Organizational spiritual maturity (OSM)

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM)

By,
Adam S. Freer, MDiv, MSW

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PLANNING, POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT (DPPD)

August 2017

Copyright © August 2017 Adam S. Freer
ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are a number of people with whom I could not have completed this project. First
and foremost, I want to acknowledge the relentless support of my advisor, Dr. Peter Robertson.
Thank you for standing by me and walking me through some difficult steps in the process. I also
want to acknowledge the critical role of Julie Kim in guiding me through the process and the two
other committee members, Dr. Antoinette Andrews-Bush and Dr. Ann Reyes.
A special thank you goes to my fellow cohort members. It was a long, strange trip, but
we made it and not without a great deal of mutual support and encouragement and help refining
and shaping our dissertation topics.
Finally, I want to thank my family and friends, who provided undying support and
encouragement throughout the process, especially my father, Dr. Richard Freer and my sister Dr.
J. Freer. The biggest thank you goes to my wife, Rosanne Freer, who tolerated and sacrificed a
great deal in order to support me through this process. Love you Baby Doll!

iii

ABSTRACT
Organizations, in the form of government, business, philanthropy, faith-based
organizations and nonprofits, are the foundational institutions of modern society. As such, they
have profound and pervasive impacts on individuals, communities, societies and the entire world.
However, this impact is not always positive. Many efforts have been made to mitigate the harms
organizations inflict, but these have been and will continue to largely fail, because they do not
address the root of the problem but only symptoms. The true problem is the spiritual immaturity
of organizations, which causes organizations to do great harm by exploiting resources and people
and destroying life support systems and larger society. A spiritual problem requires a spiritual
solution. This study seeks to address the problem by promoting the development of
organizational spiritual maturity (OSM). Building upon existing literature, the study first
provides a clear definition the concept and identifies six main qualities of OSM: love, purpose
for the common good, wisdom, integrity, continual evolution and spiritually mature leadership
and management approach. The study concludes with guidance on how organizations can
improve their spiritual maturity, including processes and specific practices that can be adopted.

Keywords: organizational spiritual maturity, spirit at work, organizational spirituality,
organizational consciousness, organizational development, organizational behavior,
organizational analysis, corporate sustainability, corporate social responsibility, integrity,
ethics

iv

CONTENTS
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iii

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
I. Background ................................................................................................................................. 2
A. Seeds of the Concept ............................................................................................................ 3
B. Watering the Seeds ............................................................................................................... 4
C. The Final Influence............................................................................................................... 6
II. Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................... 8
A. Research Questions .............................................................................................................. 8
B. Purpose Statement ................................................................................................................ 9
C. Innovation to Practice ........................................................................................................... 9
D. Intended Impact of Study ..................................................................................................... 9
III. Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 11
A. Working Definitions ........................................................................................................... 11
B. Research Process ................................................................................................................ 12
IV. Preview of Remaining Chapters ............................................................................................... 14
V. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 15

Chapter 2: Dark Side Organizational Behavior (DSOB) ............................................................................ 16
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 16
II. What is Dark Side Organizational Behavior ............................................................................. 17
A. Defining Dark Side Organizational Behavior .................................................................... 19
B. Forms of Dark Side Organizational Behavior .................................................................... 24
C. Harm inflicted by Dark Side Organizational Behavior ...................................................... 28
III. Understanding Dark Side Organizational Behavior .................................................................. 35
A. Antecedents of Dark Side Organizational Behavior ........................................................... 37
B. Immediate Causes of Dark Side Organizational Behavior ................................................. 67
C. Facilitating Factors ............................................................................................................ 68
D. Perpetuating Factors ........................................................................................................... 72
IV. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 76

v

Chapter 3: The Case for Organizational Spiritual Maturity (OSM)............................................................ 77
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 77
II. Claim #1: Organizations can be held Responsible for Most Dark Side Behaviors ................... 77
III. Claim #2: Organizations Have Spirits ...................................................................................... 85
A. Argument Against Organizational Spirits .......................................................................... 86
B. Arguments for Organizational Spirits................................................................................. 87
IV. Claim #3: Dark Side Organizational Behavior Reflects Spiritual Poverty ............................... 97
A. Basic Case for Spiritual Roots of DSOBs .......................................................................... 97
B. Organizational DSOB Antecedents Reflect Spiritual Poverty ........................................... 98
C. Immediate Causes of DSOBs Reflect Spiritual Poverty................................................... 104
D. Facilitating and Perpetuating Factors Reflect Spiritual Poverty ....................................... 105
V. Claim #4: Organizational Spiritual Maturity is Necessary to Address Dark Side Organizational
Behaviors ................................................................................................................................ 106
VI. Claim #5: Organizational Spiritual Maturity is a New Concept ............................................. 108
A. Literature on Spirituality and Organizations .................................................................... 109
B. Similar Non-Spiritual Concepts ....................................................................................... 111
VII. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 114

Chapter 4: Definition and Qualities of Organizational Spiritual Maturity (OSM) .................................. 115
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 115
II. Definitions ............................................................................................................................... 116
A. Definition of Organizational Spirit ................................................................................... 117
B. Definition of Organizational Spiritual Maturity (OSM) .................................................. 119
III. Qualities of Spiritually Mature Organizations ........................................................................ 125
A. Love .................................................................................................................................. 128
B. Purpose for the Common Good ........................................................................................ 137
C. Integrity ............................................................................................................................ 144
D. Wisdom ............................................................................................................................ 158
E. Continual Evolution.......................................................................................................... 165
F. Spiritually Mature Leadership and Management Approaches ......................................... 168
IV. Spiritual Qualities Not Included ............................................................................................. 173
V. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 175

vi

Chapter 5: Spiritually Mature Organizational Practices .......................................................................... 176
I. Key Practices of Spiritually Mature Organizations ..................................................................... 176
A. Reflective Practice ............................................................................................................ 177
B. Empowerment ............................................................................................................... 178
C. Creating a Safe and Open Work Environment .......................................................... 187
II. Developing Specific Organizational Spiritual Qualities .............................................................. 189
A. Love .................................................................................................................................. 189
B. Purpose for the Common Good ........................................................................................ 206
C. Integrity ............................................................................................................................ 210
D. Wisdom ............................................................................................................................ 221
E. Continual Evolution.......................................................................................................... 228
F. Spiritually Mature Leadership and Management Approaches ......................................... 231
III. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 236

Chapter 6: Increasing Organizational Spiritual Maturity (OSM) ............................................................ 238
I. Process for Developing OSM ...................................................................................................... 238
A. Process Overview ............................................................................................................. 238
B. Determining the Right Path .............................................................................................. 241
C. The Holistic Path for Developing OSM ........................................................................... 242
D. The Targeted Path for Developing OSM ......................................................................... 252
II. Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research ....................................................... 263
A. Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................... 263
B. Recommendations for Further Research .......................................................................... 264
III. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 265

References ................................................................................................................................................. 267

Running Head: ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
“We believe that today’s organizations are impoverished spiritually and that
many of their most important problems are due to this impoverishment…We
believe that organizational science can no longer avoid analyzing, understanding,
and treating organizations as spiritual entities.”
-Ian I. Mitroff and Elizabeth A. Denton, 1999, p. xiv
Organizations, in the form of government, business, philanthropy, faith-based
organizations and nonprofits, are the foundational institutions of modern society. As such, they
have profound and pervasive impacts on individuals, communities, societies and the entire
world. However, this impact is not always positive. In fact, some argue that organizations are
some of, if not the most destructive entities in the world (cf. Bakan, 2004; Korten, 2001). Many
efforts have been made to mitigate the harms organizations inflict, but these have been and will
continue to largely fail, because they do not address the root of the problem but only symptoms.
Only recently have scholars begun to discuss organizations as living entities distinct from
their members (Barrett, 1998; Capra & Luisi, 2014; Wheatley, 2006) and with a separate
consciousness (Barrett, 2003; Barrett, 1998; Goodpaster, 2011; Harder, Robertson, & Woodward,
2004; Laloux, 2014). While many have written on spirituality within organizations, only a small
number of scholars have suggested that organizations themselves may have spirits that are also
separate and distinct from their members (cf. Biberman, 2009; Broekstra & de Blot, 2011;
Harder et al., 2004; Laloux, 2014). This study makes the case that all organizations have spirits,
which are understood to be their deepest and truest essence or identity. This spirit is the true root
of all that comprises an organization and all that it does. As with humans, organizational spirits
can be more or less developed, or mature. As the opening quote suggests, this study further
argues that the root cause of many of the world’s most pressing problems have their roots in the
spiritual impoverishment of organizations, or organizational spirituality immaturity.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 2
Only by promoting the spiritual development of organizations themselves can the harm
be resolved or hopefully reversed. This study presents the concept of organizational spiritual
maturity (OSM) as a new way of understanding these harms and as a new target of interventions
to address them. Spiritually immature organizations could be expected to harm society and the
planet in many ways, but also to have a difficult time achieving their missions. Conversely,
spiritually mature organizations could be expected to have beneficial impacts on all they touch.
This study begins by dissecting the harmful organizational behavior to better understand
its nature and factors that influence them. This serves as the basis for both the existence of
organizational spirits and the need for improving OSM in order to stop these problems. Next, the
concept of OSM is clarified along with its defining qualities building on existing literature. The
study is completed by presenting concrete steps that organizations can take to increase their
spiritual maturity. The hope undergirding this study is that in time, the recognition of the
powerful impact of organizational spirits will be commonly recognized and that larger society
will hold organizations to higher spiritual standards, including intentional and continual spiritual
development. If all or even a significant portion of organizations strive for spiritual maturity, the
potential benefits could be monumental, and this world would be a very different place.
I. Background
This study is the product of over a decade of personal searching. Influenced by familial
values, diverse professional experiences and a sense of urgency fueled by exposure to
overwhelming and extreme suffering, I was driven by the question, What could I do to alleviate
as much suffering as possible? This study represents the answer that has emerged. A brief
summary of the journey that led to this realization is provided here, because it helps clarify both
the intent and perceived value of the study.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 3
A. Seeds of the concept
The seeds for this study were planted in 2006 soon after I helped establish the first-ever
national collaboration of practitioners and experts to address the commercial sexual exploitation
of children (CSEC), which includes child prostitution, pornography, and all other instances of
pay for sexual access to children. At the time, I worked for The Salvation Army and directed the
project, which as funded by the U.S. Department of Justice. The collaboration consisted of many
smaller agencies that specialized in combatting CSEC and other forms of human trafficking,
some of whom were subcontractors on the project. We worked collaboratively to co-write the
proposal and co-design the program, which included a strong name and vision for the first
national collaboration to address CSEC. Subsequently, I developed a logo and established a
website. Before the official public launch, two of the subcontractors rebelled. Before the public
launch, two of the subcontractors rebelled. They demanded that the website be taken down, the
program name changed and the branding not used. They apparently had a more competitive
mindset than collaborative, which surfaced in the form of accusation that I and The Salvation
Army were “using” them to promote our own leadership in the field. The reality was that I was
intending to highlight and advance the leadership role of those agencies for whom I had the
utmost respect. Unfortunately, to resolve the tension the funder capitulated to their demands.
They continued to exert extensive and overt efforts to weaken and even destroy the collaboration
over the following two years of the project. They were successful.
However, not all of the collaborative organizations were threatened. In fact, the majority
fully supported the important and timely collaboration. After a particularly contentious meeting,
the Executive Director of one of these other agencies said something that stuck with me: “if I
knew that it was in the best interest of the children we are trying to help for me to dissolve my
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 4
organization, I would do it in a heartbeat.” The contrast of this approach with the other more
destructive approach was stark and enlightening. Although I could not necessarily articulate how
at that point, it was clear to me that this more selfless and even sacrificial approach was more
spiritually advanced, or mature. This is the seed that stuck with me – the idea that organizations
could actually have different levels of spiritual maturity. I learned first-hand how destructive
spiritually immature organizations can be, even to their own mission (i.e. their destruction of the
collaboration ultimately crippled efforts to help the children they were trying to help). The
desire to find a way to understand and characterize the differences between these organizations
was firmly implanted in the back of my mind.
B. Watering the Seeds
The broader implications of this experience emerged over time through my professional
experiences and continued studies. In 2012, I began my doctoral studies largely to inform my
professional role by identifying or helping to develop a highly effective community development
approach – perhaps the ideal approach, if one was possible. At the end of my first semester, my
plan was to develop this approach under the label of a spiritually mature development building
on the course material and my theological education. As my doctoral studies progressed, I
sought to further flesh out this concept by exploring the various components of spirituality as
applied to development, focusing upon such topics as community empowerment and inclusive
decision making processes.
As I learned new concepts and techniques, I naturally attempted to apply them in my
professional role to improve our practices. However, my efforts were largely met by
organizational superiors with either indifference or direct resistance. It became clear that serving
the communities the best we could was not necessarily the highest priority for the leaders of the
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 5
organization. Other factors seemed to compete with the overall mission, such as pleasing
superiors, politics, risk aversion and fear. Consequently, I could theoretically develop the most
advanced, effective and spiritually mature approach to community development and it not be
implemented due to these competing factors. Furthermore, it also became clear that not only
could the efforts be fruitless, they may actually do more harm than good. In other words, within
such an organization I could work very hard for years to improve the well-being of others, but in
the end only do them harm. This was a startling and unsettling realization. The theme that was
emerging was one of being driven by self-interest with more regard for the self than the other.
This is the point at which I decided to shift my focus from community development to
organizational development. Focusing initially on nonprofit and government agencies, this shift
reflected the recognition that the effectiveness of these organizations to achieve the positive
intentions for which they were created depends less on their strategies and processes and more
on their internal health and well-being. When these organizations are unable to achieve their
positive aims due to internal obstructions, the cost to society is great - not only do the needs
remain unaddressed, but there is a significant opportunity cost resulting from extensive waste of
human and financial resources that could otherwise have a positive impact. Everyone loses – the
intended beneficiaries, the employees who waste their time and efforts, the organization, and
larger society which loses much needed resources and while having critical needs remain unmet.
Through my ensuing studies, I sought a specific organizational practice that could serve
as the magic bullet or as a lever to move organizations in the right direction. Once identified, I
would make it the focus of my dissertation and perhaps my career. I separately considered
increased accountability to the mission of the agency, employee empowerment, servant
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 6
leadership, employee engagement and inclusive decision making, performance management,
among other potential solutions.
C. The Final Influence
Near the end of the process described above, one final pivotal influence helped crystallize
the topic and approach. In the documentary movie The Corporation (and corresponding book of
the same name), the filmmakers conducted a psychological assessment of a typical corporation
as if it were an individual human. The results were frightening. They concluded that most
corporations would be diagnosed as pathological if they were individuals based on the findings
that they are irresponsible, manipulative, grandiose, lack empathy, have asocial tendencies,
refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, are unable to feel remorse and relate to others
superficially. They further concluded that corporations are able to justify exploitation of people
and natural resources, and the destruction of the planet in the pursuit of their own self-serving
pursuit of profit and power (Achbar & Abbott, 2003; Bakan, 2004).
An important finding of the documentary researchers was that employees of pathological
organizations were not necessarily pathological on an individual level, but primarily when they
worked collectively. They determined that the employees were able to compartmentalize their
lives in order to have healthy personal relationships while doing great harm professionally –
often unwittingly. When people get caught up in the daily tasks and duties of their jobs, it
becomes difficult for them to see the larger picture of the full impact of their organization on the
world (Achbar & Abbott, 2003; Bakan, 2004). This fascinating study provided several
revelations that helped inform this study. Two are discussed here.
First, the study encouraged me to think about organizations in a comparable way to
individuals and the potential benefits of doing so. Had the researchers only viewed corporations
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 7
as containers of individuals, they would not have been able to perceive and characterize the truly
selfish and destructive aspects of corporations that are only visible when looking at the
corporation as a coherent entity with its own persona. Likewise, if a corporation can have a
psyche that is separate and distinct from its members, could it also have a spirit that is it deepest
identity – the source of its culture, values, norms and even psyche? This could create new, and
potentially powerful, ways of understanding organizations and their impacts on their members,
society and the world. Furthermore, it appears that this approach could be applied to any type of
organization rather than solely to corporations. Second, the study also provides insight into the
intra-organizational dynamics that allow potentially good and healthy people to do harm when
working for an organization. This study delves deeper in this area in order to better understand
these dynamics in order to inform solutions and increase awareness of how easily it can occur.
Ultimately, I developed the hypothesis that the true root of the problems faced in and
caused by organizations lies at the deepest essence of the organization – its spirit. Therefore, the
many solutions that seek to address these behaviors are ultimately doomed to failure, because
they do not address the problem at its spiritual root. Intervening at the organizational spirit level
could address a wide range of harmful behaviors and have an equally wide range of benefits.
This appeared to be the silver bullet that I was seeking. Returning back to my initial topic of
spiritually mature development, I landed on the topic of spiritually mature organizations.
In the end, the study provided a great deal of support for the hypothesis based on my
professional experiences, including support for the existence of organizational spirituality, and
insight into its implications and manifestations. It confirmed that the lack of organizational
spiritual maturity can take overtly destructive forms, such as the destruction of the CSEC
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 8
collaboration or more subtle forms, such as with the resistance to ideas that may challenge and
not necessarily please superiors that I experienced later.
II. Purpose of the Study
This section further explains the intentions of the study by identifying the research
questions the study seeks to answer, providing a purpose statement, and clarifying the
innovations to practice and intended outcomes.
A. Research Questions
Through experiences described in the previous section, several questions emerged that
are addressed through this research study, which are arranged into a central question and sub-
questions. These are based upon certain presumptions, such as the idea that organizations have
spirits. These claims are supported in chapters 2 and 3.
Central Question:
Does the extant literature support the existence of organizational spirits, and if so,
what does a mature organizational spirit look like?
Subquestions:
 What are the qualities of a spiritually mature organization?
 How does organizational spirituality differ from other concepts in the literature?
 What concrete steps can be taken to increase and organization’s spiritual
maturity?
B. Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study is to promote the spiritual development of organizations
by defining the concept of organizational spiritual maturity (OSM), identifying
qualities that reflect it and providing guidance on how to improve it.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 9
C. Innovation to Practice
As a professional dissertation – for a professional doctorate rather than a doctor of
philosophy degree – the purpose of this research project is to develop an innovation to practice,
or a novel contribution to improve practice. This can be accomplished by applying the research
in new ways and does not necessarily require collecting new or first-generation data. The
primary innovation of this study is the concept of organizational spiritual maturity (OSM) itself.
This is a new and important lens through which to view organizations and all that occurs within
them. While other concepts have come close, none have yet sought to clarify the nature of
healthy and mature organizational spirit. In addition to this definition, key qualities of OSM are
identified to further flesh out the concept and provide further clarity on what spiritually maturity
entails in an organization. The final innovation to practice is the presentation of guidance on
how organizations can increase their spiritual maturity, consisting of general steps and concrete
practices.
D. Intended Impact of Study
The hope and expectation is that this study will have both short-term and long-term
benefits. In the short-term, the intended impact is to raise awareness of organizational spirits so
that they may be better understood, while also motivating people to consider the spiritual
maturity of specific organizations with which they are affiliated. This is the reason the somewhat
provocative term “maturity” is used. No one likes to think of themselves, or their organizations,
as immature, which conveys that the organization is not as strong or healthy as it could be. By
evoking the question, the intent is to challenge people to at least consider the spirituality of their
organization and the steps provided to increase its spiritual maturity.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 10
Adoption of healthier practices in individual organizations is expected to improve the
quality of lives of employees and their families, increase the effectiveness of the use of
resources, increase the societal benefits of the collective work and decrease any harm that the
organization may have on the planet and society. As organizations become more spiritually
mature, they will treat employees with greater respect and create a more comfortable and
supportive work environment. This will have direct benefits while also modeling spiritual
maturity for them to emulate in other areas of their lives. Since the majority of people work for
organizations, over time can result in an increase in the overall spiritual maturity of societies.
As the practices are adopted, the public will become more aware of them. This could
lead to increased expectations and perhaps demands to pursue organizational spiritual maturity
by employees and external stakeholders, including investors, customers and policy makers. Over
time, the hope is that these beneficial practices become commonplace and perhaps are motivated
or required through public policy. Similar recent trends of public demand driving organizational
change and related policies have been seen in areas such as sweatshops and working conditions
in developing countries, fair trade, the environmental movement, living wage campaigns,
corporate social responsibility, triple bottom line and organic food. These examples demonstrate
not only the public's increasing scrutiny and awareness of business and organizational impacts, it
demonstrates that their collective voices are sufficient to create enough demand to influence
positive organizational behavior, even if the businesses are not necessarily doing it for the right
reason.
III. Methodology
In this section, the working definitions are presented as well as the process used to
support and conduct the research.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 11
A. Working Definitions
Spirit: The deepest essence of a living thing – who it is at its core - its true nature and
identity.
Spirituality: The sense of connectedness and interdependence that one has with the
whole of creation and resultant valuing of all people, living things and the planet.
Spiritual maturity: The extent to which one recognizes the interconnectedness and
interdependence of creation and exhibits values and behavior that reflect this recognition.
An entity’s spirit is its deepest and truest essence, and its spirituality reflects the nature of
this spirit, what it holds most dear. Ultimately, all people are deeply interconnected and
interdependent upon each other and the planet upon which we rely for survival. Those that
recognize this place a strong value on these things. Those that do not recognize this tend to place
a higher value on their own needs and desires, placing them above those of other people, living
things or the planet. Spirituality is inherently relational. It reflects this sense of connectedness
with the whole of creation.
While the definition of spirituality is not widely agreed upon (de Jager Meezenbroek et
al., 2012; Liu & Robertson, 2011; MacDonald, 2011), this working definition is consistent with
the commonly understood concept of spirituality as a recognition of interconnectedness and
interdependence used by many scholars (Bouckaert & Zsolnai, 2011; Capra, 1991; Collins, 2010;
de Jager Meezenbroek et al., 2012; Korten, 2006; Liu & Robertson, 2011; Thompson, 2011;
Wilber, 2000a).
One fairly consistent and important distinction in the literature is the differentiation
between spirituality and religion, the latter of which consists of specific beliefs espoused by a
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 12
religious group. The prevailing conclusion is that they are indeed separate and distinct but
interrelated concepts (Capra & Luisi, 2014; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003; Liu & Robertson,
2011; White, 2003). However, religion tends to be inherently divisive, because it is often by
nature intolerant in its dogma and excludes those that do not share the beliefs or traditions
(Mitroff & Denton, 1999; White, 2003), whereas spirituality is inherently unifying as it centers
upon understanding our connectedness (White, 2003). Consequently, the concept of spirituality
used in this study is non-religious.
Organizational Spirituality: The sense of connectedness that an organization has with
the whole of creation and resultant valuing of all people (including employees), living
things and the planet.
B. Research Process
Step 1 – Clarify the problem
Before the concept of organizational spiritual maturity is presented, the problem the
concept seeks to resolve must be better understood. Exactly what behavior is said to be rooted in
the organizational spirit and what are the various facilitating and contributing factors involved?
This serves as the foundation for both the need for OSM as well as helping to clarify the
processes and dynamics at work.
Step 2 – Make the case the organizational spiritual maturity is a solution to the
problem
The case for OSM involves three main parts. First, the argument that organizations have
spirits must be defended. Then, the case can be made for the problem being directly rooted in
the organizational spirit. This allows for the dots to be connected to explain how increasing the
maturity of organizational spirits will help resolve the problems described. Finally, it must be
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 13
demonstrated that the solution is new and has not already been presented, but under some other
label.
Step 3 – Conceptualize organizational spiritual maturity
The concept of OSM is established in two parts. First, a clear definition is developed
building on the working definition and existing literature. This must be further clarified by
identifying the main qualities of an ideal spiritually mature organization. This is accomplished
by synthesizing existing literature both on spirituality, in general, and especially in relation to
organizations. This also involves differentiating it from existing concepts.
Step 4– Provide guidance for improving OSM
The study concludes with guidance on how to improve an organization’s spiritual
maturity. This also involves combing and synthesizing existing literature related to each OSM
component and identifying concrete and practical steps organizations can take to move the
organization towards a higher level of maturity in each. Wherever possible, specific examples of
practices adopted by real organizations are highlighted.
IV. Preview of the Remaining Chapters
Chapter 2 – Dark Side Organizational Behavior (DSOB)
The case for OSM is presented over the next two chapters. In chapter 2, the problem the
study seeks to address is explained and in following chapter, increasing OSM is presented as the
solution. Building on extant literature, this chapter uses the umbrella term dark side
organizational behavior (DSOB) to refer to all harmful actions within and by organizations. The
various forms are discussed as well as the harm they inflict. The remainder of the chapter
explicates the factors that influence DSOB, including antecedents, immediate causes, facilitating
and perpetuating factors.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 14
Chapter 3 – The Case for Organizational Spiritual Maturity (OSM)
In Chapter 3, organizational spiritual maturity is presented as the solution of DSOB. This
argument is made through four claims. Claim #1 is that organizations do in fact have spirits.
Claim #2 is that DSOB reflects spiritual poverty. Claim #3 is that organizational spiritual
maturity (OSM) is necessary to address DSOB. Claim Supporting this claim requires arguing
that organizations have spirits and that the problems laid out in the previous chapter cannot be
addressed without maturing organizations’ spirits. Claim #4 is that the study is new. This
involves demonstrating that the concept does not already exist under a different label. This final
claim includes an abbreviated form of literature review.
Chapter 4 – Conceptualizing Organizational Spiritual Maturity (OSM)
The results of the research are presented in chapters 4-6. Extensive research was
analyzed and synthesized to develop the definitions of organizational spirit and organizational
spiritual maturity. OSM is further clarified by identifying the six key qualities that emerged from
an analysis of the literature.
Chapter 5– Spiritually mature practices
The qualities of OSM are made clearer by providing guidance on practices demonstrated
by spiritually mature organizations.
Chapter 6– Improving organizational spiritual maturity
The study culminates in the final chapter with steps organizations can improve their
spiritual maturity, which includes a matrix to help organizations determine the extent to which
they exhibit OSM qualities. This manuscript concludes with a reflection on the limitations of the
study and recommendations for next steps.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 15
V. Conclusion
The impact of organizations on our lives cannot be underestimated. If organizations learn
to examine and improve their deeper essences, or spirits, there are a great many harms that can
be stopped and benefits that can be enjoyed. The full extent of the benefits are unclear. But it
stands to reason that those of us working for organizations could expect an improved quality of
life, and if enough organizations follow suit, the aggregated effect could also be expected to have
a substantial positive impact on communities and perhaps nations. Either way, as will be
demonstrated in the next chapter, there is more than sufficient cause to pursue this investigation.

ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 16
Chapter 2: Dark Side Organizational Behavior (DSOB)
I. Introduction
Organizations are the most dominant institutions in the modern world (Bakan, 2004).
Each of us in modern society has a complex and closely interconnected relationship with
organizations. Our beliefs, values and behavior are affected by them, and we have various
reciprocal effects on them. Virtually all of us are members of multiple organizations, including
schools, faith communities and places of employment. Many are also members of voluntary
organizations, such as sport teams, civic groups, unions, interest clubs, etc. (Garsten & Nyqvist,
2013). In addition to the organizations with which we knowingly interact in our daily lives, we
are impacted by a great many others in ways that we may or may not recognize. Some with
which we knowingly interact are media companies, utilities, fuel companies, health systems,
sellers of goods and services that we use daily. Some organizations work on higher, macro levels
of society and may have impacts that are not easily observable by most of us in our daily lives,
but nevertheless greatly shape our worlds - such as the many layers and types of government and
public organizations, including police, fire departments and the military; thought leaders such as
academic and research institutions and think tanks; and countless nonprofit and advocacy
agencies that influence our thinking and address societal issues both large and small. From the
moment we wake, turn on our lights, grab our newspaper and our coffee, take a shower, get
dressed and drive to work listening to the radio, we have already been affected by many different
organizations before we even reach the organization that we will contribute to with our labor.
The end result is that organizations have pervasive and powerful impacts on the world and each
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 17
of us individually. Consequently, whether this impact is harmful or beneficial is important to the
well-being of us as individuals, our families, friends, society, nations and planet.
This study seeks to improve this impact, which in many instances will involve identifying
and addressing the spiritual roots of harmful organizational behaviors. Following trends in the
literature, these are referred to as dark side organizational behaviors (DSOBs), which is a catch-
all term for any harmful behavior related to organizations. DSOBs are essentially the problem
that this study seeks to address, and in many ways they serve as the foil of spiritually mature
organizational behaviors. Therefore, this study begins by closely examining them. This entails
clarifying what is meant by harmful behavior, which includes a presentation of the concept, the
various forms it can take and more specificity on the harm that can be attributed to organizations.
Attention then turns to understanding the many forces and dynamics involved along the entire
process of dark side organizational behavior. The end result is an understanding of the harmful
behaviors of organizations and how they occur that will set the foundation for the response to the
problem presented in this study.
II. What is Dark Side Organizational Behavior?
Scholars and practitioners alike have long recognized a wide variety of problematic and
destructive behavior at multiple levels within organizations, of organizations and across
organizations (Linstead, Maréchal, & Griffin, 2014). Historically this has been minimized,
because social science has tended to have an overly positive view of organizations that
insufficiently recognizes the behavior (Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007). Over the last two
decades, trends in academic literature indicate that this positivity is waning and efforts are being
made to pull back the veil to better understand the harmful behaviors, causes, dynamics and
impacts. This has been greatly influenced by a fairly consistent string of organizational
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 18
catastrophes that were clearly driven by dysfunctional or even amoral internal practices and
procedures, such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon tragedy,
Enron, WorldCom, subprime mortgages and risky financial practices that led to the collapse of
the financial markets and the recent Great Recession. Consequently, there is growing
recognition that organizations can and often do have a “dark interior” (Linstead et al., 2014, p.
166) that needs to be better understood and addressed to prevent further societal and planetary
harm. This has also been expressed as “frustrations with the tendencies of mainstream work to
overlook, ignore or suppress difficult ethical, political and ideological issues, which may well
mean life or death to some people” (Linstead et al., 2014, p. 165). For these and many other
reasons, interest in dark side organizational behavior has never been greater (Martinez, Ferris,
Moeller, & Harvey, 2012).
For the most part, the actual DSOBs are not new. Organizational behavior (OB) scholars
have been studying them for years, but under different labels (Vaughan, 1999). The use of the
metaphors to describe the dark and light side of humanity is more recent (MacKenzie, 2014) and
seems to have at least two main purposes. The first is to acknowledge that organizations cannot
be assumed to be positive as that blinds us to the complex interactions of factors that influence
their actions. Our collective experience has shown that failure to recognize this has led to a great
deal of harm, much of which is unintended, but sometimes is intentional, or at least known.
The second apparent reason for the use of this term is to create an umbrella concept under which
all harmful and destructive behavior related to organizations can be captured. Much of the
behavior actually has similar root causes, and coalescing the “symptoms” of these root causes
that manifest in various forms can lead to a better understanding of them and perhaps more
effective solutions. Other umbrella terms that reflect this trend have been introduced in the
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 19
literature, including dysfunctional workplace or organizations (Balthazard, Cooke, & Potter,
2006; Langan-Fox, Cooper, & Klimoski, 2007), administrative evil (Adams & Balfour, 2012,
2015) and organizational evil (Adams & Balfour, 2015; Jurkiewicz, 2012). For purposes of this
study, the term dark side organizational behavior is used to refer to all harmful organizational
behavior, because it appears to be the broadest and most inclusive. This reflects a growing trend
in the literature towards the use of this concept (Linstead et al., 2014). As a case in point,
MacKenzie first uses the term dysfunctional behavior in organizations in 2012, but by 2014 had
begun to use the term dark side organizational behavior, claiming that they were in fact
interchangeable (2014). A potential third reason for the use of this term, points to the purpose of
this study, and that is the beginning of a recognition that the root causes are deeper than mere
interpersonal and group dysfunctions, deeper than what can be explained through typical
organizational analyses rooted in psychology and sociology. The problems in organizations in
fact point to a more spiritual root of the problems that this study argues is the only way of truly
understanding the problems and devising effective solutions.
A. Defining Dark Side Organizational Behavior
There are varying definitions of dark side organizational behavior. For the purposes of
this study, the term is defined as any behavior within, of or across organizations that is harmful.
Several aspects of this definition need to be unpacked. The key idea here is that any harmful
behavior is considered dark side. There is not full agreement on this point in the literature. In
the first conceptualization of dark side behavior, Vaughan (1999) included only harmful behavior
that failed to conform to “formal design goals and normative standards or expectations” (p. 274).
Her assumption was that organizational goals and norms are healthy and are not themselves
harmful, and the only way to be harmful was to diverge from standard organizational practices.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 20
This was of course quickly challenged by other scholars who pointed out that the roots of dark
side behavior could be more systemic within organizations or even across organizations in entire
fields, such as the financial sector. Organizations could have harmful norms, such as fudging
numbers or engaging in extremely risky behavior, such as subprime mortgages, that are
inherently harmful (MacKenzie, 2014). Conversely, following norms can actually be harmful,
and contrary to Vaughan, sometimes dark side behavior actually lies in conformity, where
nonconformity would involve a resistance to doing harm (McCabe, 2014). Some have called this
the “bad apples” vs. “bad barrels” debate (Linstead et al., 2014, p. 16). In other words, is the
harmful behavior the result of a bad individual or a bad organization? (This is an important
question for this study, and is addressed in the next section.) Additionally, there are deeper
dynamics involved in which an organization may send messages and create incentives that
encourage harmful behavior that is inconsistent with its stated policies and ethical codes.
Consequently, the use of the term here includes actions that are harmful regardless of whether
they are considered to be consistent or inconsistent with written organizational policies or
professed organizational values and norms.
Another point of contention in the literature related to the inclusion of any harmful
behavior in the definition is the issue of intentionality – i.e. some suggest that dark side behavior
requires the intention to do harm (Griffin & O'Leary-Kelly, 2004). By way of contrast, Vaughan
(1999) included unintended mistakes in her original conceptualization of dark side behavior.
Adams and Balfour (2012; 2015) make a compelling argument for inclusion of unintended harm
using the extreme example of the office workers in the Nazi regime. Individual workers may
have shown up every day to work, adhered to organizational norms and even did what would be
considered a good job under those circumstances. However, their activities were still inherently
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 21
harmful, even though many of them did not understand the bigger picture nor intend to do harm.
Nevertheless, their behavior was indeed harmful and they were very much complicit in the
extreme harm inflicted by the organization. This is an example of McCabe’s (2014) conformity
to policies being harmful. If we do not consider the worker bee Nazis’ behavior evil, then we are
faced with the difficult decision of drawing a line between who is culpable for the atrocities that
were done and who should be absolved. Adams & Balfour (2012, 2015) use the phrase “masked
evil,” for situations in which employees are unaware of the harm in which they are participating;
they call masked evil administrative evil. When the veil is pulled back, and the harm is
recognized, the organization must decide whether it will continue to support the DSOB. If it
does, then it becomes “unmasked,” or organizational evil. Adams and Balfour (2015) argue that
masked evil should still be considered evil, as it is everyone’s responsibility to be aware of the
impact of their actions, and we cannot absolve ourselves of our contribution to evil claiming that
we were only doing our jobs. Mandel (2012) provides another important insight into this issue
when he points out that in most corporations, harm is most often a completely unintentional
byproduct of the pursuit of profit. He uses the example of the Exxon Valdez in which the
corporation failed to repair a critical piece of sonar equipment that had been broken for a year
prior to the oil spill, because they considered the cost of the repair to be excessive. They did not
intend for the spill to occur, but placed profit maximization over protecting the public and
environment from harm.
Largely for these reasons, in this study any harmful organizational behavior, whether
intentional or not, is considered dark side organizational behavior. An additional rationale for
this is that a lack of consciousness of the interconnectedness of the world is believed to be at the
heart of many of the world’s problems. As discussed in a later section, fragmentation is a
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 22
common characteristic of modern organizations (Rozuel, 2014; Wheatley, 2006). This leads to
diffusion of both knowledge of the harm that organizations inflict as well as the associated
responsibility for this harm (Adams & Balfour, 2015). Unfortunately, Adams and Balfour (2015)
contend that most organizations engage in some form of evil, but most of it is masked, or not
fully recognized by those involved. In order to stop harmful organizational behavior, society
must hold organizations and individuals accountable and culpable for their roles in societal harm,
especially if they do not hold themselves accountable for the impacts of their behaviors.
Another necessary definitional clarification related to the concept of any harmful
behavior is the locus of the behavior. Based on the concept of nested, living systems to be
further discussed in the next chapter, behavior occurs on multiple levels simultaneously. The
definition used here includes any behavior within organizations (either by individuals, groups or
teams), behavior of organizations themselves, or meta-organizational behaviors of groups of
organizations working together in collusion, such as through price rigging, or promotion of
harmful practices, such as subprime lending. As described later in this chapter, there are specific
forms of DSOBs at each of these levels. Behavior at the collective levels, including
organizations, is defined as “an interactive combination of the acts and thoughts” of the system
members (Tracy, 1989, p. 4). Behaviors in and across systems and levels often interact as both
cause and effect (MacKenzie, 2014) making for a complex and rich tapestry of actions and
consequences that combine to detrimental and sometimes catastrophic effects (Meadows, 2008).
Most scholars do not include the meta-organizational forms. It is unclear whether this is an
oversight resulting from a failure to consider or recognize these forms, or whether it is
intentional. Perhaps it also reflects the evolution of our understanding of DSOBs. While meta-
organizational forms of DSOBs are widely recognized, such as corruption, it appears that
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 23
MacKenzie (2014) is the first to include them as forms of dark side organizational behavior.
This study also includes them as forms in keeping with the perceived evolution of the concept
but also because it reflects that systems approach that is adopted in this study, i.e. organizations
exist within larger systems, such as their fields or sectors. The important question of whether
organizations can act, is addressed directly in the next section.
The locus of the harm is also a point of divergence in the literature. Griffin and O’Leary-
Kelly (2004) state that the consequences of dark side behavior are suffered by individuals or
groups within an organization or by the organization itself, but they do not include harm inflicted
outside the organization. This raises the question of whether harm done to other stakeholders or
the planet outside the organization is considered dark side. Griffin and O’Leary tend to be in the
minority on this, as most scholars include harm done outside the organization (e.g. Adams &
Balfour, 2015; Korten, 2001; MacKenzie, Garavan, & Carbery, 2011; MacKenzie, 2014;
Zimbardo, 2007). Examples clearly justify the inclusion of external harm, such as genocide, war,
environmental destruction and economic impact. Was the harm done to the Jews by the Nazis
not dark side, or evil? Are decisions to knowingly harm the planet to maximize profits not dark
side? Should this external harm be ignored and only the well-being of the organization be
considered? Certainly not. Organizations are inextricably interconnected with the outside
world, and therefore for this study any harmful behavior is considered to be dark side regardless
of where the harm is suffered. This study seeks to highlight this often ignored external harm and
to challenge organizations to make it a high priority to stop and/or prevent it.
The different dark side organizational behaviors vary in degree of severity from simple
incivility, bullying, sexist humor and lying (Linstead et al., 2014) to massive corruption
(MacKenzie, 2014). This points to a key distinction between the concepts of dark side behavior
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 24
and organizational evil. Minor “episodic and individualistic” behavior is considered by some to
be unethical or dysfunctional, but not evil. These behaviors do not meet the thresholds of
organizational evil, which are more severe and systemic (Jurkiewicz & Grossman, 2012, p. 3).
However, most dark side scholars seem to clearly consider these minor forms dark side behavior,
in addition to the more severe forms (e.g. Linstead et al., 2014; MacKenzie, 2014; Vaughan,
1999). For this reason, organizational evil is considered here to be a subset of dark side
organizational behavior, representing the most severe forms.
A final clarification on the idea that DSOBs include any harmful behavior is that inaction
is considered an action. In other words, if an employee is aware of harm being done but does
nothing, that behavior then is in effect harmful as it aids and abets the harm done. Albert
Einstein conveyed this powerfully by saying “the world is a dangerous place to live in, not
because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it”
(M. Stout, 2005, p. 106). There are several dynamics involved that make bystander intervention
more or less likely, which are discussed later in this chapter.
B. Forms of Dark Side Organizational Behavior
Table 2-1 contains a list of some forms of dark side organizational behavior presented in
the literature. It should be noted that the list is not intended to be comprehensive. The forms are
presented according to level of behavior from acts of individuals to groups, organizations and
finally meta-organizations, which again is behavior that is propagated amongst organizations in a
field, such as banking, the oil industry, or the automotive industry. The purpose of sharing the
list of forms is to provide further clarity to the concept of dark side organizational behavior by
identifying some of its many manifestations, however it is beyond to scope of this chapter to
thoroughly unpack these forms. The reader is directed to the sources provided for further
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 25
information. In order to illustrate the potential depth and complexity of each of the forms,
corrupt behavior is briefly discussed here. These harmful organizational behaviors are all
considered symptoms of spiritual immaturity and collectively represent the problems that the
concept of OSM seeks to address.
A few further notes are necessary at this point. Many of these forms are actually
categories of behavior that have themselves been popular topics of scholarly research and
literature. For example, everyday organizational violence includes: violation, hatred, derision,
contempt, indignation and bad behavior (Vince & Mazen, 2014). Also, some of the forms (e.g.
Table 2-1:

Forms of Dark Side Organizational Behavior

Level of Behavior
Forms of Dark Side Organizational Behavior
(in order from least to most severe within each level)
Individual

