirituality: Unfuzzing the
Fuzzy, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36(4): 549-564.
179. Zinnbauer, B., Pargament, K. & Scott, A. 1999, The Emerging Meanings
of Religiousness and Spirituality: Problems and Prospects, Journal of Personality,
67, 889-919.

31