Deviant behavior
Aggressive behavior
Incivility
Narcissism
Derailment
Unethical intention
Unethical behavior
Counterproductive work behavior
Everyday organizational violence
Team/ Group Dysfunctional team behavior
Groupthink
Organization Counterproductive organizational behavior
Egoistic climate
Corrupt organizational behavior
Organizational narcissism
Dysfunctional organizational culture
Collective wrongdoing
Organizational corruption
Meta-organization (across
organizations in a field)
Institutional corruption
Herding behavior
Ideological dispositions
Institutional sanctions/ social silences
Meta-organizational narcissism
Corrupt networks
Cronyism
Sources: (MacKenzie et al., 2011; MacKenzie, 2014; Pearson & Porath, 2005; Vince & Mazen, 2014)
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 26
organizational narcissism, herding behavior) are discussed in a later section on the dynamics of
dark side behavior, due to the roles they play in facilitating DSOBs. The organizational culture
can influence and incentivize harmful behaviors, and those behaviors then influence and shape
the culture in many subtle and complex ways, leading to normalization and perpetuation of the
behavior. Adding to the complexity of this dynamic is the fact that context and outcomes matter.
Behavior that is harmful in one context may not be in another. For example, an employee may
fudge accounting records for illicit purposes, such as tax evasion or to hide losses. But consider
the case of Oskar Schindler, made famous by the 1993 movie Schindler’s List. Schindler
engaged in many of the same accounting fraud and other deceptive behaviors to protect Jewish
workers in his factories from being exterminated by the Nazis (Spielberg, 1993). This helps
clarify why harm is a critical element of the definition of dark side organizational behavior, the
outcomes or intended outcomes of the action determines whether it is dark side behavior. A
point of clarification is necessary here. Earlier, it was argued that as long as a behavior is
harmful, it is considered dark side regardless of the actor’s intention to do harm. The defining
factor is that harm is actually done. In Schindler’s case, the same behavior that would have had
harmful outcomes in other situations actually had positive outcomes and prevented harm. The
point being made here is that specific behaviors cannot be assumed to be DSOB, but are instead
defined by the actual or intended outcomes. This should not be read to state that ends justify the
means, or that a positive outcome can justify harmful means. If the means are harmful, then it is
dark side behavior regardless of any positive outcome that may be intended. However, often the
means are neutral and cannot be judged to be harmful or beneficial without consideration of the
outcome, or intended outcome.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 27
Corruption. Corruption has received a great deal of attention in the literature (Linstead
et al., 2014). Rose-Ackerman and Palifka (2016) recently released an extensive second edition
collection of writings on corruption focused on the public sector. Corruption is of special
relevance in this study for at least two reasons. First, it is a concrete way of connecting
organizational spirituality to the public sector – a requirement of this assignment - since
corruption is a persistent problem in the public sector across the globe.
Corruption can take different forms in different organizations, and can take many varying
forms at the different levels of the organization and even across organizations through collusion.
Corruption is defined as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain” (Rose-Ackerman &
Palifka, 2016, p. 9). In public organizations it is the public that is entrusting the individuals, and
in private organizations it is typically the employer who is entrusting the employee. Forms of
corruption in the public sector can differ and include: bribery, extortion, exchange of favors,
Figure 2-1: Corrupt Interactions
Source: (Rose-Ackerman & Palifka, 2016, p. 13)
Figure 2-1: Corrupt Interactions
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 28
nepotism, cronyism, judicial fraud, accounting fraud, electoral fraud, embezzlement and conflicts
of interest. Lower level public servants may engage in public service fraud by circumventing
legal requirements to benefit another party contrary to legal policies. Higher level public
servants can also engage in influence peddling by using their power of decision to extract favors
or bribes (Rose-Ackerman & Palifka, 2016). Of course, there is a great deal of interplay between
corruption in private organizations and public and governmental agencies. Figure 2-1 depicts
some of the many different types of corrupt interactions of and between various players.
As Figure 2-1 indicates, corruption is most often between the public and the private
sectors (represented in the figure by the firm, stockholders and employees). There are
indications that corruption is quite pervasive in the modern business sector. A study of the top
500 American companies over a ten-year period found that approximately two-thirds, or 66
percent, engaged in some form of illegal behavior (Barrett, 1998). There is also indication that
this is increasing as another study found that “economic crime increased by 50% between 2009
and 2011 (MacKenzie, 2014, p. 23). This has taken increasingly varied forms, such as fraud
(WorldCom and Adelphia), deregulation lobbying that led to financial collapse (Enron,
Citibank), predatory lending (Countrywide) and overly risky behavior (AIG, Goldman Sachs) (L.
A. Stout, 2012) and blatant cheating to bypass environmental protection regulations
(V olkswagen).
C. Harm Inflicted by Dark Side Organizational Behavior
What exactly is meant by “harm” that results from dark side organizational behavior?
This is important to understand for the upcoming discussions. Based on the preceding, it is
hopefully clear that a complete explication of all of the possible harms is both impossible due to
the many forms and also because the behavior is often hidden. It is also hopefully clear that a
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 29
full accounting of the harm is unnecessary for the purposes of this study, because the
commonness of the behavior - which is further supported later in this chapter – indicates a
sufficiently substantial problem to warrant significant attention. With this said, the study would
be incomplete without at least a cursory presentation of the types of harm inflicted by
organizations if only to further clarify the urgent need for an effective solution. As discussed, the
harm can be different at multiple levels (individual, group, organization, society, planet), and
both internal and external to the organization.
1. Individual-Level Impacts. Individuals both within and outside organizations can be
harmed by them, and can suffer a wide range of harms. The harm may be physical, emotional or
impact their overall quality of life. On the extreme side of physical harm, governments are
responsible for the mass murder of over 50 million people in the twentieth century. In addition
to over 6 million Jews and others, the Ottoman Turks killed 1.5 million Armenians, Stalin
murdered over 20 million of his citizens, Chairman Mao exterminated approximately 30 million
citizens, and on the list goes with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, etc.
(Zimbardo, 2007).
Physical harm, including death, can result from injuries related to diminished safety
resulting from dysfunctionality. Researchers have learned that many organizational accidents
were preceded by clear warning signs, but in some organizational cultures that are driven by
productivity, these signs can be suppressed, often through bullying (Linstead et al., 2014). One
of the most common results of dysfunctional toxic workplaces is stress. There are a number of
factors that lead to stress that are caused by dark side behaviors, such as a toxic work
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 30
environment,
1
bullying, dysfunctional relationships with superiors or coworkers, harassment and
the overall organizational climate. There are varying levels of stress with associated harmful
impacts on the individual that range from relatively minor issues such as anxiety and headaches
to more significant problems such as heart disease, psychosis, chronic fatigue, depression and
immune system depletion that can lead to heart attacks and death (Colligan & Higgins, 2006).
External individuals can also be physically harmed by organizations that operate in
dysfunctional ways. Consider that virtually everything we encounter on a daily basis is produced
by organizations, including the houses we live in, the cars we drive, the bridges and roads we
drive on, the food we eat, child toys, etc. As a poignant and well-known example, Ford learned
before even going to market that their Pinto had a defect that caused it to explode upon being
rear-ended. The fix would have cost $11 per car. However, they crunched the numbers and
decided that the cost of fixing the cars was not worth the projected harm and released the car
anyway. They estimated that it would result in 180 lives per year. Clearly, this dark side
behavior had a catastrophic impact on those individuals who died as a result of this decision.
Employees and external individuals can also suffer a range of health impacts from pollution and
radiation (Schabracq & Smit, 2007).
In addition to the physical impacts, employees are greatly impacted emotionally by dark
side behaviors. For organization members, negative work experiences can decrease the quality
of life across all areas of their lives (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005), including relationship breakdown,
family discord and social isolation (Grant, 2007). Some forms of dark side behavior, such as

1
The term “toxic” is used here and by other authors as the opposite of a healthy work environment (cf.
Ferguson, 2009; Hartmann, 2004).
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 31
bullying, have also been shown to lead to PTSD and even suicidal ideation (Langan-Fox &
Sankey, 2007).
2. Organizational-Level Impacts. Harm to the organization can also take many forms.
Organizations are emotional environments. Although emotions are felt by individuals, they are
highly contagious and can transcend a person and influence other individuals, groups and the
entire organization (MacKenzie, 2014). The harm suffered by individuals as well as this
emotional climate can have significant impacts on organizations, including increased
absenteeism, decreased productivity, burnout (Colligan & Higgins, 2006; Pearson & Porath,
2005), decreased job satisfaction and organizational loyalty (Pearson & Porath, 2005) costly
turnover (Langan-Fox & Sankey, 2007) and increased toxicity.
2
The harm done to employees
also creates a significant legal and financial liability for the organization related to workers’
compensation and lawsuits. By definition, counterproductive behaviors can directly interfere
with an organization’s ability to achieve its goals. Dark side behavior can also lead to negative
publicity (Langan-Fox & Sankey, 2007), which can have devastating effects, such as in the cases
of Enron, WorldCom, AirTran, Goldman Sachs, etc. All of this can of course have serious if not
completely destructive economic impacts on the organization (Neuman, 2004).

2
The term “toxicity” as used here refers to a highly uncomfortable and unhealthy work climate. This is in
keeping with its use by some scholars as the opposite of a healthy work climate (cf. Ferguson, 2009; Hartmann,
2004).
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 32
3. Societal and Global Impacts. Due to the prevalence of organizations and their
powerful roles in our societies, it would be hard to overestimate the true impact they have and
the harm they inflict. As but two examples, the role of organizations in the destruction of our life
support systems and the related social unsustainability are briefly described here.
Destruction of life support systems. Organizations are the main drivers of the
destruction of our life support systems, which are planetary systems required to sustain human
lives by providing the food, air and water we need to survive (Barrett, 1998; Capra & Luisi,
2014; Perrow, 1997). Kelly (2014) states that, as corporations and the associated capital markets
are the “internal combustion engine” of the economy, they are also consequently the “main
driving force for ecological systems” (p. 402). In pursuit of their goals, organizations generate
excessive waste (Capra & Luisi, 2014) and make substantial contributions to the depletion of
natural resources, climate change, overuse of water reserves and topsoil (Laloux, 2014), and
destruction of oceans and forests (Bygrave & MacMillan, 2008; Laloux, 2014). Organizations
release toxic waste into the environment leading to the extinction of species at the highest rate
ever. As a concrete example of the principal role that organizations play in planetary destruction,
an estimated 63 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions since the Industrial Revolution began
can be attributed to just 90 companies (The Worldwatch Institute, 2014). In other words, the vast
majority of this specific form of environmental destruction has come from organizations. There
is some degree of consensus that slowing, and hopefully ending or even reversing, the
environmental damage will require a complete revamping of how corporations operate (Capra &
Luisi, 2014; Harder, Robertson, & Woodward, 2004; The Worldwatch Institute, 2014).
Public organizations, especially governments, play various roles in relation to planetary
life support systems. They generate pollution directly through public power plants, offices,
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 33
military bases and government vehicles. As stipulations, these and other agreements could
include environmental and human rights standards. They also develop and implement policies to
regulate and control the damage that they and other organizations have on the planet. Finally, to
a great degree they control and regulate efforts to improve ecosystems, such as through green
technologies, waste clean ups, protection of sensitive ecosystems, etc.
Social unsustainability. Social disintegration is accelerating in nearly every corner of the
globe (Elgin, 2000). In an intricate web of interconnectivity, the destruction of our life support
systems fuels and is fueled by social deterioration leading to social unsustainability. Increased
competition for resources often leads to social tensions and violence as people become more
desperate to survive (Capra, 1996; Goldsmith, 1996; Korten, 2001), as well as increases in
poverty, inequality, unemployment, crime and failing families (Elgin, 2000; Maxwell, 2003). In
order to achieve social sustainability, everyone must have an adequate and secure share of
material resources that are fairly distributed (Meadows, Randers, & Meadows, 2004). For this
reason, Hossay (2006) claims that environmental destruction and inequity, in terms of resources
and wealth, are not separate problems but rather “two sides of the same coin” (p. 2). Therefore,
all of the harm done by organizations to life support systems also directly and greatly harms the
social fabric.
Through globalization, the world is becoming increasingly interconnected. Globalization
is driven and coordinated by large corporations and the governments that negotiate trade
agreements and monitor their activities, often minimally. Capra and Luisi (2014) claim that
“social inequality and social exclusion are inherent features of economic globalization, widening
the gap between the rich and the poor and increasing world poverty” (p. 363), creating the largest
wealth gap the human race has ever known (Lépineux & Rosé, 2011; Sachs, 2005). This wealth
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 34
gap destroys social fabric by creating a sense of alienation that leads to terrorism, violence and
even genocide (Korten, 2010). The current state of humanity is therefore far from socially
sustainable and clearly moving in the wrong direction.
Because poverty plays such a key role in destabilizing societies, the impacts of
organizations in generating and perpetuating it provides a great example through which to
demonstrate the pervasive harmful impacts of organizations on the social fabric. First,
organizations are largely responsible for the distribution of resources in communities and
countries and across international borders. Governments distribute resources in a number of
ways. They set minimum wages; establish a wide range of regulations related to employees,
such as working conditions and discrimination prevention; regulate industries affecting the
degree to which they are profitable; promote job growth through tax incentives, etc. They also
levy taxes and determine who benefits from the revenues and how. National governments also
determine who benefits through trade agreements, through tariffs, subsidies and the extent to
which they regulate the social and environmental impacts of organizations. Government
corruption can result in inflation, tax evasion, and low trust in the economy that can result in low
economic growth, low investment and monetary devaluation (Rose-Ackerman & Palifka, 2016).
Other harms of government corruption are low-quality infrastructure, high crime rates, and poor
education (Rose-Ackerman & Palifka, 2016). Each of these result in further and continued
harms to individuals and societies. Many or most countries also have central banks, which are
organizations with powerful impacts on the economy and subsequently on many other aspects of
society. Governments are also responsible for engaging in war, which are by design destructive
to individuals, societies and other organizations.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 35
Poverty is also affected by organizations that employ people and sell goods and services,
such as health care. In fact, one study found that health-related expenses were identified as the
primary reason people in four countries on three continents descended into poverty (Krishna,
2007). The ability to afford health care is directly impacted by government, health care
organizations and insurance companies, where available. These examples clearly just skim the
surface of the many impacts that organizations have on our social fabric and sustainability of the
human species.
III. Understanding Dark Side Organizational Behavior
In order to successfully address and end dark side organizational behavior, the deeper
dynamics at play must be understood. Figure 2-2 provides a simple overview of the dark side
organizational behavior development process that is described here. As earlier argued,
understanding organizational behavior requires a triadic examination of individual, situational
and system components involved (cf. Zimbardo, 2007). This section takes a closer look at the
forces at play at each of these levels and in each phase of the process. First, the antecedents of
the behaviors create a situation that encourages or incentivizes dark side behaviors, then the
immediate causes of the dark side behaviors initially spark the DSOBs which are then facilitated
and perpetuated by yet another set of factors.
It is critical to note that this structure should not be interpreted as a linear process
although it appears as a straight line here for the sake of simplicity. There is extensive back and
forth, even cyclical interactions, between many of the factors. For example, one facilitating
factor of major dark side behaviors is minor dark side behaviors (Rose-Ackerman & Palifka,
2016), which in turn have their own development processes. Another important note is that this
presentation of factors is intended to provide a broad picture of potential factors and is not
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 36
intended to describe any one particular organization or any particular form of dark side behavior,
but rather the many factors that could influence this behavior in an organization. Because the
literature applies only to formal organizations, this study should also be understood as applying
to formal organizations and not informal groups, although many of the factors and dynamics
likely apply in those contexts as well. Additionally, the list is not intended to be comprehensive,
but instead provides a general understanding of some of the many factors at play and how they
can and do interact to produce dark side behavior in organizations.
A comprehensive presentation of the complexities of these dynamics exceeds the scope
of this project, and indeed many subtopics could themselves be fodder for entire dissertations.
Instead, this chapter provides a high-level survey with the understanding that OSM provides a
fairly holistic response to the dynamics that produce dark side organizational behaviors. Like the
forms, the dynamics are in many instances symptoms of deeper problems.
Figure 2-2: Process of Dark Side Organizational Behaviors

Dark Side Behavior
External
· Competition
· Domination
· Materialism
· Superficial greed
· Individualism
· Fragmentation &
dissociation
· Toleration of
corruption
Organizational
· Organizational
narcissism
· Destructive leaders
· Profit maximization
Immediate Causes of
Dark Side Behavior
Antecedents
Individual
· Moral
underdevelopment
· Weak integrity
Facilitating Factors
(While still masked)
Perpetuating Factors
After harm is clear (i.e.
“unmasked”)
1. Instrumentality (means to
an end)
2. Threatened egotism
3. Idealism
4. Sadism
Need for social
approval
Compliance/
Obedience
Moral
inversion
Moral
disengagement
Diffusion of
responsibility
“Evil Turn”
when harm is
unmasked
Successive
ratification
“sunk costs”
Normalization
Inaction
Figure 2-2: Process of Dark Side Organizational Behavior
Minor DSOBs
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 37
A. Antecedents of Dark Side Organizational Behaviors
Antecedents are the values, forces, norms and behaviors that lead to or create the
environment that incentivizes and encourages dark side organizational behavior. Some of the
antecedents identified in the literature are presented here in three main sections, external,
organizational and individual, reflecting the triadic components described earlier. This order
reflects a perceived outward-in influence of the factors. External antecedents influence and help
shape internal organizational antecedents that create the right environment for dark side
behaviors. There are also factors that make individuals more or less predisposed to engage in the
behaviors, which are also briefly discussed here. It should be noted that the use of the term
“cause” in this study is very specific as it refers to the immediate factors that initiate DSOBs and
are presented separately in the next section. Antecedents are factors that shape the context in
which the DSOBs occur. This is analogous to a drought that creates a highly flammable
situation. The drought does not itself spark the fire, but simply creates a situation that increases
the potential of a fire. Like the drought, antecedents do not directly cause DSOBs, but rather
create the right environment for them to occur. Some scholars use the term “cause” more
broadly to include what are considered in this study to be antecedents, and to be accurate in
presenting their ideas, this language is retained. This explains why this section often references
what scholars consider causal factors, but keep in mind that they are considered antecedents for
the purposes of this study.
1. External Antecedents. Organizations and individuals within organizations exist
within a broader society that constantly exerts a wide range of influences on them. Dark side
organizational behavior cannot be properly understood without acknowledging influences of the
cultural context in which they are created and operate. In many ways, these behaviors embody
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 38
and reflect the values and beliefs of the broader culture in which they are situated. However,
because our cultural predispositions shape and color the lenses through which we observe the
world, they can keep us from recognizing certain problematic factors, and therefore prevent us
from fully understanding dark side organizational behaviors (Adams & Balfour, 2015). External
forces that influence organizational behavior are political, legal, cultural (Rose-Ackerman &
Palifka, 2016) and economic. Because the legal and political influences differ greatly depending
on the specific organizations, the more generalized socio-economic forces will be the foci of this
section. The omission of those powerful factors creates the risk of oversimplifying our
understanding of the behavior, and reaffirms the importance of considering the full breadth of
factors that influence organizational behavior, even beyond those described here. Additionally,
the factors in Figure 2-2 and described here should be understood as but some examples of
factors that have surfaced as themes in the literature.
The external socio-economic factors are presented here in order of loosely perceived
causality. The main concepts discussed here are the developmental immaturity of the prevailing
world cultures. The level of maturity greatly impacts and shapes the prevailing worldview and
beliefs in modern society and the manifestation of those beliefs in society creating a bit of
overlap. Only a few scholars discuss the cultural developmental immaturity; most point directly
to specific beliefs, paradigms or manifestations as the primary cause of the problems discussed
herein. Each of the factors here is connected and together has substantial impacts on the
dynamics within organizations that lead to dark side behaviors.
Cultural developmental immaturity. Some scholars argue that the causes of most of
society’s problems lie in the relative immaturity of the Western culture that has come to
dominate the planet (Elgin, 2000; Hartmann, 2004; Holthaus, 2008; Norberg-Hodge, 1996).
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 39
Hartmann (2004) argues that most modern societies are dominated by Western values, which are
inherently more destructive as they are based upon domination rather than cooperation. In fact,
the dominant culture is much younger than many of the older cultures in places where it has
conquered and marginalized, such as the Native American, Maori, and other indigenous cultures
around the globe. One of the reasons that it is the dominant culture is precisely because it seeks
to dominate and has consequently invested a great deal of energy and resources into developing
technologies and strategies to dominate others (Hartmann, 2004). This is fueled largely by an
assumption that resources are scarce, life is hostile and if you do not compete with others for
resources, you will die (Hartmann, 2004; Korten, 2006). This tendency to compete is even
further exacerbated by a belief that humans are inherently “flawed and dangerous” (Korten,
2006, p. 32), which has further justified a tendency for people to use force to get what they want
(Hawkins, 2002; Wheatley, 2006) while dehumanizing others in the process.
By way of contrast, older cultures tend to be wiser, more conscious of interconnections in
the world and consequently more symbiotic with nature and other humans. In other words, the
younger, dominant cultures in the modern world are inherently less mature and less wise,
perhaps because they lack the benefit of time and experience-based wisdom. But they also
arrogantly interpret their dominance over the older, more peaceful cultures as superiority.
However, there is a great deal that these older cultures can teach us about how to live sustainably
and in harmony with nature and each other (Hartmann, 2004; Holthaus, 2008). These cultures
also tend to live much closer to the land, whereas people in urbanized societies have a tendency
to lose touch with the natural world and lack a deeper understanding about how their decisions
impact it (Michaelis, 2011).
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 40
Elgin (2000) equates the overall developmental maturity of the majority of human
societies to that of an adolescent. He draws several parallels to support this assessment.
Teenagers tend to have a short-term focus on instant gratification. Like teens, these societies
tend to be shallower and focused on material goods and appearances than deeper issues (Elgin,
2000; Rozuel, 2014), and they have an unrealistic sense of immortality and therefore fail to
comprehend serious danger, such as the harms they may inflict through dark side behavior.
Within these cultures, the desire to “fit in” leads to the tendency to have cliques, or a divisive “us
versus them” or “in versus out” mentality (Elgin, 2000, p. 3). Norberg-Hodge (1996) similarly
calls the prevailing culture a “teenage boy culture,” because it “demands mobility, flexibility and
independence…induces a fear of growing old, of being vulnerable and dependent” (p. 406). In
sum, the immaturity of prevailing cultures in modern society result in the promotion of
competition, domination, superficial greed and a high value placed on independence. We are
only starting to comprehend the depth of the harm resulting from these societal characteristics.
Cultural beliefs and worldview. While the level of cultural maturity clearly shapes the
worldview and beliefs of societies, some scholars jump over the cultural maturity discussion to
focus on specific beliefs or sets of beliefs, in the form of paradigms or worldviews, as the
primary causes of many of the harmful and self-destructive behaviors enacted in and through
organizations. These beliefs then represent the subsequent level of causality of DSOBs. For this
reason, these topics are addressed separately in this section. As could be expected in a world
dominated by cultures driven by values of independence, greed and competition, the prevailing
beliefs about and perceptions of the world that the majority of humans have are not only largely
inconsistent with reality, but will ultimately lead to the demise of the species if not corrected
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 41
(Bouckaert & Zsolnai, 2011; Elgin, 2000; Hartmann, 2004; Hawken, 2007; Korten, 2006).
Capra (1996) makes the role of perception poignantly clear:
“The major problems of our time cannot be understood in isolation. They are
systemic problems, which means that they are interconnected and
interdependent…ultimately these problems must be seen as just different facets of
one single crisis, which is largely a crisis of perception” (p. 3-4).
This statement supports an argument of this study that many harmful behaviors are really
symptoms of and point to deeper issues, and can only be successfully resolved if the true cause is
addressed. The reason solutions to many DSOBs largely fail is because they are rooted in the
same worldview that caused them in the first place (Hartmann, 2004). Consequently, the
solutions are too narrow and ultimately do not address the true causes (Edwards, Biloslavo,
Kwaymullina, & Kwaymullina, 2012). This section focuses on one particularly problematic set
of beliefs, the modern paradigm, to which many authors attribute the destructive behaviors of
organizations (Capra & Luisi, 2014; Collins, 2010; Maxwell, 2003; Wheatley, 2006)
The modern paradigm. The term paradigm is used widely in literature in a way that is
fairly synonymous with worldview, and is defined as a set of “concepts, values, perceptions and
practices of a culture” that form a certain understanding of reality (Capra, 1996, p. 6). Elgin
(2000) explains the significance of paradigms this way:
“A paradigm tells most people, most of the time, what’s real and what’s not,
what’s important and what’s not, and how things are related to one another….it
is our window on the world that shapes how we see and understand the nature of
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 42
reality, our sense of self, and our feelings of social connection and purpose” (p.
45).
The dominating Western culture that controls most of the world is deeply rooted in the
modern paradigm. Many segments of society have evolved from the modern paradigm to
postmodernism, or even beyond. However, scholars point to the lingering effects of the modern
paradigm as the root cause of many of the most destructive human and organizational behaviors
(Bouckaert & Zsolnai, 2011; Capra, 1996; Capra & Luisi, 2014; Elgin, 2000; Hawkins, 2002;
Maxwell, 2003; Wheatley, 2005).
As a general rule, throughout history prevailing societal paradigms tend to be strongly
influenced by the natural sciences, especially physics, because they have such profound impacts
on how we understand reality. The modern paradigm has its roots in classical physics based
upon the works of Isaac Newton and René Descartes (Capra & Luisi, 2014). An underlying
assumption of the paradigm is that everything can be understood through science. From this
basis, the cosmos is viewed as a largely impersonal machine (Maxwell, 2003). Because it is a
machine, and not controlled by mysterious forces, it is possible to understand it through scientific
study. A core value of the modern paradigm is technical rationality, which values scientific or
analytical approaches to understanding reality over all others. This approach involves breaking
everything into parts, or compartmentalization of knowledge, in order to study and understand
them (Adams & Balfour, 2015). The modern paradigm promotes fragmented and
compartmentalized thinking, which increases disconnection, alienation, and self-focused
behavior (Collins, 2010; Healey, 2006; Maxwell, 2003; Wheatley, 2006). Wilber (1998) further
argues that these beliefs lead to pathologic dissociation. For example, people can become
compartmentalized to the point that we use different fragments of ourselves in different settings,
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 43
such as work, home, church, social settings, etc. (Wheatley, 2006). To indicate the significance
of this, Hawkins (2002) goes as far as to say that this illusion that we are disconnected is the
origin of all suffering.
Manifestation of beliefs and worldview. These paradigmatic beliefs and perceptions
prevalent in the world manifest through values that ultimately drive our behavior and the design
of institutions and social structures. They pervade all aspects of our world. For instance,
because the modern paradigm leads us to erroneously perceive everything as disconnected pieces
of a cold and mechanical universe (M. Collins, 2010; Healey, 2006; Maxwell, 2003; Wheatley,
2006), this leads to behavior that fails to recognize or often even consider how we impact others.
Most people are so completely wrapped-up in their own individual worlds that they are unable to
see the big picture; consequently, most people live very superficial lives (Cohen, 2011) that often
have harmful effects on others. Behaving as if we are separate individuals with no accountability
to others is a major cause of many of the world’s problems (Wheatley, 2005). The reality is that
the world is deeply interconnected, but people do not want to know this, because it would mean
that we have some degree of responsibility for considering how we affect others. But Wheatley
(2006) claims that it would be too painful to accept this responsibility and that people do not
want to take on more responsibility in the modern world, because so many people already feel
stretched too thin.
In the aggregate, the self-centered behavior of the wealthier, generally Western societies
has been called pathological, because it causes alienation from others and the environment,
greed, extreme competition, cynicism and despair (Elgin, 2000). Korten (2006) concurs that this
competition is pathological, because it is violent and self-destructive. This competition fueled by
greed has greatly exceeded the need for survival. This has not always been the case. Most
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 44
traditional societies do not have a distinction between personal and public good, and
consequently crime and violence are less likely to occur (Goldsmith, 1996). In fact, for over 99
percent of human history, people have lived in egalitarian societies (Broekstra & de Blot, 2011).
Tragically, these more peaceful cultures have been unable to withstand the younger cultures that
are driven by dominance and competition (Hartmann, 2004; Korten, 2006). Only recently has a
less mature greedy and power seeking orientation replaced this more mature and noble value
system (Broekstra & de Blot, 2011). Most traditional societies still around today continue to
align personal interests with those of the community (Norberg-Hodge, 1996), and most likely
this is why they continue to survive – they are quite literally sustainable.
Moral and ethical vacuum. Morality is the understanding of what is right as defined by
culture, tradition, family, religion or an organization. Cooper (2012) defines ethics as “the study
of moral conduct and moral status” (p. 2). Ethics then “involves the examination and analysis of
the logic, values, beliefs, and principles that are used to justify morality” (Cooper, 2012, p. 2). It
furthermore involves the “regulation of the interactions among human beings, as well as the
interactions with their…environment” (Schabracq & Smit, 2007, p. 111).
One of the more subtle yet powerful impacts of the modern paradigm was to undermine
and replace the roots of morality. Because the world became knowable, humans no longer
needed to rely on God for meaning. Wheatley (2006) claims that science replaced God and
marginalized religion, which has served as the primary foundation of morality for much of
human history. This created a moral vacuum that has allowed the basis of organizational
morality to shift away from what is right in a broader sense, to what is right in the organizational
context. As mentioned, the modern paradigm manifests in a science-based technical rationality
that has a tendency to replace normative and ethical judgements. From this perspective, to be
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 45
professional is itself moral. The result is a “morally impoverished professionalism” (Adams &
Balfour, 2015, p. 33). Technical rationality has furthermore been said to be “founded upon and
sustained by systematic dehumanization, exploitation and even extermination,” which has been
shown to lead to horrors (Adams & Balfour, 2015, p. 38). Adams and Balfour (2015) make the
shocking and appropriately attention grabbing claim that the extermination of millions of Jews in
the Holocaust was not an aberration or anomaly, but rather one of the natural, albeit avoidable,
possibilities of organizations rooted in the modern paradigm. The Holocaust emerged from a
culture that was rooted in technical rationality and was accomplished by relatively normal public
servants engaging in their assigned organizational roles in accordance with legitimate public
policy. There were simply insufficient moral guidelines to indicate they were doing something
wrong. This indicates both the tendency to and danger of organizations creating their own
morality.
Pursuit of wealth. Because of prevailing superficiality and self-centeredness in Western
society, success today tends to be measured in terms of material goods (Rozuel, 2014), which
means that most people strive to acquire possessions, regardless of the need for those
possessions. This requires money and wealth. Hence, people are increasingly consumed by a
“self-destructive obsession with the pursuit of money” (Korten, 2001, p. 16). This has led to
what has been called the growing monetarization of values (Turner, 1990, p. 6). This greatly
drives modern society and is played out through an economic system that “is fueled by
materialism and greed that do not seem to recognize any limits” (Capra & Luisi, 2014, p. 363).
It is assumed that a healthy economy results in a healthy society and unrestrained growth is good
(Wheatley, 2006). Bygrave and Macmillan (2008) help illustrate this by pointing to the
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 46
manifestation of the beliefs contained in the American Dream that drives much of the economic
activity in the United States:
“The American Dream, born out of a desire to emancipate people through the
principle of the individual right to freedom, has metamorphosed. What we now
have is a materialistic, self-serving American Nightmare that has inspired a
wealth-creating society that is spinning out of control” (p. 93).
Unlimited growth is impossible on a planet with finite resources. Something has to give,
and unfortunately, that is the environment, social fabric and well-being of billions of people that
do not benefit from the current economic system. For this reason, Capra and Luisi (2014) claim
that the pursuit of unlimited growth seems to be the root cause of many of our world’s greatest
problems. Also, when a society focuses on wealth and profits, it actually destroys “real wealth”
as defined by Aristotle’s concept of Eudemonia, or human flourishing (Duska & Ragatz, 2008, p.
155). This ultimately creates a disconnect with the community and results in personal
unhappiness (Duska & Ragatz, 2008), which happens because more other-oriented societal
values are based on tradition, ethnic heritage and religion that directly conflict with purely
economic values (Barrett, 1998). Barrett (1998) helps connect the dots between our individual
self-serving desires and behaviors that destroy our life support systems and societies:
“So many of us are focused on creating personal wealth that we are unwilling to
admit that our personal ambitions are contributing to the pollution of the Earth,
the exploitation of its peoples, and the disintegration of our communities” (p.
26).
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 47
He continues on to claim that people have been so blinded by their financial pursuits that
they cannot see that they are “participating in collective suicide” (Barrett, 1998, p. 26). As a
result of this relentless drive for materialism, people have put their faith in a free market
capitalist economy with the belief that it will create economic prosperity that will result in
happiness for all. Market has become an idol, or a god to which people blindly ascribe deity-like
wisdom and benevolence (Cox, 1999). Others attach their spirituality to it by believing that the
market is ultimately ordained by God (Bigelow, 2005). Relating this to similarly unquestioning
religious zealots, Hawken (2007) calls this “free market fundamentalism” (p.7). This following
has become so pervasive that Korten (2001) claims that “economic systems are the dominant
systems for organizing behavior in modern societies” (p.19).
Unfortunately, over time we have learned, although it is inconvenient to acknowledge,
that the invisible hand of the market does not distribute resources evenly or even fairly
(Lepineux & Rose, 2011). Globalization of the economy has greatly increased world poverty
and inequality (Capra & Luisi, 2014). As a result, the vast majority of the wealth has been
consolidated into the hands of a powerful minority, who have absolved themselves of any
responsibility for their neighbors (Korten, 2001). History shows that cultures in which the
wealthy elite are not accountable to the general populace do not survive (Barrett, 1998).
Financier George Soros summarizes the problem in this way:
“Laissez-faire capitalism holds that the common good is best served by the
uninhibited pursuit of self-interest. Unless it is tempered by the recognition of a
common interest that ought to take precedence over particular interests, our
present system is liable to break down” (Barrett, 1998, p. 19).
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 48
In other words, our economic system is based upon the inaccurate and destructive assumption
that self-interest somehow, magically serves the greater good, when in reality self-serving is only
self-serving – to the exclusion and usually the detriment of others.
Societal tolerance of corruption. Aristotle considered the accumulation of wealth for the
sake of wealth to be a major source of corruption, because there is never enough wealth to
satisfy. The pursuit of wealth for its own sake eventually subordinates all other goals and
monetizes virtually all other activities (Duska & Ragatz, 2008). While corruption is dark side
behavior that occurs on the organizational and individual levels, societies differ in the extent and
tolerance of corruption (Rose-Ackerman & Palifka, 2016). Rose-Ackerman and Palifka (2016)
claim that there is one motivating human trait that is central to corruption, and that is self-
interest, and societies differ in how they channel self-interest. It can be used for legitimate
purposes, such as driving productive activities in a competitive market leading to the efficient
use of resources, which economists call utility maximization. Conversely, societies with high
levels of corruption reflect a failure to harness self-interest for productive purposes. Societal
norms related to channeling self-interest greatly affect the tolerance of corruption within
organizations and institutions in that society (Rose-Ackerman & Palifka, 2016).
The influence of competition also creates a powerful pressure to engage in corruption. In
order to remain competitive, many for-profit organizations feel that they need to play by the
same rules as their competitors in order to have a fair playing field, so to speak. This applies at
multiple levels, including organizations as well as national governments. This means that if
other organizations in their field are engaging in corrupt behavior, they are pressured to do the
same in order to stay viable. This is referred to as herding behavior, which is a type of
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 49
groupthink that can extend across organizations and influences the spread of dark side behavior
across entire professional fields and sectors (MacKenzie, 2014).
2. Organizational-Level Antecedents. In the earlier discussion of whether organizations
are responsible for dark side behaviors, the conclusion was that while much of the behavior is
enacted by individuals, in most instances they are reacting to extremely powerful influences in
the organizations. The external antecedents presented above manifest within organizations in
myriad ways, but antecedents can also be unique to or generated within an organization. As with
external antecedents, the possible organization-generated factors that motivate or incentivize
DSOB are virtually unlimited. They could stem from dysfunctional processes, work routines
(Joshi, Anand, & Henderson, 2007) or problems managing organizational change (Worrall,
Cooper, & Mather, 2007). They may also be problematic traits of the organizational culture,
such as territoriality (G. Brown & Robinson, 2007), dysfunctional subcultures (Lewicki,
Greenberger, & Coyne, 2007) or the tendency to promote workaholism (Burke & McAteer,
2007). Organizational antecedents may also pertain to structures, such as the misuse of team
structures (Sims & Salas, 2007). This section provides an overview of some of the main factors
in the literature: organizational narcissism, profit maximization and two categories of harmful
antecedents related to organizational culture and leadership and management.
Organizational narcissism. A fairly recent trend of literature focuses on the role of
narcissism in dark side organizational behavior – narcissism both of individuals as well as at the
organizational level. It can contribute to dark side organizational behavior, organizational failure
and any number of negative social impacts. Like individuals, organizations can exhibit
extremely narcissistic behavior (MacKenzie, 2014). Narcissism is defined as a “pervasive
pattern of grandiosity…need for admiration, and lack of empathy.” This often involves a
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 50
“grandiose sense of self-importance,” interpersonal exploitation, arrogant behaviors and
attitudes, beliefs of specialness and uniqueness that can only be understood by high-status
people, and preoccupations with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, etc. (American
Psychiatric Association, 2000, p. 714), extreme pride and dismissiveness (Stein, 2003). If people
have an overly positive view of an organization, it limits their ability to recognize the harmful
impacts of its behavior. This inflated sense of self also leads to excessive risk taking and poor
decision making (MacKenzie, 2014) as seen in the organizational behaviors that created the
Great Recession. Duchon and Drake (2009) argue that, due to their tendencies to rationalize and
deny any wrongdoing, extremely narcissistic organizations are actually unable to behave
ethically, because they lack a “moral identity” (p. 301).
Narcissism involves the regulation of self-esteem and protection of identity. When
harmful behavior is unmasked, narcissistic organizations are more inclined to deny or rationalize
it in order to maintain a positive self-image (A. D. Brown, 1997). Narcissistic organizations are
also highly sensitive to criticism, because they need to maintain the fantasy of their positivity,
which can become an unhealthy preoccupation (Vince & Mazen, 2014).
Growth and profit maximization. The external antecedent pursuit of wealth in modern
societies is often carried out through organizations and translates into a fixation on growth and
profit maximization. I often hear an old adage in certain sectors that says “if you’re not growing,
you’re dying.” This assumption plays out in organizations in several ways. The two main types
of organizations driven by the pursuit of growth and profit are certain public organizations and
for-profits.
The health of an economy is most commonly measured in terms of gross domestic
product, or GDP. High levels of GDP are equated with high standards of living. The underlying
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 51
assumption is that a healthy economy must always be growing, because growth typically
correlates to low unemployment, high profits and decreased bankruptcies. If it is not growing, it
is considered stagnant. If the GDP decreases, the economy is considered to be in a recession
(Mankiw, 2009), which correlates to the converse economic indicators as growth (i.e. high
unemployment, low profits, etc). This overall drive of the government towards growth plays out
in many ways within public organizations as the executive arms of the government. The overall
impact is that public-serving agencies are often motivated or directed towards actions and
behavior that focus on increasing economic growth, which may or may not conflict with other
agendas. For example, a highly growth-oriented federal government could appoint a head of the
Environmental Protection Agency with a mandate to scale back its oversight on pollution
generating businesses in order to maximize the profits of those companies and thereby increase
GDP.
As their name implies, for-profit organizations tend to fixate primarily, if not solely, on
seeking profits (Duska & Ragatz, 2008). The prevailing belief that is taught in business and law
schools is that businesses, especially public corporations, have a legal mandate to maximize
shareholder profits (Stout, 2012). However, this has not always been the case. Cornell law
professor Lynn Stout claims that this is a devastating misunderstanding that she calls the
shareholder value myth with roots in legal debates starting in the 1930s. On one side of the
debate is the belief that organizations exist solely to maximize shareholder value and those on the
other side of the debate assert that organizations exist to benefit society. She tracks a pendulum
swing in the predominant position of society from one side to the other, claiming that we are
clearly on a strong shareholder value swing (Stout, 2012).
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 52
Over time some highly revered and influential voices have strengthened the shareholder
value myth, including Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate in economics, who believed that the
moral responsibility of executives is to maximize shareholder value and that “executives who
choose social and environmental goals over profits – who try to act morally – are, in fact,
immoral” (Bakan, 2004, p. 34). Renowned business guru Peter Drucker reportedly stated “if you
find an executive who wants to take on social responsibilities, fire him. Fast” (Bakan, 2004, p.
35). Finally, Harvard business professor Debora Spar stated that corporations are simply not
intended to be moral entities, but have only one mission – to increase stakeholder value (Bakan,
2004).
When businesses put profit ahead of the well-being of customers and employees, it can
lead to any number of illegal behaviors (McMichael, 2009), destructive and even pathological
organizational behavior (Bakan, 2004). In a documentary and accompanying book entitled The
Corporation, Joel Bakan and his research partners conducted a psychological assessment of a
typical corporation’s behavior as if it were a human individual. The results were chilling. They
concluded that corporations would be diagnosed as psychopathic based on the following
characteristics: irresponsible, manipulative, grandiose, asocial tendencies, lack of empathy,
unable to feel remorse and a refusal to accept responsibility for its own actions. And like other
psychopaths, it is designed to exploit others in the quest for personal gain, in this case profits
(Bakan, 2004). He further quotes Robert Monks, a Fortune 500 businessman and Republican
political consultant, who stated about corporations, “in our search for wealth and prosperity, we
created a thing that is going to destroy us” (Bakan, 2004, p. 71).
This author holds a more tempered and neutral view of organizations. Earlier, the
powerful societal influence on the pursuit of wealth was discussed. The corporation is
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 53
considered to be the primary vehicle through which wealth is pursued. Therefore, it is
inappropriate and ineffective to demonize corporations as if they are somehow separate from us
and acting counter to our values. As Monks argued, we created them, and they are the natural
product of our societal values. He further draws a parallel between sharks and corporations.
They are both highly destructive, but “it isn’t any question of malevolence or of will.” They both
have “those characteristics that enable it to do that for which it was designed” (Bakan, 2004, p.
71). In this case, corporations are designed to relentlessly and myopically pursue wealth,
regardless of the consequences.
Dysfunctional organizational cultures. Organizations all have unique cultures that are
the “collection of informal institutions…that a people hold in common” (Rose-Ackerman &
Palifka, 2016, p. 234). Organizational cultures develop over time as behavior is reinforced and
the collective activities of organizational members “cohere into an identity – an organizational
personality” (Jurkiewicz, 2012, p. 3). This includes three common elements: knowledge, values
and forms of expression (Parsons, Shils, Neagele, and Pitts, 1961 as cited in Godwyn & Gittell,
2012). Like any human construct, there is no perfect organization or perfect organizational
culture. All have varying degrees of imperfections, some of which could be considered minor or
major dysfunctions. These can lead to dark side organizational behavior in different ways.
Some of the main dysfunctions embedded in organizational culture that serve as antecedents to
these behaviors are described here, including diffusion and fragmentation, moral and ethical
disengagement and identity dysfunctions.
Diffusion and fragmentation. Modern organizations are characterized by diffusion of
information and fragmentation (Adams & Balfour, 2012). As mentioned earlier, this natural
tendency of the modern paradigm mindset to separate everything into component parts promotes
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 54
compartmentalization and fragmentation. This is further influenced by the increasing complexity
of the work, which requires narrow specializations (Joshi et al., 2007). Workplaces are broken
into segments, physically and structurally (Wheatley, 2006). Fragmentation is also greatly
exacerbated by internal competition, which takes many forms, such as withholding information,
extensive memos to justify behavior, turf battles, silos, distrust, etc. This is another place where
the tendency towards greed and domination, rather than cooperation, plays out in the
organizational setting. People also act in fragments, using different parts of ourselves in different
settings (Wheatley, 2006) based upon real or perceived expectations and duties. This constant
switching from one persona to another facilitates fragmentation (Rozuel, 2014). In the end
fragmentation and disconnection create major problems within many organizations.
Because the work is fragmented and there is a strong tendency to focus on daily details,
very few if any workers in modern organizations have a complete comprehension of the fullness
of an organization’s impacts, including any harm done. This reflects a dangerous detachment
from the big picture (Adams & Balfour, 2012; Bakan, 2004). Because so few can see the bigger
picture, it is often unclear who is responsible as responsibility also becomes diffused (Adams &
Balfour, 2012). The problems start at the top with leaders who tend to be in a constant state of
crisis, focusing on whatever seems most pressing at the moment (S. H. Schwartz & Bardi, 2001).
Due to their busy schedules, many organizational leaders develop a tendency to view people and
events as abstract points to move around in their agendas (Hoevel, 2011), which can result in a
detachment not only from the big picture impacts outside the walls of the organization but
detachment from the employees that the organization greatly impacts daily. In some cases,
leaders engage in intentional diffusion of knowledge in order to maintain power by preventing
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 55
others from understanding how the pieces all fit together, or in some instances to prevent others
from seeing the full impact of the organization (Oakley, 2012).
This detachment from the bigger picture is further exacerbated by employee-stakeholder
disconnect (ESD), which is the extent to which organization members are detached from those
who are affected by the organization and the specific decisions and work of its members. ESD
allows organizational members to depersonalize those impacted by the organization while also
making workers even less aware of the impact they or the organization has on the stakeholders
(Joshi et al., 2007).
Moral and ethical disengagement. The detachment from the big picture and stakeholders
and lack of reflection can also lead to moral disengagement as the worker is disconnected from
the ultimate impact of their work, which is usually taken for granted to be positive (Adams &
Balfour, 2015). Ethics and morality are cultural phenomena that are rooted in the organizational
culture. Organizations are not inherently moral by nature (Schabracq & Smit, 2007), yet have a
powerful influence on an individual’s “moral orientation toward the world.” While it is fair to
assume that most people are moral and ethical most of the time, Zimbardo (2007) argues that
“morality is like a gearshift that at times gets pushed into neutral. When that happens, morality
is disengaged” (p. 17). Organizations create their own “moral community,” which can be
isolated from and therefore in conflict with the broader community (Schwartz, 2004, p. 119). If
a person’s moral community becomes limited to their work environment, this can have a
powerful psychological effect on them (Schwartz, 2004). It creates a dangerous situation in
which the organization can act as a moral authority for an employee.
As a sign of this ethical and moral detachment, Pearson and Porath (2005) found that the
level of incivility, or rude or disrespectful behavior, is not only surprisingly pervasive in the
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 56
workplace, but actually believed to be on the rise. One poll found that 80% believe that a lack of
respect and courtesy is a serious problem and 60% believe it is getting worse. Another poll
found that 10% stated that they witnessed incivility every day in the workplace. This is listed
as an organizational-level antecedent, because Pearson and Porath (2005) also found that an
important factor is organizational tolerance of incivility, which constitutes an organizational
dysfunction. For instance, they note that the instigator’s pattern of uncivil behavior is often well
known, but the organization does nothing to intervene, perhaps because the instigator has special
abilities that benefit the organization, or they may have some connection to power (Pearson &
Porath, 2005).
Identity dysfunctions. The blurring of the moral lines points to a deeper and more
profound blurring of lines between the identities of individuals and organizations. I mentioned
personal experience with this challenge in Chapter 1, when I described an experience in which
colleagues put the well-being of their organization over the actual mission of the organization.
This likely resulted from over identification with the young organization. The concept of
identity confusion helps to explain these phenomena. This is described in this section of
dysfunctional organizational antecedents, rather than individual antecedents, because
organizations play a major role in determining whether their members develop healthy identities.
The Western world’s belief in the strong individual once again has helped to blind us to
the extent of this problem. We like to think that we are all strong individuals with clear
identities, but the reality is that people’s sense of identity is “tenuous to the extreme” (Schwartz,
2004, p. 120). We all create boundaries around us that indicate where we begin and end, and
“the modern society dissolves the boundaries of self” by blurring the lines between public and
private lives (Kreiner, 2007, p. 76-77). Organizations provide workers with a sense of identity
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 57
and significance (MacKenzie, 2014; H. S. Schwartz, 2004), and because organizations play such
a central role in today’s society, they are becoming an increasingly greater source of identity than
they have ever been in the past (Kreiner, 2007). Although it may seem strange to consider,
organizations can provide a sense of immortality to individuals, because after they pass away,
their influence could theoretically continue to be felt as long as the organization exists (Schwartz,
2004).
If an organizational member buys into the greatness of the organization and/or their
identity becomes confused with that of the organization, they are said to become “committed
participants” (Schwartz, 2004, p. 127). When this happens, they tend to see things from an
organization-centric perspective. This is where the problem of organizational narcissism can
truly become problematic. This toxic combination of factors can result in “the relations of an
organization with external society becoming ‘exploitative, manipulative, and even aggressive’”
(Schwartz, 2004, p. 120). If the organization is only focused on its own drives and goals, then
“legitimate demands that the environment places on the organization, appear from the standpoint
of the committed participants to be illegitimate, hostile and aggressive challenges to the
organization’s and individual’s existence” (Schwartz, 2004, p. 128). This results in responsive
behavior that is seen as perfectly appropriate from the organizational perspective, but is
considered by broader society to be harmful, anti-social (Schwartz, 2004), or even evil. In other
words, it creates the right situation to support and even morally justify dark side organizational
behaviors.
Lack of accountability. Accountability is a very complex issue in that it involves
questions of who should be held accountable, by whom, for what and how, or through what
mechanisms (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2015). It is both internal and external to the organization
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 58
and involves both vertical and horizontal relations (Lindberg, 2013). A lack of accountability
can result in organization members intentionally or unintentionally doing harm to others or to the
mission of the organization. Barrett (1998) argues that the “lack of accountability in the world of
business has reached pandemic proportions” (p. 21), which was likely a key reason for the recent
recession that resulted from numerous risky and unethical practices by financial organizations.
The most common accountability deficiency identified in the literature is the lack of
accountability of organizations to the general public or even the intended beneficiaries of
organizational or government programs, policies and services. Pertaining to the government, this
has resulted in what some call the “Administrative State,” which refers to the gap between the
public and the administrators of the government programs who only have accountability to their
superiors. This creates a dangerous situation in which individuals, teams, or perhaps entire
agencies have no accountability at all (Hupe & Edwards, 2012). I have personally witnessed
professionals treat intended beneficiaries of their organization poorly in their professional
capacities. This may not have harmed the individual, but was definitely contrary to the mission
of the organization.
Dark side leadership and management. I would be remiss not to mention the critical
role of leadership and management in creating an environment that promotes DSOBs.
Leadership and management have been examined from many different angles and extensive
literature has been published on the topic. In fact, Hogan and Kaiser (2005) claim that leadership
is “perhaps the single most important issue in the human sciences” because good leadership
promotes effective performance but bad leadership goes beyond the work itself to “degrade the
quality of life for everyone associated with it” (p. 169). Although leadership and management
are not the same, for the purposes of this section there is sufficient overlap to use them
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 59
interchangeably, because organizational leaders are responsible for managing those
hierarchically subordinate to them. The factors that make their leadership harmful are for the
most part woven inextricably into both their leadership and management styles. Also,
organizations not only promote certain leadership characteristics and styles, but select people that
exhibit them thereby ensuring that their conception of leadership is consistently applied. For
instance, if an organization values conformity and obedience, it will select leaders exhibiting
those behaviors and those who are more willing to challenge the thinking of superiors are less
likely to be promoted to leadership roles. For these reasons, the topic is included in this section
on antecedents stemming from the organizational culture rather than as an individual-level
antecedent, although there is clearly a great deal of overlap. Leadership can also be either an
individual or group role, such as the role of boards, executive teams and management as a group
within an organization. Also, a problematic leader does not exist in a vacuum, and can only be
understood within the context of the organizational culture (Goldman, 2009). This is also
because leadership and management have a powerful impact in shaping the broader
organizational culture. This section addresses the topic of dark side leadership from three angles:
leadership behavior, traits, and management approach. Consistent with the approach thus far,
these are only some of many potential angles and the examples provided are a sampling and
intended to be illustrative and not comprehensive.
Dark Side Leadership Behavior. Dark side leadership behavior is defined as:
“the systematic and repeated behavior by a leader, supervisor or manager that
violates the legitimate interest of the organization by undermining and/or
sabotaging the organization’s goals, tasks resources, and effectiveness and/or the
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 60
motivation, well-being or job satisfaction of his/her subordinates” (Einarsen,
Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007, p. 207).
There are many forms of dark side leadership behavior. Some categories include: fraud
and deceit, violent acts and ethical failures (Vince & Mazen, 2014). A few distinctions have
been made in the literature. Negative leadership behavior exists on a spectrum of severity from
ineffective or incompetent leadership to intentionally unethical or evil behavior (Padilla et al.,
2007). Some scholars draw a line somewhere on the spectrum to distinguish ineffective
leadership from the more intentional behavior that is often referred to in the literature as
“destructive leadership” (Krasikova, Green, & LeBreton, 2013). Like other DSOBs, destructive
leadership does not need to be intentionally harmful (Krasikova et al., 2013), but the importance
of this distinction is that it results from leadership decisions and behavior rather than insufficient
skill or knowledge, which is beyond their control. However, for this study both incompetence
and wanton destructiveness are considered dark side. The ability of incompetent leaders to get
and hold positions for which they lack the skills is a significant dysfunction of the organization
leadership rather than the individual leader (Shapiro & V on Glinow, 2007). This is one of the
reasons this topic is included as an organizational antecedent rather than individual. The
organization is ultimately responsible for ensuring that its members have the skills required to
successfully fulfill their roles. Failure to do so can have many harmful consequences. Hogan and
Kaiser (2005) estimated that between 30 and 75 percent of managers are incompetent for their
positions, largely because they are promoted based upon factors other than leadership skills, such
as political skills, intelligence and hard work but also because of organizations’ propensity
towards cronyism and nepotism.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 61
Destructive leadership occurs when there is a “toxic triangle,” which is a “confluence of
destructive leaders, susceptible followers and conducive environments” (Padilla et al., 2007, p.
176). This supports the more systemic and holistic approach promoted in this study, which in
addition to the role of leaders considers the many other external, organizational and individual
antecedents described in this chapter. Management and leadership are highly complex endeavors
that often involve the simultaneous pursuit of self-interest, organizational interest, and hopefully
the interest of subordinates. This can be very complicated for leaders and managers who are
often caught between these competing desires, such as the desires to both empower and
undermine their subordinates (Vince & Mazen, 2014). For these reasons and the many roles they
must negotiate simultaneously, management is inherently stressful (Cooper, 2012; Grant, 2007).
One study found that as many as 70 percent of managers experienced work-related stress, but it
also concluded that many make their jobs more stressful by doing them poorly (Wheatley, 2000
as cited in Grant, 2007).
Destructive leadership traits. Several traits of leaders and managers have been
demonstrated to have harmful impacts, whether on subordinates, the organization or external
stakeholders. It is interesting to note that many leaders have risen to their positions in large part
due to these very characteristics (such as narcissism and hubris). This means that there is a “fine
line” between the benefits and detriments of many destructive leadership traits (Perryman,
Sikora, & Ferris, 2010, p. 31); these traits can be double-edged swords. This is important to
keep in mind, because the goal is not to eliminate the trait, but rather to mitigate the potential
adverse impacts of the negative side. For example, those with dramatic and attention-getting
behavior, tend to be productive and seen as good leaders, however when fueled by narcissism
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 62
and/or hubris, these traits negatively impact trustworthiness. Leaders with these traits should
therefore be aware of this and focus on increasing their trustworthiness.
The literature identified at least three main problematic leadership traits that lead to dark
side behavior: narcissism, hubris (Goldman, 2009; Perryman et al., 2010) and Machiavellianism
(Oakley, 2012; Perryman et al., 2010). The primary link in these traits is a need for a positive
self-assessment. Goldman (2009) further argues that hubris and narcissism are the most common
adverse leadership traits and can result in organizations becoming dysfunctional and even
disabled. Narcissism, defined earlier, is a self-love that exceeds normal healthy self-esteem to
place the self above others and can become a powerful self-serving drive. It can also interfere
with a leader’s ability to form meaningful relationships and have empathy for others (A. D.
Brown, 1997). Hubris is an over-confidence in one’s knowledge and abilities that can lead to
excessive risk taking and poor decisions (Perryman et al., 2010). The ultimate goal of
Machiavellians is always their self-serving aims (Oakley, 2012), which they take to the extreme
by justifying behavior that is destructive for others or the planet for their personal gain. They are
typically manipulative, exploitative, devious and aggressive and have a strong need for control
(Calhoun, 1969 cited in Perryman et al., 2010). The natural consequences are that Machiavellian
leaders create a climate of unethical behavior that can become engrained in the organizational
culture or at least in the segment of the organization they lead (cf. Anand, Ashforth, & Joshi,
2004), which inevitably has negative effects on the organizational spirit.
Gaddis and Foster (2015) conducted a meta-analysis of dark side personality
characteristics of leaders across the globe. The study unexpectedly found that the intrapersonal
characteristics were more important than interpersonal. They also found that the most important
leadership attributes that could predict effective work behaviors were not technical skills, but
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 63
more basic personality characteristics. Another interesting find was the destructiveness of the
tendency of leaders to withdraw from others when stressed, as this creates a highly toxic
environment. Dark side personality characteristics identified in poor leaders included being
resentful, indecisive, distrustful, insensitive, emotionally volatile, distractible, oddly eccentric
and perfectionistic. In general, they found that the following traits were consistently present in
poorly performing leaders across the world: untrustworthy, undependable, negative attitude and
inflexibility. To establish a productive team or organization, leaders must be someone others
trust and upon whom they can depend.
Schabracq and Smit (2007) also make a case for the destructiveness of hopelessness in
leaders. Hopeless leaders can never attain loyalty; they spread pessimism and most importantly
take the meaning out of the work their employees are doing. In the end, they argue, it becomes a
self-fulfilling prophecy, as the leader’s negativity creates a cycle of despair that paralyzes
whomever the person leads.
Harmful management style. Wheatley (2005, 2006) argues that most organizations are
built on outdated information about how the world works, because they are based upon the
mechanistic concepts of the modern paradigm and do not reflect the latest scientific discoveries
about how the world truly works. Conceiving of organizations composed of humans as
machines results in management approaches designed to remove essential human characteristics,
such as intelligence, emotions, passion and compassion. The results of these fallacious
management beliefs are typically highly unhealthy organizations, because neither humans or
organizations are not machines and will never act like machines (Wheatley, 2005).
One consequence of this approach is placing a high value on control. The definitions of
management or organizational science infer that a high degree of control is possible (Rozuel,
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 64
2014). In the machine conceptualization of organizations, it is the role of the leader to organize a
system that is presumed to have no internal ability to self-organize. Leaders exert control by
using “primitive emotions” of fear and self-interest rather than cooperation, generosity and
caring (Wheatley, 2005). Tactics include motivating through material rewards and exerting tight
regulations on employees. However, fear works both ways. Leaders try to use fear, but
themselves become fearful of losing control (Wheatley, 2005). The fear of employees by
leadership results in the belief that organizations needs to defend themselves from their
employees, which they do through restrictive and detailed personnel policies, time clocks, etc.
This is another place where the external cultural value of domination surfaces. It creates a
destructive loop that Wheatley (2005) describes in this way:
“When we created this story of complete dominion over matter, we also brought
control’s unwelcome partner, fear. Once we are intent on controlling something,
we feel afraid when we meet with resistance. Since nothing is as controllable as
we hope, we soon become entangled in a cycle of exerting control, failing to
control, exerting harsher control, failing again, panicking. The fear that arises
from this cycle is notable in…our leaders. Things aren’t working as they had
hoped, but none of us knows another way to proceed” (p. 18).
This dark side behavior does harm to organizations, which led Wheatley (2006) to argue
that “seeking to impose control through rigid structures is suicide” (p.25). She calls it suicide
because of the life-draining effects these tactics have on employees and organizations
themselves. For example, research has indicated that the typical top-down style of
communication and decision making creates passive (White, 1999), dispirited and disengaged
subordinates (Wheatley, 2005). These organizations are not able to achieve their full potential
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 65
not only because workers are passively disengaged from the work, but because creativity and
innovation are impeded. Thinking outside the box makes top-down organizations feel out of
control and uncomfortable by creating unpredictability. Consequently, the predictability of status
quo thinking is definitely preferable (Wheatley, 2006). To be fair, in select organizations or
circumstances a high degree of control is not always negative, and in some cases is even
necessary (Zwikael & Smyrk, 2015). Some examples include: security and military operations,
surgical teams, emergency response and firefighters, dangerous manufacturing operations, such
as making explosives or safety equipment.
For the most part, management styles that promote control also tend to impede trust
(Barrett, 1998), which is critical for healthy organizational functioning (Griffin & O'Leary-Kelly,
2004). Another belief that greatly destroys trust is the belief that management needs to distance
themselves from employees in case they need to lay people off when times get hard. This is
clearly highly stressful for employees as it creates a sense of fundamental instability in
employees’ lives. Wheatley (2005) argues that organizations that do this will likely fail.
3. Individual-Level Antecedents. The last of the triadic components of antecedents
come from within the individuals who engage in DSOBs. The literature reveals a host of other
antecedents to dark side organizational behaviors that enter in at the individual level. Even with
all of the powerful forces influencing behavior within organizations, the individual engaged in
dark side behavior cannot escape personal responsibility. Although it can often take great
courage (Rate & Sternberg, 2007) and integrity (Schabracq & Smit, 2007), an individual has the
ability to resist these forces and challenge the dark side behavior. While some may do so, many
will not (Schwartz, 2004). Zimbardo (2007), the principal investigator in the Stanford Prison
Experiment, was also a key witness in an Abu Ghraib prisoner of war torture scandal. He studied
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 66
many other situations in which situational factors overpowered individuals leading them to do
great harm. Although he is a strong situationist, he firmly believes that individuals still retain
responsibility for their actions, based on the fact that in every situation he studied, he found
individuals who were able to resist the situational and systemic forces and refrain from engaging
in the dark side behavior. To be clear, the individuals referenced in this section can be held at
virtually any position in the organization, including leadership. Those factors pertaining
primarily to leaders were addressed in the previous section on destructive leadership.
The individual-level factors that serve as antecedents to dark side, dysfunctional or evil
organizational behavior cover a range of issues. One group of factors includes diagnosable
illnesses and psychopathologies, such as personality disorders (Goldman, 2009; Kyrios,
Nedeljkovic, Moulding, & Doron, 2004), substance abuse disorders (Harris, 2004) and even
body dysmorphic disorder - a hyper fixation on a perceived defect in one’s physical appearance
(Goldman, 2009). Another group of factors includes more common traits that do not necessarily
meet the threshold criteria for pathologies, but nevertheless contribute to dark side behavior, such
as narcissism, impulsivity, hostility and Type A personalities (Judge & Lepine, 2007). The latter
may necessitate a brief explanation. While Type A personalities may be high performers, they
also have a tendency towards high stress (Judge & LePine, 2007), which can contribute to the
overall stressfulness and toxicity of the workplace for others.
Related to the issue of organizational identity confusion is an individual’s need for
organizational identity, which can vary from person to person (Glynn, 1998). Those with greater
need for identification with the organization are more likely to be unquestioningly obedient and
engage in harmful acts if directed to do so (Kreiner, 2007). This also pertains to the strength of
the individual’s moral development and integrity. Some have strong enough convictions that
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 67
they are able to stand firm and challenge the organization when it appears to be doing something
harmful (Rose-Ackerman & Palifka, 2016). However, as discussed earlier, the frequency of
these individuals is incredibly rare, contrary to what most believe.
B. Immediate Causes of Dark Side Behavior
The antecedents create an environment that is ripe for and in some cases incentivize dark
side organizational behavior. Now we briefly turn to the question of what causes the dark side
behaviors. In a metaphorical sense, the antecedents create a powder keg, but it still requires a
spark to set it off. These immediate causes of the behavior represent this spark. Baumeister and
V ohs (2004) claim that there are four causes of evil actions.
3
Although in this study “evil” is
being used to refer to the more severe forms of dark side behavior, the causes are still very
illustrative, as they also pertain to varying degrees to less severe forms of DSOBs. The first
immediate cause they identify is instrumentality, or that the behavior is a means to an end, which
involves harm that results when the focus is on the end result, such as profit, without necessarily
paying attention to the consequences of the behavior on others. The harm may therefore be done
with or without awareness. The second immediate cause of evil acts is threatened egotism. This
is a defensive cause in which the act is the response to a perceived attack or threat to pride or
honor (Baumeister and V ohs, 2004). The third immediate cause identified is perhaps the least
obvious, and that is idealism, or the idea that the impacts of the harmful behavior are actually
beneficial rather than harmful (Baumeister and Vohs, 2004). This has also been referred to in
this study as moral inversion (Adams & Balfour, 2012). Religious organizations are also prone

3
The authors actually refer to these factors as “root causes,” but in this study the roots of the DSOBs is
argued to be primarily in the antecedents. Therefore, these fit into the current framework as immediate rather than
root causes. The term immediate here refers to the proximity of the cause to the behavior rather than chronology.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 68
to this type of harmful behavior when they perceive the behavior as ordained by a higher power
(Ent & Baumeister, 2012). The fourth and final immediate cause identified is sadism, or the
actual desire to harm others. While being perhaps the most common belief about evil or harmful
behavior, it is most likely the least common cause. Instrumentality, or seeking some form of
gain, is the most common cause in reality (Baumeister and V ohs, 2004). This is especially true in
the business world, where greed and the desire for profit maximization is the most common
apparent motive rather than malice (Mandel, 2012).
C. Facilitating Factors
Once the antecedents create the combustible environment for dark side behavior, and the
sparks are lit to start the fire (stemming from the root causes), other factors come into play to
stoke the fires of the harmful behavior often causing increasingly greater harm. As shown in
Figure 2-2, different factors affect behavior in the ramp-up period in which the harm of the
behavior is initiated yet not widely recognized and the period after the harm is recognized.
These are referred to here as facilitating and perpetuating factors, respectively, and are presented
in that order. The literature is still rather thin on these issues (MacKenzie, 2014), which has
resulted in much less information than regarding the antecedents. The research that does exist
was more deeply rooted in psychology than anticipated, especially the many subconscious
factors and processes involved. This helps explain why dark side behaviors are not widely
understood and continue to be fueled and protected in most organizations.
This chapter provides evidence that modern organizational cultures are fragmented, and
encourage moral disengagements and identity dysfunctions. The latter directly leads to dark side
organizational behaviors by promoting anti-social behavior in perceived defense of the
organization. This section will focus on how diffusion (that results from fragmentation) and
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 69
moral disengagement also facilitate dark side behaviors in ways that individuals may or may not
readily recognize.
Based on decades of research and direct experimental experience, social psychologist
Zimbardo (2007) contends that the most dramatic and powerful instances of behavior change are
not the result of overpowering the mind through hypnosis or pharmacology, but rather by
situational forces that systematically and unknowingly cause us to drift, one small and mundane
step at a time, away from our individual ethics and norms towards those of our context. Two of
the primary forces at work are the need for social approval and compliance. We all have a basic
desire to be “in” and not “out.” As teens tend to demonstrate most dramatically, peer pressure
leads people to do all kinds of odd behavior in order to be accepted. In adults the needs to be
accepted, liked and respected can also result in foolish behavior as well as in doing whatever is
necessary to climb the corporate ladder. C.S. Lewis argued that this desire to be socially
accepted is further fueled by an equally powerful fear of being left out, or a fear of rejection.
This fear can also drive people to do anything to avoid rejection, which can “cripple initiative
and negate personal autonomy” (Zimbardo, 2007, p. 259), resulting in compliant, passive and
unquestioning employees.
The norms of the organizational culture create powerful subtle models for us to follow
that convey both what needs to be done to fit in socially, simultaneously what it takes to be
compliant or obedient. Adams and Balfour (2015) claim that we all have a need for order, which
creates a strong inclination for most people to obey authority most of the time. They further
contend that when this inclination is coupled with the technical rationality that promotes a
narrow focus on our individual tasks and dissuades us from reflecting on the bigger picture or the
impacts of our actions; it creates the dynamics necessary to foster dark side behavior.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 70
The Milgram Obedience Experiment described earlier, which involved having people
directly inflict harm on others against their own will, provided additional insight into factors that
encourage good people to do harmful things. These factors were used for intentional
manipulation in the experiment, but in the organizational setting may or may not be intentionally
manipulative. One lesson learned is that the process begins with very small steps, but can lead to
a slippery slope once the person starts the behavior. For example, in the experiment, they had the
participants begin by administering very small shocks, which made it easier to increase by one
small step in severity. The framing of the behavior is absolutely critical as well. In the
experiment, participants were told they were helping the individual learn while also making
important contributions to science (Zimbardo, 2007).
Several scholars have identified the powerful effect of moral inversion. This is the
reframing of a harmful act as beneficial. Good people are more willing to engage in evil or
harmful acts if they believe that they are actually doing good. This happens on many different
levels, but an extreme example is genocide. Those interviewed after participating in genocide
were convinced that they were making the world a better place by exterminating a group of
people that they believed to be harmful. By reframing and taking these gradual steps, a person’s
morality and ethics can effectively be “swallowed” and “erased” by the dynamics of certain
situations (Zimbardo, 2007, p. 197). Adams and Balfour (2015) explain it in this way:
“One is rarely confronted with a clear, up-or-down decision on an ethical issue;
rather, a series of small, usually ambiguous choices are made, and the weight of
commitments, social pressures, and of habit drives out morality until the next
‘logical’ action is something that would have been unthinkable earlier.” (p. 27)
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 71
These processes can result in moral disengagement, as described earlier, which serves as
both an antecedent and facilitator of dark side behavior thereby further reflecting the complex
and amplifying relationship of these factors. Several mechanisms for moral disengagement have
been identified, including moral inversion. Another mechanism is to change how one thinks
about the harm done by ignoring, distorting, minimizing or even rejecting indications of harm
(Zimbardo, 2007). One way this happens is by creating a magnitude gap between the way the
actor and potential victims of the harmful behavior perceive the action. The actor rarely
perceives their actions as harmful, but has clear rationales for them (Adams & Balfour, 2015).
Another mechanism is to minimize the direct link between one’s actions and the harmful
outcomes. A further mechanism is to put the blame on those who suffer harm (Zimbardo, 2007).
Adams and Balfour (2015), who promote the concept of masked administrative evil, maintain
that the mask that prevents people from recognizing the fullness of the harm done in and by
organizations is the result of this moral disengagement, the framing and perspective of the actor
on the actions and the physical and emotional distance of the person from the impacts of their
actions.
Other factors contributing to compliance are giving people meaningful roles to play and
having a contractual obligation, such as an employment contract (Zimbardo, 2007). Many
workplaces now have “at will” employment, meaning that employers can let people go at any
time for any reason or for no reason at all. This points to another factor in obedience, which are
high exit costs. This creates a powerful incentive for compliance and obedience.
One of the more important lessons learned to obtain obedience is the diffusion of
responsibility and anonymity. Research has found that when people feel anonymous in certain
situations, say through the use of uniforms, they are more likely to engage in anti-social
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 72
behaviors. Research has also found that when a large group participates in morally questionable
or even antisocial behavior, individuals are less inclined to condemn the behavior, because no
one feels sufficient identification with the outcomes. This is a problem in modern organizations,
because the division of labor creates this inherent diffusion of responsibility (Zimbardo, 2007).
Because of the diffusion, very few organization members can grasp the full picture, including
whether any harm is being done. Even if someone does perceive it, they may assume that their
superiors are already aware and have chosen not to address it. Or they may decide that is safer
to feign “strategic ignorance,” by pretending not to know (Adams & Balfour, 2012, p. 18). The
Nazis used diffusion of responsibility to perfection. Many different parties were involved in the
planning and carrying out of the extermination of millions of people. However, each of them
played only a very small part in the process, creating the perception that someone else was
ultimately responsible (Ent & Baumeister, 2012). Everyone was just obeying someone else’s
orders.
D. Perpetuating Factors
At that point, the decision must be made to continue or perpetuate the dark side behavior
or to cease it. When organizations continue to knowingly harm others, this is referred to as an
“evil turn” (Adams & Balfour, 2012, 2015). All of the factors that facilitate DSOBs discussed in
the previous section continue to promulgate the behavior after this turn. However, there are
additional factors that come in to play at this point that solidify the harmful behavior into routine
behavior. To be clear, not all dark side behavior becomes standard practice in an organization.
Some behavior is rejected by the organization, which punishes the wrong doer(s). However, in
many instances the dark side behavior is allowed to perpetuate and infect the entire “barrel.”
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 73
This section helps explain the dynamics at play once the mask is removed and most involved
have a clear picture of the harm being done by the organization.
To set the stage, a study of the top 500 American companies over a ten-year period found
that approximately two-thirds, or 66 percent of organizations, engaged in some form of illegal
(i.e. dark side) behavior. It is worth pausing here to reflect on this alarming statistic. This
indicates that the vast majority of the largest and most powerful for-profit organizations had staff
that knowingly engaged in illegal behavior with the belief that their organization supported it.
This is evident from the four main rationales they provided: “the company will protect me;” “it is
in my or the company’s best interest,” “it is safe because no one will ever find out,” and “it is not
‘really’ illegal or immoral” (Barrett, 1998, p. 145). These excuses reveal a great deal of the
dynamics discussed in the previous section, including moral disengagement, moral inversion,
and minimization of the harm done and reframing of the harm (e.g. not really illegal). How did
these organizations get to the place in which employees feel justified in putting the self-interest
of the company (and usually themselves) over the best interest of society (Barrett, 1998), even to
the point of violating laws designed to protect society? The process includes the antecedents and
other factors previously discussed which are crystalized into harmful patterns by the perpetuating
factors of successive ratification, normalization and inaction.
1. Successive Ratification. The more an action or behavior is allowed to persist, the
more difficult it is to stop, which in the literature is called successive ratification. This has been
compared to the economic concept of sunk costs, in which the behavior has involved a great deal
of investment, and the best way to protect the investment is by continuing the actions. Stopping
an action requires “decisive action,” which in turn requires “overwhelming evidence” to support
it. Conversely, maintaining the status quo requires no action at all. Because evidence is rarely
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 74
overwhelming, it is much easier to maintain the course. Examples of this are failure to recall
defective equipment or failure to end the contract of an ineffective contractor (Adams & Balfour,
2012).
2. Normalization. Over time, if the dark side behavior is allowed to continue, the
organization sends the message that it supports the behavior, or will at least tolerate it (as with
the Catholic priest abuse scandal). Writings on the dark side behavior of corruption can be
helpful to better understand this process. Ashforth and Anand (2003) propose three “pillars” of
normalization: institutionalization, rationalization and socialization (p. 3). Institutionalization
involves the behaviors becoming routine to the point that they are not given much thought.
Rationalization appears here again as members on all levels of the organization excusing the
harmful behavior by denying responsibility, denying the harm done or turning the blame on the
victim of the harm, if one is even recognized (Adams & Balfour, 2015; Joshi et al., 2007),
creating moral distance from the behavior as “just doing one’s job” and moral inversion (Adams
& Balfour, 2015, p. 17). Interestingly, the better people become at rationalizing, the more likely
they are to commit irrational acts based on their increased ability to convince themselves the acts
are not harmful (Zimbardo, 2007). The final pillar in normalizing behavior within an
organization is the socialization of new members to participate in the behavior. This can be done
by giving rewards and incrementalism, in which the new members are first involved in very
minor forms of the harmful behavior (Joshi et al., 2007), such as a minor shock in the Milgram
Obedience Experiment. Once normalized, organizational members may not even be aware they
are engaging in dark side behaviors (MacKenzie, 2014).
3. Inaction. For dark side behavior to persist over time in an agency requires the inaction
of many observers who may not be personally involved in the behavior, but yet have full
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 75
awareness of it and choose not to confront it in any way. Scholars and statesmen alike have
fairly strong words for those who refrain from stopping the harm either out of self-interest or
fear, while also recognizing the inherent difficulty and that it often comes at a cost, sometimes at
great cost. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated that we become participants in evil when we passively
accept injustice (Zimbardo, 2007). The former emperor of Ethiopia, Haile Selassie, was quoted
as saying the person who is indifferent and silent in the face of injustice “has made it possible for
evil to triumph” (Zimbardo, 2007, p. 319). In fact, Zimbardo (2007) argues that “the failure to
act can also be a form of evil, when helping, dissent, disobedience, or whistle-blowing are
required” (p. 314). MacKenzie (2014) claims that these “social silences” are critical for the
perpetuation of dark side behavior. Their silence helps to blur the line between helpful and
harmful and between good and evil (Zimbardo, 2007).
In addition to the obvious self-serving and fear-based causes of inaction, research has
shown that there are other dynamics at work. Studies have been done on situations in which
groups of people witnessed someone being harmed and no one acted to intervene. The
researchers identified a number of explanations. They found that that the larger the group, the
greater the diffusion of responsibility. In situations with fewer witnesses, individuals were more
inclined to intervene (Darley & Latane, 1968; Hoevel, 2011). In the larger groups, they may also
have denied or downplayed the seriousness of the situation, were afraid of looking bad, or of
meddling in other people’s business. Even if people do think that something may be wrong, they
will just tend to go along with it (Hoevel, 2011). They tend to engage in groupthink, resulting in
rationalizing morally questionable behavior (Adams & Balfour, 2015; Goodpaster, 2011). In the
end, inaction becomes just as normalized as the dark side behavior itself (Zimbardo, 2007).
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 76
IV. Conclusion
The fundamental purpose of this chapter was to set the stage for the need for
organizational spiritual maturity in the next chapter. This was done in several ways. One way
was to help elucidate the complexity of harmful behaviors in and by organizations – complexity
in the many forms it takes and the many antecedent, causal, facilitating and perpetuating factors
that influence the behavior. This was necessary to make the case in the next chapter that these
forms and many of the factors are symptoms of the same ultimate problem, a spiritual immaturity
on the organizational level. Another purpose of unpacking the complexity of the issue is to
support the argument that harmful behaviors cannot be adequately addressed by focusing solely
on the individuals involved. For the most part, they are not rogue actors, nor are they completely
passive. Instead their predispositions lead them to be incentivized or motivated to cause harm by
the situations created by society and the organizations themselves. Organizations have the
ability to mitigate their response to the antecedents and create a healthy culture that dissuades or
even disallows dark side behaviors. As stated at the outset, dark side organizational behaviors
are essentially the opposite of behavior that could be expected from spiritually mature
organizations. Therefore, these forms and factors will inform and be used to contrast the
different facets of organizational spiritual maturity (OSM). The final intent was to create a sense
of urgency. By demystifying the problem and revealing its pervasiveness, it should be clear how
utterly common and even predictable harmful organizational behavior is. Joined with a better
understanding of the many harms that can result, the hope is that the reader will also recognize
the importance of addressing the problem in a powerful and timely manner.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 77
Chapter 3: The Case for Organizational Spiritual Maturity (OSM)
I. Introduction
Having identified the pervasive nature and forces of harmful, dark side behavior enacted
within, by and across organizations around the globe, we shift our attention to the solution
proposed in this study. This chapter presents a case for the need to increase organizational
spiritual maturity (OSM) as an approach to change these behaviors, stop further harm and, where
possible, reverse the damage done. The case for OSM builds upon rapidly developing
scholarship and literature, and in many ways serves as the next logical step in the evolution of
the ideas.
The case for OSM is presented in five progressive claims. The first is that organizational
can in many, or most cases, be held responsible for the dark side organizational behavior
(DBOB) as opposed to only the individual perpetrator. The second is that organizations do in
fact have spirits that are unique and distinct from its members. If successful, it is believed that
this argument alone is sufficient to support the need for ensuring that the organizational spirit is
healthy and mature to prevent much potential harm. The second claim is that dark side
organizational behaviors (DSOBs) are spiritual in nature and are symptoms of organizational
spiritual poverty. The third claim is that improving organizational spiritual maturity (OSM) is
necessary to address DSOBs. The fourth and final claim in the case for OSM is that it is a new
study that has not yet been presented in the extant literature under any label.
II. Claim #1: Organizations can be held Responsible for Most Dark Side Behaviors
In the previous chapter, a strong argument was made for the powerful influence of
organizational and external factors in creating situations that are ripe for DSOBs. This provides
a solid basis for the claim that in many, or most, cases organizations can and should be
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 78
considered at least partially responsible for their roles in inciting or tolerating the behavior.
However, this touches upon an important conceptual debate in the literature.
The primary question is “should we conceive of [organizations] as entities to which moral
responsibility can be attributed?” (Dubbink & Smith, 2011, p. 224). This discussion in the
literature has been dubbed the debate on corporate moral responsibility. It must be noted that
virtually all of the scholars reviewed seem to be in agreement that the individual involved in dark
side behavior has varying degrees of responsibility. This is not really in question. However,
some argue that organizations are in reality just abstractions with no real existence except for the
individuals that comprise it (Mandel, 2012) and therefore cannot be held responsible in any way.
This is a critical issue for this study for a number of reasons. If harmful behaviors
originate solely from individuals, then interventions to address them would likewise need to
primarily target individuals. If, however, there is more to it, and individuals are motivated by
and responding to factors within organizations, then any intervention must account for and
address these as well. For example, if an organization implicitly incentivizes and tolerates
corruption and every individual is expected to participate in it, how effective could we expect
solutions or interventions to be that target only the individual, the so-called “bad apple?” Should
the organization not assume some degree of responsibility for the culture that has developed that
promotes the dark side behavior? This has been called the “bad apples” versus “bad barrels”
debate (Linstead et al., 2014).
The discussion in many ways mirrors the age-old nature versus nurture debate. In other
words, do employees or leaders behave in harmful ways because it is in their nature, or are they
essentially reacting to external factors. In the literature, those attributing behavior primarily to
the individual are called dispositionists, because they believe the root of the behaviors are in the
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 79
predisposition of the individuals involved. In the opposite camp are situationists, who give
primary attribution to the situational factors involved (Adams & Balfour, 2015; Dubnick, 2000;
Moreno-Riano, 2012; Zimbardo, 2007). Each side accuses the other of logical fallacies, or even
naïveté.
1. Dispositionists. Dispositionists accuse situationists of ecological fallacy, which is the
“error of making inferences about collectives based upon individuals” (Moreno-Riaño, 2012, p.
190). In other words, just because an individual commits harm, you cannot then generalize this
to the entire organization. They argue that organizations are abstract human constructions and
cannot act. Therefore, logically, any dark side behavior can only be attributed to the
individual(s) who committed the act, all harmful acts can be traced back to some decision
makers, and the extent to which those decision makers are responsible for the decisions is the
degree to which they are responsible for the harm done. Organizations are only intermediaries of
the behaviors of individuals and not involved in the action. A key requirement for moral
responsibility is the ability to act autonomously, and organizations cannot act autonomously from
its members (Dubbink & Smith, 2011). Dispositionists further warn that focusing on the
organization can divert attention from individuals making it more difficult to determine
responsibility (Mandel, 2012) and therefore result in screening out important issues that must be
addressed at the individual level in order to stop the behavior (Moreno-Riaño, 2012).
2. Situationists. Situationists argue that the truth is more complex. Behavior comes
from an interaction of individual traits and situational factors and dynamics, the power of which
they claim are routinely underestimated, and at great cost (Zimbardo, 2007). They believe the
disposition perspective is both naïve and delusional, because it is naïve to believe that the bad
actors acted alone in every case, but rather they are largely the product of their systems and
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 80
situations. As Sridhar and Camburn (1993) put it “Organizational action is rarely taken without
regard to the organizational context” (p. 727). We all want to believe that instances of extreme
harm or destruction are simply aberrations, but it is a “cunning deception,” because it allows us
to “safely wall them off from our own time and space, and from ordinary people in ordinary
times” (Adams & Balfour, 2015, p. 36). However, before these occur there are many more
activities that lead to and support these actions (Adams & Balfour, 2012). In other words, we
want to believe that “those people” who inflict harm either intentionally or unwittingly are
fundamentally different from ourselves and those whom we hold dear. We want to believe that
dark side, or even evil, behavior is something that is distant and far removed from us, but this
only blinds us to the pervasiveness of dark side behavior that allows it to continue unimpeded.
Goldman (2009) argues that:
“A damaged, pathological and troubled leader is not just a single dysfunctional
entity. That is far too simple. The toxic leader must be understood within the
context of organizational culture. As we know from corporate debacles…it
only takes one rotten apple to infect the barrel, but the rest of the apples are
infected to varying degrees.” (p. 15-6).
Situationists also tend to argue that Western society is heavily predisposed to
dispositionist assumptions, due to the high value placed on individualism. Many types of
organizations are rooted in these assumptions, including legal, medicine and religion. In these
fields, when a problem occurs, the individual is the first place to look. The result is that
“culpability, illness and sin…are to found within the guilty party, the sick person, and the sinner”
(Zimbardo, 2007, p. 7). By way of contrast, social psychologists examine the situational factors
involved.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 81
Situationists respond to the point that organizations cannot act autonomously by saying
that while it is true the organizations do not think in the same way that individuals do, they can
reason and deliberate and can and do adhere to moral principles. They can choose whether and
how to promote and regulate moral and ethical behavior of their members, such as through
reward and punishment, and can therefore be held accountable (Dubbink & Smith, 2011).
The notorious Milgram Obedience Experiment at Yale University in the 1960’s provides
strong support of this dispositionist bias. In the controversial study, randomly selected
individuals were asked to participate in a study that presumably involved shocking other
participants to determine how it affected their ability to accurately remember the desired
information. In reality, the “participants” who were receiving the shocks were actors only
pretending to be shocked. The real study was on the willingness of individuals to comply with
instructions to harm innocent others. The study involved 30 levels of shock intensity, the highest
of which could clearly inflict great harm, presumably even to the point of death. The actor
displayed increasing signs of distress to the point of crying, begging for them to stop, even
pretending to pass out. Prior to the study, Milgram explained the study to 40 psychiatrists and
conducted a survey to determine the proportion of participants they believed would go all the
way to the highest shock level without protesting and stopping. The psychiatrists predicted that
less than 1% of participants would be compliant in inflicting the shocks all the way to the end,
and those that did would be doing so only because they were sadistic and wanted to do so. In
other words, they believed that individuals would remain in complete control of their behavior
and would not act in a way that compromised their values, beliefs or morals. They could not
have been more wrong. In the end, 65 percent of participants complied with instructions all the
way through to the level 30 shock even though many of the participants conveyed high levels of
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 82
distress by complying (Zimbardo, 2007). This demonstrates the surprising power of situational
factors and raises many questions about what the factors are and how they work, which are
examined later in this chapter.
Another key study to which many situationists point to justify their position is
Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971. In that study, students were randomly assigned
to be either prisoners or guards. The results were once again shocking and troubling. Both
groups became completely consumed by their roles. The students assigned as guards became
aggressive and abusive, treating the “prisoners” as less than human and the students assigned as
prisoners for the most part fell into passive roles, tolerating abuse of themselves and others
(Zimbardo, 2007). Although the experiment was scheduled to last two weeks, it was aborted
after only six days. Several personality tests conducted on the participants of the study found
that they all fell within normal ranges, and could not in any way be considered “bad apples.”
Zimbardo (2007) stated that at the end of the experiment that the students were no longer able to
clearly distinguish between their roles and themselves. Noted that at the beginning of the study,
there were no differences between the two groups (of guards and inmates), but after only six
days, there were no similarities. This clearly demonstrates the often underestimated power of
situational forces on our behavior. We all deeply want to believe that we have much more
control over our behavior than we typically do.
Pertaining to the debate on dispositionist versus situationist, Adams and Balfour (2015)
characterized the surprising outcome in this way:
“The subjects of the experiment adapted to and developed their new roles more
rapidly and fervently than was ever anticipated, thus demonstrating how social
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 83
roles and structures place far more powerful part in everyday human behavior
than our American belief in individualism can admit” (p. 27).
3. Systems. Zimbardo (2007) makes a strong case for stepping back even further to
examine the larger systems involved, or to continue the metaphor – to look at not only the bad
apples, or bad barrels, but to look at the barrel makers and those with the power to design the
barrels. He argues that in order to understand complex behavior, we must consider the “triadic
components” of people, situations and systems. Situations are created by systems, which provide
the “institutional support, authorization, and resources that allow situations to operate as they do”
(p. 10). Systems give permission for certain actions and punishes other actions (Zimbardo,
2007). For the purposes of our study, organizations are considered systems, which is argued later
in this chapter. However, systems exist on many different levels, and organizations are
simultaneously parts of larger social, political and economic systems on local, state, national and
international levels. They are also part of the one highly interdependent planetary system.
4. Conclusion. Based largely on the arguments and empirical research, this author sides
with this latter position that understanding dark side behavior requires a triadic approach that
recognizes the behavior as a result of individual, situational and systemic factors and dynamics.
The dispositionist position is likely accurate in some situations, albeit much less often than most
imagine. Individuals doing harm within organizations only rarely act independently and in
opposition to situational forces, but instead are highly motivated and influenced by many
powerful forces described in the previous chapter. In fact, in many instances refraining from the
dark side behavior could require a great deal of individual effort and often great cost. Therefore,
the culpability for the harm done can extend beyond the individual, and varies from case to case.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 84
Organizations have decision making processes through which they determine their
actions that are the product of a great many staff and decision makers, such as strategic plans and
implementation plans. The organization, and no one individual, is then responsible for the
results of those collective decisions, whether beneficial or harmful.
This points to some pragmatic and political reasons for holding organizations responsible
for DSOBs. Because organizations have such powerful roles in modern society, we must hold
them accountable. Some scholars point to an implicit social contract that organizations have
with their host society. In free market economies, societies give organizations discretion in how
it allocates its resources. However, this comes with the expectation that the organizations will
“actually improve social welfare by helping to realize important social goods” and that they will
adhere to “basic moral principles that support the well-being of citizens” (Dubbink & Smith,
2011, p. 226-7). Therefore, societies “assign moral responsibilities to corporations on the basis
of needing a way to carryout investment and production that respects the moral ends of
…society” (Dubbink & Smith, 2011, p. 227).
This author also sides with those that argue that organizations can and should be held
morally responsible for harmful behaviors conducted by its members to varying degrees
depending on the extent to which the member acted within the formal and informal norms and
policies of the organization. Likewise, individuals should not be absolved for their participation,
just because they were “following orders” (cf. Mandel, 2012). This position is also influenced
by the recognition that sometimes it is difficult or impossible to point to individuals to hold
accountable, because the roots of the behavior are so deeply ingrained into the fabric of the
organization. A prime example is the widespread child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church.
These abuses occurred over many generations and involved many individuals in many locations
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 85
across the globe. In this case, who should be held responsible? Of course, the individual
pederast priests need to be held fully accountable for their actions, but the church as an
institution played a powerful role in tolerating the known behavior, failing to hold its members to
higher levels of morality and failing to adequately prevent foreseeable harm to additional
children.
This points to another pragmatic reason for this position and for this study as a whole. In
the case of the Catholic Church sexual abuses, how should one go about resolving the problem or
preventing further such problems in the future? Can this even be done by only focusing on the
individuals involved? This is a great example of a problem with deeper roots of which the
individual instances of abuse serve as symptoms. Unless the organization itself accepts
responsibility and addresses the various situational factors and organizational characteristics that
allowed it to tolerate the abuse for so long, the dark side or evil behavior cannot be expected to
stop.
III. Claim #2: Organizations have spirits
At this point, it is necessary to address the fundamental question of whether organizations
have spirits, which is not a belief that is commonly stated in the literature, although there are
many signs the discussion is moving in that direction (e.g. Biberman, 2009; Laloux, 2014;
Vasconcelos, 2011). In order to ground the conversation, it is necessary to refer to the working
definition of spirit presented in Chapter 1. For this study, the definition of spirit is the deepest
essence of a living being – who it is at its core - its true nature and identity. The basic argument
made here is that organizations are in fact living entities, and like all living entities, have unique
essences, or spirits. It is important to recognize that the organizational culture and other
characteristics mentioned in the previous chapter are not themselves the spirit, or true essences of
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 86
the organization, but rather flow from the spirit and reflect the nature and qualities of that spirit.
This is analogous to an individual’s personality (Barrett, 1998), which reflects his or her spirit,
but is not itself the person’s spirit. To begin, some arguments against organizational spirits are
presented. The responses to these challenges build upon systems theory and complexity theory
to convey that the challenges are based on outdated and overly simplistic conceptualizations of
organizations. Efforts to better conceptualize the complexity of organizations have driven
theorists towards more organic and organismic metaphors.
A. Argument Against Organizational Spirits
The argument against the idea that organizations have spirits is rooted in the identity or
the very concept of an organization. Scholars that disagree that organizations can have spirits do
not believe that they are distinct or living things. Perhaps the most common belief is that
organizations are solely collections of individuals and not separate entities (cf. R. B. Brown,
2003). All actions and attributes may seem to indicate a separate and unique organizational
identity, but this is an illusion. Some acknowledge the similarities of organizations to people, but
relegate them to a lesser form, or secondary personhood (Werhane, 2008). Meadows (2008)
recognized that organizations are dynamic complex systems but stops short of calling them
living, stating instead that their actions can be “lifelike” (p. 12). Guerreiro Ramos (1981) gives
them an even lesser existential status, stating that “formal organizations are nothing but tools.
Individuals are their masters” (p. 70). Still others, such as organizational psychologist Karl
Weick, go further to say that organizations do not actually exist, but are merely abstract concepts
(Hatch, 2011).
For these reasons, some scholars recoil when organizations are anthropomorphized by
applying attributes typically reserved for individuals to organizations. Guerreiro Ramos (1981)
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 87
calls the application of anthropomorphic terms to organizations, including spirituality, love, and
health, a “misplacement of concepts” (p. 61). Brown (2003) agrees, suggesting that some of the
spiritual concepts are likely just repackaging of existing organizational development terms and
specifically stating that spirituality itself is an individual attribute that “cannot exist” at the
organizational level (2003, p. 395).
B. Arguments for Organizational Spirits
The primary responses to these arguments against the idea that organizations have spirits
are: 1) that organizations are much more complex than the scholars mentioned recognize and that
organizations are systems, which according to systems theory, has emergent properties that are
not present or observable in the constituent parts nor if the system is dismantled (Meadows,
2008; Wheatley, 2006), opening the door to the possibility of life as an emergent characteristic;
2) that organizations are in fact living systems and 3) the fact of being alive implies the existence
of a spirit. The rationale for each argument is presented
below.
1. Organizations are complex systems. The
academic field of systems thinking has been traced back to
the 1930s and emerged from multiple sources, especially
developments in management science, engineering and
biology (Hammond, 2002). This came out of a need to better
understand the increasing complexity of the natural world. A
system is defined as “an interconnected set of elements that is
coherently organized in a way that achieves something” (Meadows, 2008, p. 11). Systems
thinking made at least two major contributions to organizational science. The first is that the
Figure 3-1: Nested Systems from
Systems Theory
Source: (Skyttner, 2005, p. 66)
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 88
system is more than the sum of its parts. A key example is an organism, which is a system of
cells, organs, etc. You cannot understand the whole organism by examining any of the individual
components of the system (Meadows, 2008; Wheatley, 2006). Likewise, if you dissect a system
into its constituent parts, it ceases to be a system – it loses that nature that made it a coherent
system. The other contribution is that systems are nested within other higher-order, or more
complex systems. Cells are systems that are simpler than the organs, which are systems
comprised of many cell-level systems. Nested systems are depicted in Figure 3-1. In nested
systems, each higher level contains multiple sub-systems, such as organs containing multiple
cells and individuals containing multiple organs (Hatch, 2011; Meadows, 2008; Skyttner, 2005).
Source: Stormbal Consulting
Figure 3-2: Boulding’s Classification of Systems
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 89
By applying complexity theory, Kenneth Boulding (1956) developed a hierarchy of
systems with each level being a higher order of complexity, which he called the Framework for
General Systems Theory. These levels are depicted in Figure 3-2 and described in Table 3-1.
According to this theory, all humans are complex systems, comprised of simpler complex
systems and existing within larger and more complex systems, such as organizations. Sridhar
and Camburn (1993) demonstrated empirically that most conceptualizations of organizations in
the literature are problematically over simplistic, if organizations exist at a much lower level of
complexity than they actually do. In other words, most organizational scholars (to that point in
time at least) incorrectly underestimate the complexity of organizations. This is critical, because
these conceptualizations serve as paradigms through which we understand organizations. If our
Table 3-1:
Boulding’s Levels of System Complexity
Source: Mingers, 1997, p. 310
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 90
paradigm is too narrow or restrictive, we cannot accurately comprehend them (Sridhar &
Camburn, 1993).
More specifically, Sridhar and Camburn (1993) argue that most scholars assume that
organizations are at levels two or three of Boulding’s framework. This applies to the arguments
presented earlier. To support this assessment, Boulding’s level three organizations are described
as simple “cybernetic systems” that unthinkingly and mechanically respond to external stimuli in
order to achieve homeostasis, such as a thermostat responding to external temperature to
determine whether to heat or cool in order to retain the desired temperature (Boulding, 1956).
Guerreiro Ramos (1981) specifically refers to organizations as cybernetic systems, indicating that
his understanding of organizations is also likely at a level three. However, based on Boulding’s
typology, I believe that organizations most naturally fit in level eight, which are literally social
organizations comprised of individual humans, which are level seven. This means that
organizations are not only living, which occurs at level four, but they are five stages more
complex than Guerreiro Ramos acknowledged.
There are additional characteristics of systems relevant to this study. A system consists of
three components: elements, interconnections and a function or purpose (Meadows, 2008). The
elements are the physical manifestations of the system that are the easiest to see. The
interconnections, function or purpose are more difficult to ascertain, yet are more fundamental to
organizations than the elements. Elements, including individual employees and even leaders, can
be replaced with little to no effect on the integrity of the system. However, if either
interconnections, or more importantly purposes change, the system can change drastically.
Changing elements can also lead to drastic change, but only if they change the interconnections
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 91
or purpose of the system. For this reason, the elements are the least important in defining the
nature of the system (Meadows, 2008).
Consider that for organizations, many if not most elements are individuals. Recall that
the primary arguments against living organizations are that organizations are abstract or even a
false construct and that the only things that really exist are the individuals. However, according
to systems thinking, individuals are the least important factors in defining the nature of the
system, which are more powerfully defined by interconnections and purpose. This stands in
direct contrast to those who argue that individuals are the most important in defining a system, or
even that the organization is only a collection of individuals ignoring the critical importance of
the interconnections and purpose in defining the system.
A little more must be said about organizational purpose. The purpose mentioned here is
not the mission or vision statement, or anything that is said in speeches or written down on
papers or walls throughout the organization. Instead, it is the purpose that is reflected in the
actual behavior of the system. Meadows (2008) states that “the best way to deduce the system’s
purpose is to watch for a while to see how the system behaves” (p. 14). This is analogous to the
maxim that “actions speak louder than words.” She continues on to say that the true purposes
reflected in its actions are not necessarily those that are intended. Because systems are nested
within systems, each subsystem may have a different and potentially competing purpose. For
this reason, she states “one of the most frustrating aspects of systems is that the purposes of
subunits may add up to an overall behavior that no one wants” (Meadows, 2008, p. 15). Systems
thinking is a proposed solution to remedying or preventing this unfortunate, or even tragic,
situation, because it entails taking a step back to analyze the fuller picture, including not just the
people involved – the individual staff, leaders, board members, politicians – but also the nature
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 92
of their relationships and the unspoken purposes that can only be truly understood by reflecting
on the behavior of the system itself.
Finally, the dynamic nature of systems must be noted. Complex systems, organizations
in this case, are in a perpetual state of evolution due to their interactions with a wide variety of
stakeholders and feedback loops (Meadows, 2008). This phenomenon is called emergence, and
occurs in all levels of systems. It creates a high degree of uncertainty that can never be predicted
by a simple conception of organizations (Hatch, 2011). The systems at all levels are continually
acting in many directions simultaneously. However, systems have integrity, or wholeness, with
built-in mechanisms that allow the system to adapt and self-organize (Meadows, 2008) in
response to stimuli without losing its nature, i.e. without significantly affecting its elements,
relationships or purpose.
Systems theory provides a helpful way of understanding the many factors involved in the
DSOBs presented in Chapter 2. The dark side behaviors of individuals are affected by forces
from each of the systems in which they occur, the team, departmental, organizational, cultural
and societal systems as well as their internal systems, such as their psychological system. These
forces manifest in the various levels of antecedents. Hopefully, this more robust picture also
helps clarify the true complexity of the dynamics involved, which informs the solution and
explains why many past efforts to address systemic problems by targeting the individual “bad
apples” have failed. This also seems to turn on its head the power dynamic claimed by Guerreiro
Ramos (1981) when he said that organizations are tools and individuals their masters. Both this
conceptualization and experience reflected in the antecedents has shown that individuals are
often small pieces of much larger systems that are neither easily seen or understood.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 93
2. Organizations are living. Simple metaphors of organizations, such as the machine
metaphor promoted by the modern paradigm, have essentially fallen apart over time as they
failed to capture the adaptability and self-organizing nature of organizations (Ajmal & Lodhi,
2015; Harder, Robertson, & Woodward, 2004; Hatch, 2011). Scholars have been increasingly
turning to more organic metaphors to capture the true essence of organizations, especially
anthropomorphic concepts in which human concepts are applied to organizations. However, this
is not necessarily a new development. The conceptualization of an organization as a living
organism, or the organism metaphor, emerged just after World War II. This concept was greatly
influenced by the evolutionary biology ideas of Charles Darwin. The organism metaphor
involved viewing organizations as having organismic characteristics of variation, selection and
retention that explained the survival or failure of organizations, similar to Darwin’s natural
selection (Hatch, 2011).
Despite the aforementioned objections to their use, the application of anthropomorphic
attributes has largely been accepted by mainstream academic journals and opposition to their use
has largely diminished over time. In fact, after Brown in 2003, it is difficult to find literature that
argues against it. Bakan (2004) argues that anthropomorphizing the organization opens the door
to new forms of analysis and consideration that could otherwise not be seen.
The idea of organizations as organisms has rapidly evolved over the past few decades in
response to the increasing complexity of organizations along with rapidly changing societal
factors, including the increased speed of information, such that a new organizational “species” is
evolving that fits better with the extremely dynamic environment (Harder et al., 2004, p. 81-2).
Another reason for this is that organizations typically do not reflect static organizational charts.
According to Wheatley (2006), “we must leave behind the imaginary organization we design and
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 94
learn to work with the real organization, which will always be a dense network of interdependent
relationships” (p. 144).
The majority of discussions in the literature on organizations having life occurs within or
is directly influenced by living systems theory, which Harder et al. (2004) argue is in the process
of replacing the predominant machine metaphor. In this theory, all of the nested levels share
characteristics of life. Miller (1978) identified seven levels of living systems: cell, organ,
organism, group, organization, society and supranational. Organizations are recognized as a
specific level of living system. One of Miller’s main contributions was to recognize that larger
social systems exhibited very similar properties as those within organisms. These are typically
difficult to perceive due to different terms and theoretical frameworks (Tracy, 1989), hence the
tendency of scholars to argue that individuals are the highest level of living organism in the
framework.
To support the idea that organizations are living, some common characteristics of living
systems are presented here. These are intended to help clarify the difficult-to-see similarities at
the multiple levels of living systems, from the cell to the planet. The characteristics are that they:
are concrete or have actual matter (Capra & Luisi, 2014; Miller, 1978), are open systems, seek to
maintain homeostasis, and seek to achieve actualization of their potential (Miller, 1978). They
possess templates within them that guide their growth, development and purpose that some call a
form (Capra & Luisi, 2014), and it provides the capacity for self-organizing, or autopoiesis. This
ability allows the system to respond to challenges and adapt in order to reach higher levels of
complexity and thus to survive (Harder et al., 2004; Tracy, 1989; Wheatley, 2006). Living
systems seek to propagate themselves either through reproduction or through disseminating their
message, mission or purpose (Tracy, 1989). They are also coevolutionary, which means they
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 95
evolve along with and in relationship to their environment, i.e. their suprasystem (Harder et al.,
2004). Living systems display what Capra and Luisi (2014) call the process of life, which is the
continual activity involved in the manifestation of the form. They also include in their
conceptualization of living systems the dimension of meaning, which is the internal
consciousness and reflectiveness of the system.
Tracy (1989) wisely acknowledges the limitations of living systems theory, which can be
summarized by saying that all levels of living systems have unique, emergent properties that do
not exist at the other levels. For example, propagation is qualitatively different at the various
levels of the system. Consider the differences between cells splitting, human reproduction and
starting a new office of a company. These all reflect the same property of life, but it manifests in
very dissimilar ways. Another key difference across the levels of living systems is the level of
autonomy of each system node. In individual organisms, the cells have very little autonomy, but
in human systems they have much more (Capra & Luisi, 2014).
In addition to these living characteristics of organizations, there is yet another argument
for organizations having spirits. Barrett (1998) argues that organizations can have certain values
“such as trust, honesty, integrity, compassion, and sharing,” and because they do, they “cannot be
described as machines. They are living entities.” These values indicate that, unlike cold and
lifeless machines, organizations have “physical, emotional, mental and spiritual needs” (p. 10).
One interesting aspect of some of the arguments for the importance of considering
organizations to be living is the claim that this life is optional, and not inherent, which fuels their
encouragement for choosing to pursue characteristics of “living” organizations (Barrett, 1998;
Harder et al., 2004; Pruzan, 2001). This seems to suggest that life is a choice and that by adding
the characteristics above to some degree will at some point transition an organization from not
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 96
living, to living. In contrast, this author argues that life is an existential quality, and not
something that can be achieved - something is either alive or it is not. Rather than having a
vague and perhaps arbitrary demarcating line between living and non-living organizations, it is
argued that all organizations are living. This is supported by some scholars in the field (e.g.
Biberman, 2009; Capra & Luisi, 2014). The characteristics of living organizations described
above actually exist in all organizations, but to varying degrees. Rather than reflecting the
degree to which organizations are alive, the extent of the existence of the characteristics instead
reflects the spiritual maturity of the organizations. This will be further unpacked in the
remaining chapters. The point here is that all organizations are living, not only those with certain
characteristics.
3. Living beings have spirits. Does the fact that something is alive necessarily suggest
that it has a spirit? The short answer is yes. This is based on the very definition of spirit. For
this study, spirit is defined as the deepest essence of a living thing – who or what it is at its core -
its true nature and identity. To be alive means to be animated. This comes from the Latin root
anima which “refers to the spirit, the breath of life, the essence of being alive” (Harder et al.,
2004, p. 97). In other words, to be alive is to have a spirit, and since all organizations are living,
they all have spirits. Howard (2002) states that like an unconscious, everyone has a spiritual life,
“whether they like it or not” (p. 234). Apropos to this study, and a fitting closing to this section,
she continues on to say:
“The disparity of our spiritual development is one of the key struggles with
which we engage in daily, whether we recognize it or not. And this is why the
spirituality debate is emerging and becoming central to leading-edge thinking
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 97
for organizations and why it is so important to discuss spiritual realities
openly” (p. 234).
IV. Claim #3: Dark Side Organizational Behavior Reflects Spiritual Poverty
“We believe that today’s organizations are impoverished spiritually and that
many of their most important problems are due to this impoverishment”
(Mitroff & Denton, 1999, p. xiv).
Now that the case has been made for the existence of organizational spirits, we turn our
attention to the dark side organizational behaviors (DSOBs) to explain how they are rooted in
these organizational spirits and indicate spiritual deficits in organizations. It is a key premise of
this study that DSOBs are inherently spiritual and can therefore only be resolved with solutions
that address the deep spiritual roots. The argument begins with a more general overarching
explanation of the spiritual nature of DSOBs. This is followed by a closer examination of the
spiritual nature of three sets of factors presented in Chapter 2: organizational antecedents, root
causes and perpetuating and facilitating factors of DSOBs.
The selection of these areas from all that were covered reflects a focus on the role of the
organization in DSOBs. The external antecedents are not discussed directly here, because this
study does not seek to address the problems on the societal level except indirectly through
organizations. The external influences manifest in the organizational antecedents that will be
discussed, and organizations with mature spiritualities are believed to be in better positions to
withstand the influences of these external pressures. Individual-level antecedents are also not
addressed here. While individuals can engage in DSOBs completely on their own and even in
direct opposition of the organization, the intent of this study is to help reveal and address the
more systemic problems rooted in the organization rather than the rogue individual actor. For
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 98
these reasons, it is not believed that OSM is the solution to all DSOBs, but can promote more
spiritually mature individual-level behaviors to counteract individual-level antecedents and
thereby help dissuade inclined individuals from engaging in DSOBs.
A. Basic Case for Spiritual Roots of DSOBs
As discussed in the previous chapter, the prevailing values and beliefs in modern society,
including in the vast majority of organizations, are based upon a mistaken assumption that we are
all largely disconnected and independent. This detached paradigm of organizations is “no longer
practical in an ever-changing and mutually interconnected” world (Ajmal & Lodhi, 2015, p.
202). In fact, it is the root of many problems, including most DSOBs. The reality is that these
connections are so profound that most will never fully grasp them. Regarding this, Bohm (1980)
states and demonstrates through scientific and mathematical principles that at a level we are
unable to observe discern, there is an “unbroken wholeness” (p. 172). If we could observe it, we
would see an implicate, or enfolded, order out of which seemingly disparate events emerge
(Bohm, 1980, p. 177). Likewise, DSOBs are not discrete events, but have deeper and common
spiritual roots and reflect an ignorance of and disconnect from Bohm’s unbroken wholeness - the
system of the whole.
The working definition of spirituality for this study is: the sense of connectedness that
one has with the whole of creation and resultant valuing of all people, living things and the
planet. As we learn how we affect the planet and other people, and how we are also affected by
them and dependent upon them, we respect and value them more. As a result, our attitudes and
behaviors change. This is the process of spiritual growth, or spiritual maturation. Those that are
less conscious of this interconnectivity are less spiritual and those with higher levels are more
spiritually developed (Liu & Robertson, 2011). When organizations are spiritually immature,
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 99
they fail to recognize, sufficiently prioritize and counteract harmful side effects and
consequences of their operations thereby inflicting undue harm on employees, society and the
planet (Ajmal & Lodhi, 2015). As a result, they knowingly or unknowingly do all manner of
harm through dark side behaviors. Hence, the basic root of DSOBS is spiritual poverty.
B. Organizational DSOB Antecedents Reflect Spiritual Poverty
Many of the organizational DSOB antecedents promote beliefs and practices that are by
definition in direct opposition to a sense of connectedness and the valuing of organizational
members, external stakeholders and the planet. These are each examined separately and will
reinforce the basic case presented above that the factors all reflect a low level of spirituality that
is reflected in a low consciousness of interconnectedness and/or an undervaluing of people or the
planet.
1. Organizational narcissism. The first organizational level antecedent of DSOB in the
previous chapter was organizational narcissism. An extremely narcissistic organization “cannot
recognize that anything of value might exist outside its boundaries” and may not only be
dismissive of those outside the organization but treat them with contempt (Duchon & Drake,
2009, p. 303). Narcissism typically results in a lack of empathy and self-centered behaviors and
can translate into the exploitation of others and resources to achieve desired ends (Duchon &
Drake, 2009), which often directly harms the well-being of others and the planet thereby
reflecting a lack of respect and a lower value on others and the planet than on oneself, i.e. low
spirituality.
2. Pursuit of growth and profit maximization. The second organizational-level
antecedent of DSOBs was the drive for growth and profit maximization. Economic growth
pertains to many government and other organizations, while profit maximization is more
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 100
applicable to for-profit organizations, or businesses. These pursuits are driven by the belief that
happiness and well-being come from material possessions (Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2002). As
discussed, this is influenced by the external antecedent pursuit of wealth that pervades Western
culture and is fueled by the materialism of the modern paradigm (Rozuel, 2014).
The goal of the materialistic value orientation is “the attainment of wealth in order to
buy…goods and services” (Kasser, 2011, p. 205). Research has shown that a focus on
materialistic goals corresponds to an increase in manipulation, competition and degradation of
the environment (Kasser, 2011), which are either directly or indirectly dark side behaviors.
Referring back to our definition of spirituality, these facts indicate that materialism and the
overvaluing of profit and growth is in opposition to spirituality and thus reflects lower levels of
spirituality, or spiritual immaturity. But there is actually some proof of this. Research has also
shown that materialistic and spiritual values are in direct opposition to each other (Burroughs &
Rindfleisch, 2002; Grouzet et al., 2005), because people who have materialistic values are less
likely to seek to benefit the well-being of others and are more likely to hurt others (Kasser,
2011).
3. Diffusion and fragmentation. The diffusion and fragmentation of knowledge within
organizations creates disconnect from the bigger picture and external stakeholders, and
consequently decreases the collective understanding of the impact of the daily tasks on the world
outside the organization’s walls. Howard (2002) states that “spiritual reality is a unifying
oneness” that can “change our perspective on fragmentation in society” (p. 231). In other words,
on a spiritual level we are all connected and those that are more spiritual understand this. Those
organizations that are more fragmented are less aware of this oneness and therefore less
spiritually developed. In other words, fragmentation directly decreases spirituality.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 101
Factions and divisions within organizations that stem from fragmentation also create
internal weakness, like fissures in a foundation, that reflect a lack of cohesion and integrity, or a
lack of wholeness or internal connectedness that is also spiritual in nature. At high levels,
fragmentation can create competitive environments that pit members against each other and that
can create a great deal of stress and anxiety for employees. The promotion or tolerance of this
unhealthy work environment reflects a lack of concern for the well-being of employees, which is
another indication of undervaluing of people – a sign of low spirituality.
4. Moral and ethical disengagement. The spiritual aspects of this antecedent are likely
fairly obvious. Moral and ethical disengagement reflect a redefining of what is good and right in
a way that conflicts with external society and results in the violation of societal morals and
ethics. This comes from making the well-being of the organization the highest priority. Setting
the desires of the organization against that of the rest of society clearly reflects a lack of
recognition of interconnectedness and undervaluing of those outside the organization, or a low
level of spirituality.
Some may argue that organizations do not have their own morals and ethics outside those
of their individual members. The attribution of moral development to organizations in a way that
mirrors the same in individuals is referred to as the moralization of the corporation by Harvard’s
Lynne Paine (RW.ERROR - Unable to find reference:551). Sridhar and Camburn (1993)
conducted a study that confirmed the validity of applying the notion of individual moral
development to organizations. This study demonstrated both that organizations can develop
shared values and moral reasoning and that, like individuals, organizations can increase their
levels of morality as a collective body. It is further argued here that an organization’s level of
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 102
morality actually reflects its spiritual maturity, which is the source of its morality. More self-
serving morals reflect lower spiritual maturity.
5. Identity dysfunctions. Identity dysfunctions result from an undervaluing of and
inadequate respect for individual organizational members. Once again, it stems from a tendency
to put the desires and needs of the organization above the health and well-being of others, in this
case its own members. It reflects an extractive and exploitative approach in which the individual
is being used as an instrumental means to achieve its ends. Consider the example of Amazon, in
which workers are expected to be accessible 24 hours a day and work exceedingly long hours in
order to advance in the company. The New York Times published an exposé in which they
concluded that Amazon “is conducting a little-known experiment in how far it can push white-
collar workers, redrawing the boundaries of what is acceptable” (Kantor & Streitfeld, 2015).
Amazon clearly wants its workers to completely revolve their lives around the company’s needs
with little to no consideration of the harm these demands have on them. This undervaluing of the
individual identity and general well-being of organizational members is becoming increasingly
common (Kreiner, 2007) and clearly reflects a low level of spirituality.
6. Lack of accountability. If an organization truly values the well-being of external
stakeholders and the planet, it takes steps to minimize or ideally prevent harm to them.
Likewise, if an organization truly values its workforce, it strives to ensure that they are treated
with dignity, respect and in a way that supports their well-being. These values manifest in the
organization holding itself and its members accountable for their behavior and the impact of their
behavior. But this is not an easy task and therefore requires a high degree of authentic desire to
understand this impact. Often the accountability is insufficient, as many claim is the case with
government administrators, who typically answer only to superiors and not to the public they are
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 103
paid to serve (Behn, 2001; Hupe & Edwards, 2012). However, harm can also be done by
requiring too much accountability, for example in excessive bureaucracy or reporting
requirements for grant recipients. This can divert precious resources and prevent much needed
benefits to society (RW.ERROR - Unable to find reference:40; Kim, 2005). And just because
accountability mechanisms are established does not mean that they are implemented effectively,
whether intentionally or not. In some cases, these mechanisms may be primarily for appearances
without real intent to hold anyone accountable, such as weak performance evaluation processes
that allows the continuation of the 30 to 75 percent of managers who are not competent for their
positions as estimated by Hogan and Kaiser (2005).
Because the quality of the accountability process reflects the extent to which people and
the planet are valued, it reflects the spirituality of organizations. Organizations with higher
levels of spirituality would seek effective accountability mechanism that would not be overly
cumbersome, yet would be designed to prevent harmful actions before they occur, such as
refraining from pollution, instead of only accepting responsibility to pay for the cleanup or
remediation of the pollution after the harm is done.
7. Harmful management approaches. The problematic leadership and management
approaches described in the previous chapter are rooted in the mechanistic modern paradigm in
which people are treated as essentially cogs in the wheels of the organization and their full
humanity is not welcome or embraced, including emotions, creativity, etc. Instead, the focus of
this management approach is to control organizational members, and motivate them through base
emotions such as fear and self-interest. The combination of these factors has a number of
negative impacts on them, including stress, disempowerment and spiritual deflation (Wheatley,
2005). This reflects a failure to fully value them and care about their well-being.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 104
C. Immediate Causes of DSOBs Reflect Spiritual Poverty
Four immediate causes of DSOBs were presented in the previous chapter. Like the
antecedents, these all reflect low levels of spirituality. The first cause presented is
instrumentality, in which the actor knowingly or unknowingly inflicts harm as a side effect while
pursuing another goal (Baumeister & V ohs, 2004). The spiritual poverty of known harm is quite
obvious as it indicates valuing self-interest over the well-being of others. Unintentional harm is
also spiritual, because it reflects a lack of understanding of the connections that result in one’s
actions inflicting harm on others. It also reflects a high degree of self-focus, which indicates a
commensurate lack of focus on valuing the well-being of others.
The second root cause is threatened egotism, in which people engage in harmful acts to
defend themselves against a perceived attack or threat to their pride or honor (Baumeister &
V ohs, 2004). Similarly, it reflects that they are valuing themselves and their needs over those of
others. This suggests a competitive attitude, a lack of understanding of how we are all
connected, and a failure to sufficiently respect and value those who are harmed.
The third cause of DSOBs is idealism, or engaging in harmful behavior with the mistaken
belief that one is actually doing good (Baumeister & V ohs, 2004), also referred to as moral
inversion (Adams & Balfour, 2015). This reflects a lack of true connection with those who are
being harmed; otherwise, they would recognize that the perceived benefits of the harm are often
false and fail to justify the harm. It indicates a corrupted or impoverished morality that allows
one to rationalize harming another and suggests a failure to comprehend how we are all
interdependent upon each other. The spiritual nature of the final cause, sadism, is quite clear.
Sadism is the harming of others purely for the enjoyment of the actor (Baumeister & V ohs,
2004), which is clearly valuing one’s own desires over the well-being of another.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 105
D. Facilitating and Perpetuating Factors Reflect Spiritual Poverty
The final step is to demonstrate the spiritual nature of the facilitating and perpetuating
factors that cause organizations to knowingly support the continuation of harmful behaviors. It
is unnecessary to focus extensively on these because, on the most fundamental level, the fact that
they involve knowingly justifying the continuation of harmful activities should be sufficient to
suggest a lack of valuing of others and/or the planet, regardless of the factors involved in the
process. Recognizing these common elements, the spiritual elements in each will be more
closely examined.
The facilitating factors of DSOBs allow them to continue and in some instances increase.
They influence employees to either engage in the harmful behavior, support it or turn a blind eye.
The need for social approval with its accompanying fear of rejection is essentially self-focused
and based on both social and professional desires of the individuals that either perpetrate the
DSOBs or choose not to intervene. Allowing oneself to engage in or ignore harmful behavior for
these reasons reflects the valuing of oneself over and above others that may suffer from the harm.
The remaining four facilitating factors presented in the previous chapter all have similar
spiritual roots. Compliance, moral inversion, moral disengagement and diffusion of
responsibility all suggest a weak sense of individual integrity and morality – one that can be
corrupted and influenced by the facilitating factors. As such, they indicate an ignorance of the
impacts of these behaviors on themselves, their co-workers, other people and the environment.
Allowing oneself to be influenced by these factors also potentially indicates the valuing of one’s
professional career over the well-being of others, since challenging DSOBs often involves some
degree of risk to one’s position in the organization and therefore one’s career and livelihood,
which is especially true in spiritually immature organizations that clearly tolerate DSOBs and
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 106
punish those who threaten to interfere. This is also true of inaction, which can indicate fear, lack
of integrity and/or predominantly self-serving values that weigh more in the decision not to act
than the value of the person, people or ecological system being harmed.
The DSOB perpetuating factors of successive ratification and normalization have similar
spiritual roots self-serving values in that it is easier, less work and less stressful to simply
continue doing what is already being done rather than challenging, stopping and trying to find
another way. These factors also indicate a lack of understanding of the full consequences of the
harms done to the system as a whole, including the harm eventually done to the individual and
the organization engaged in the behavior. If these were better understood, there would
presumably be more resistance and less tolerance of the behavior.
V. Claim #4: Organizational Spiritual Maturity is Necessary to Address Dark Side
Organizational Behaviors
To this point, it has been argued that organizations have spirits and that the harmful
organizational behaviors that are desired to be stopped are inherently spiritual in nature. This
third claim essentially puts a bow on the case for organizational spiritual maturity (OSM) by
clarifying why increasing OSM is necessary to successfully stop and prevent DSOBs and ideally
reverse any harm that organizations inflict on society or the planet. The primary argument for
this claim is that spiritual problems require spiritual solutions and that the organizational spirit is
the best target for this intervention rather than individuals.
Professionals in social work, nursing and other helping professions have learned the
necessity of considering the spiritual nature of the challenges their clients face. This is reflected
in the expansion of the bio-psycho-social practice model to the bio-psycho-social-spiritual model
(Sulmasy, 2002). This was deemed necessary because spirituality is an integral aspect of an
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 107
individual (O. Brown, Elkonin, & Naicker, 2013), and because practitioners learned that some
issues that manifest in physical, emotional or social problems have deeper spiritual roots, of
which the presenting problems are only symptoms. In these cases, it is necessary to address the
spiritual roots of the problem in order to resolve it. This has been found to be the case with
eating disorders (Sosin, 2008) and many mental health issues (O. Brown et al., 2013). Another
classic example is substance addiction (Leukefeld & Leukefeld, 1999), as reflected in the
spiritual nature of 12-step recovery programs. As psychoanalyst Carl Jung noted, “the disease
from which the alcoholic was suffering was spiritual emptiness” (Mitroff & Denton, 1999, p.
xiii). These trends reflect a growing recognition that spiritual problems require spiritual
solutions.
If spiritual solutions are required, where do we intervene? Organizations are living
systems, and therefore DSOBs cannot be understood in isolation but only within the complex
dynamics of the organizational systems (Wheatley, 2006), as reflected in the myriad antecedents
and other incentivizing factors involved in DSOBs described in the previous chapter. This
complexity helps make it clear that efforts to end or prevent DSOBs by focusing our attention on
the spirituality of the individual(s) involved are most likely doomed to failure because they
would leave most of the antecedents in place, thereby likely continuing to send signals
supporting and incentivizing the DSOBs to other employees. If these are not removed, it could
also be expected that other individuals would engage in the same behavior. The problem is
systemic, rooted in the organization system, making it necessary to intervene at the
organizational level.
But where is it rooted in the organization system? In a single leader, the culture, the
policies, mission or vision statements? No, the values, character and qualities of these
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 108
continually flow from one central source – the spirit of the organization. The qualities of an
organizational spirit reflects the spiritual development of the organizational system. Since the
DSOBs are spiritual in nature and rooted in the organizational spirit, they are symptoms of
spiritual poverty or immaturity of the organization. As such, the only way to truly prevent
DSOBs is to address the roots of the problems by increasing the spiritual maturity of the
organization itself.
VI. Claim #5: Organizational Spiritual Maturity is a New Concept
Now that the importance of the concept has been established, it is necessary to
demonstrate that it is new and does not yet exist in the extant literature. While many of the
elements have been written about in various ways, the fullness of this study has not been
presented in its totality under any label. At this point in this study, the concept of OSM has not
been fully developed. The following assessment of similarities with existing concepts is
therefore considered initial, or preliminary. However, as will be demonstrated, the existing
concept is sufficiently distinct as to indicate a very low probability that the concept will exactly
match any existing concept.
Interestingly, the literature seems to be converging towards the concept of OSM from
different directions, making this study fairly timely and perhaps a next natural step in the
evolution of the discussion. In this section the concept of OSM is differentiated from those
existing in the literature. This claim will be defended in two parts. The first explains that OSM
is not yet captured by any of the extensive literature involving spirituality and organizations.
The second contrasts OSM with some similar concepts that do not use the term spirituality.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 109
A. Literature on Spirituality and Organizations.
There is a spiritual movement in organizations (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000). Spirituality
has been called one of the hottest topics in management literature (Zsolnai, 2011). A 2008 study
found between 1991 and 2008, 3129 articles were published in the social sciences literature (i.e.
not including religion and theology) in which spirituality was a significant topic, and 232 of
these were specifically on the concept of workplace spirituality (Oswick, 2009). Writings have
been published under a few different labels, but the terms are basically interchangeable,
including: workplace spirituality (WPS), organizational spirituality (OS), spirit at work (SAW)
and spirituality in the workplace (Kinjerski, 2013).
There is one key distinction between the concept of OSM and these topics that makes a
more detailed exploration of the existing literature essentially unnecessary. The primary
distinction is that OSM focuses on the spirit of the organization, while the others focus on the
spirit of individuals within the organization. To be clear, OSM is a multi-level, systemic
construct that includes the spirituality of individual members as well as that of the organization,
but existing concepts for the most part only consider the spirituality of individuals (Biberman,
2009). Although there is no agreed upon definition (Kinjerski, 2013), this conceptualization is
reflected in a seminal defining article on workplace spirituality, in which it is defined as “the
recognition that employees have an inner life that nourishes and is nourished by meaningful
work that takes place in the context of community” (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000, p. 137). The
existing concepts generally refer to the interplay between the organization and the spirituality of
individual organization members, such as the tolerance and/or support of religious and individual
spiritual expression in the workplace rather than the spirituality of the workplace itself. This is
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 110
further and more recently supported by Miller and Ewest (2013) who conducted the most recent
published literature review on the concept and concluded:
“Whatever name one gives the field, there is general agreement that it is driven
by people desiring to live integrated lives, persons who are no longer satisfied
to park their faith tradition or identity at the door when they go into work, any
more than they are willing to deny or sublimate their ethnicity, race, gender, or
sexual orientation. People in today’s workforce want to live holistic lives,
including recognition and acceptance of their spirituality.” (p. 30)
In this context of individual-level spirituality, the idea of organization-level spirituality
often arises, but only in reference to the spirituality of individuals within the organization. As an
example, Cunha, Rego and D’Oliveira (2006) presented a typology of organizational
spiritualities that included a dimension of spiritually informed versus uninformed organizations.
They further used the labels soulful organization and holistic organization to reference the
spiritually informed organizations. While this may suggest that the organization itself is
spiritual, the authors defined the concept of spiritually informed in terms of the organization’s
intent to develop and fulfill the spirituality of its employees.
Barrett (1998) moves closer to the conceptualization of OSM by arguing for the idea that
organizations are living and that they even have souls. He mentions the importance of
organizations monitoring their own spiritual health and defines a spectrum of levels of corporate
consciousness. However, when closely examined, it is clear that he still considers the
organizational soul to be the collective spiritualities of the individual organizational members.
He does not mention an organization spirit (and only sparingly and vaguely references an
organization soul), and does not at any point invoke systems theory to suggest that the soul of the
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 111
organization is qualitatively different from the sum of its parts. Moreover, in later writings he
appears to abandon the term organizational soul in favor of values-driven organizations, further
indicating that the idea of an organizational spirit, or soul, is not central to his ideas.
B. Literature on Similar Non-Spiritual Concepts.
Several concepts in the literature that do not use the term spirit or spiritual in the label
overlap to a high degree with OSM. It is therefore necessary to draw a clear distinction between
the concepts. While many concepts and labels for more advanced organizations have been
introduced, most lack a strong spiritual component. Only those that have a strong spiritual
component are discussed here, because they are considered to be the closest to OSM.
1. Wise organizations. One trend in the organizational development literature has
been the promotion of wise organizations, which often involves application of indigenous values
and beliefs. This typically entails a high degree of communion and interconnectedness with
other humans and the planet that translates into a sense of responsibility to the greater good and
stewardship of natural resources. Scholars applying these concepts of wisdom to organizations
also often adopt a systems approach, because the indigenous communities upon which they base
their ideas tend to consider creation as one unified system. They believe that humans are integral
to and not apart from this unified system of the whole and encourages recognition of this
interconnectivity (Spiller, Pio, Erakovic, & Henare, 2011). Other common characteristics of
wise organizations in the literature are: radical relationality, intergenerational time frame, a sense
of sacredness and multi-level ecology. Radical relationality is a robust sense of relatedness to all
of creation that multilevel and multidimensional. It involves connections to people, the
environment and higher powers. Multi-level ecology builds on this deep sense of connectedness
and involves a “mutual co-creation of human and environmental systems” (Edwards, Biloslavo,
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 112
Kwaymullina, & Kwaymullina, 2012, p. 25). As the term sacredness suggests, there is often a
spiritual component to wisdom approaches. For example, Spiller et al. (2011) promote a wisdom
approach based on the beliefs of the Māori people in New Zealand. In their practice of
kaitiakitanga, each human is mandated to use their spiritual power, or mana, to care for and
create well-being for humans, ecosystems and organizations.
Spiritually mature and wise organizations may very well look and act in much the same
way since they are driven by very similar values. The difference is how they get there. Once
again, in wise organizations, the focus is on the individual human spirits. The spirit of the
organization is not discussed and is not a part of the concept of wise organizations. The role of
the organization is to adopt wise values, including community, stewardship and seeking the
greater good. The focus is on the values and behavior of the organization and not its true
essence. In other words, wisdom is an optional spiritual attribute. People and organizations that
have mature spirits are inherently wise. However, this describes their thoughts and behavior, and
only reflects the qualities of the spirit, just like an individual human. In other words, spiritually
mature organizations are inherently wise, but wise organizations are not necessarily spiritual.
2. Enlightened organizations. Judi Neal, a pioneer in the organizational development
subfield of workplace spirituality, uses the term Enlightened Organizations to capture her vision
of the most spiritually advanced organizations, which she defines as “organizations that are
committed to operating on spiritual values and that have explicit practices or processes to nurture
the human spirit” (Neal, 2013, p. 152). As the definition suggests, the focus is still very much on
the adoption of spiritual values at the organizational level and supporting the spirituality of the
individual organization members. Once again, the organization is not considered a living system
with its own unique spirit.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 113
3. Evolutionary organizations. The idea of evolutionary organizations was introduced
and described in great detail by Belgian business consultant Frédéric Laloux (2014). Laloux
builds upon the works of Abraham Maslow, Ken Wilber and Clare Graves to present what he
considers to be the next stage in the evolution of organizations, which evolve in the direction of
increased consciousness. This consciousness is not only of deep interconnectivity of the
universe but also the forces at work shaping and guiding the natural unfolding of creation.
Tapping into these forces at the personal and organizational levels allows us to tap into the
deeper wisdom of these forces and to allow our true purposes to unfold, which will help us
overcome fear and fragmentation that lead to many organizational dysfunctions.
While his description is much more mystical than the current conceptualization of OSM,
the combination of the values, the centrality of consciousness of interconnectivity and even the
idea of organizations as living systems with their own souls appears to be the most similar
concept to OSM in the extant literature. However, there are a few caveats. The first is that his
concepts are not based upon organizational development literature, but rather emerge from the
fields of philosophy, business and psychology, which leads to the second caveat. This study has
not yet been completed, and it is impossible at this stage in the study to predict exactly what the
final conceptualization of OSM will entail. The OD literature may lead this research to very
different conclusions than Laloux, or it may lead to the same place. The third caveat is that,
unlike this study, which seeks to identify an ideal-type spiritually mature organization, Laloux
understands his evolutionary organizations as an interim step - the next step towards an ideal. In
fact, he identifies two stages of organizations that are more advanced, which he calls
“transcendent consciousness” and “unity consciousness” (Laloux, 2014, p. 316-17). Perhaps the
final product of this study will more appropriately represent one of those forms than evolutionary
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 114
organizations. The final caveat is that even if the concept of OSM unexpectedly turns out to be
virtually the same as evolutionary organizations, the study would still have value.
VII. Conclusion
In this chapter, the case was made for the need for organizational spiritual maturity to
address many, if not most, harmful behaviors in and by organizations. This case included the
arguments that organizations have spirits, that dark side organizational behaviors are rooted in
this organizational spirit and that the development, or maturing, of the organizational spirit is
likely the most effective solution to stopping and preventing harmful organizational behavior.
Finally, the case was made that OSM does not yet fully exist in the literature, or at least the study
is worth conducting, because the concept has not been supported through organizational
development literature. Having concluded this case, we can now turn our attention to fleshing
out the concept in the next chapter.

ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 115

Chapter 4: Definition and Qualities of Organizational Spiritual Maturity (OSM)
I. Introduction
The stage has now been set to clarify the concept of organizational spiritual maturity
(OSM). Because like an individual human spirit the organizational spirit is not directly
perceivable, it can only be observed and assessed through its exhibited qualities. This chapter
presents the concepts of organizational spirit, OSM and the qualities that indicate a spiritually
mature organization.
As a new concept, this presentation of OSM builds on and launches from the extant
literature. A key novel concept here is the presentation of the organizational spirit. After this
concept is solidified, it serves as a foundation upon which to apply and adapt concepts and
qualities of spirituality in the literature. The process of developing this definition involved
analyzing numerous definitions of spirituality, identifying common definitional components and
determining whether they could or should be applied to the organizational spirit, because most of
the literature defines spirituality in terms of individuals or in very general terms. This process
resulted in definitions of organizational spirit and organizational spiritual maturity.
Based on the definitions, a similar process was used to identify the most common
spiritual qualities and then determining again whether and how they would apply to OSM.
Unfortunately, while there was a great deal of overlap regarding these spiritual qualities, there is
little agreement in the how to describe them. Over 70 different spiritual qualities were identified
in the literature. This necessitated an extensive synthesis process in order to distill out the core
concepts by grouping related concepts and folding them under a core concept, where possible.
This resulted in six qualities: love, purpose for the common good, integrity, wisdom, continual
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 116

evolution and spiritually mature leadership and management. These are highly integrated and
interdependent qualities that together present a holistic picture of an ideal-type spiritually mature
organization. This will serve as the basis for the guidance on how to improve OSM in the next
chapter.
As a final note, it must be recognized that this is only the first introduction of the concept
of OSM, which will likely evolve over time as informed by efforts to develop organizational
spirits. The definitions and qualities presented here are expected to further crystallize as they are
informed by empirical data. Therefore, the holistic picture of a spiritually mature organization is
considered more important at this early stage for purposes of operationalizing than the specific
verbiage in the definitions and grouping of the qualities.
II. Definitions
Thousands of articles and books have been written on the subject of spirituality in a wide
variety of academic disciplines (Neal, 2013), yet there is no consensus on the definition of
spirituality (Kinjerski, 2013; Liu & Robertson, 2011). In fact, some claim that it is actually not
possible to agree upon a definition and that we should accept that there will always be different
definitions (de Jager Meezenbroek et al., 2012; Neal, 2013). Some reasons given for this are that
the concept is amorphous, and that different disciplines “own” the concept (Miller & Ewest,
2013, p. 36). Regarding the amorphousness, Chakbraborty (2011) compares the concepts of
spirit and spirituality to those of love or fragrance, which can never be fully captured in
language. In terms of its application in organizational literature, Miller and Ewest (2013) argue
that it is still early and that the concept is only starting to develop. This author contends that the
various conceptualizations of spirituality have some fundamental overlaps that are only starting
to be identified and articulated in the literature. A statistical analysis concluded that there is
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 117

some “universality” in the interpretation of the term spirituality in addition to the acknowledged
variations (Hyland, Wheeler, Kamble, & Masters, 2010, p. 294), although some qualitative
studies in which people were asked to define spirituality found that the differences in responses
far outweighed the similarities (Zinnbauer et al., 1999).
The concept of spirituality has evolved in the literature from initially being synonymous
with religion, shifting to a connection with a search for purpose and meaning and finally to a
holistic connection with the planet and all those on it (Delaney, 2005). This indicates that the
most recent, emerging conceptualizations tend to focus on a recognition of interconnectedness
that has served as the working definition of spirituality in this study. The concept of spirituality
in relation to the workplace or organizations has followed a similar expansion from a focus on
the individual’s spirituality to the integration of spiritual values and practices throughout the
workplace. This expansion has progressed from individuals to groups, to organizations and
finally to a global purview (Neal, 2013).
A. Definition of Organizational Spirit
What exactly is meant by an organizational spirit? In what ways is it the same or
different from that of an individual? In this section, the definition of organizational spirit is
presented followed by a clarification of the definition, including how the various definitional
components in the literature were or were not applied at the organizational level.
Organizational spirit: the intangible and deepest essence and life force of an
organization that is reflected in its qualities, culture, physical manifestations,
policies and practices.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 118

Dictionary definitions of spirit include “an animating or vital principle held to give life to
physical organisms”;
1
and “the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and
character; the soul” and “the non-physical part of a person regarded as their true self”.
2
These
understandings of the concept of spirit are consistent with those found in the organizational
literature. Lázár (2011) refers to the spirit as “an invisible, transparent…substance” that enters
living beings and gives them life (p. 95). Moreover, this substance is regarded as the “essence of
our being, our very nature, our core, our true, permanent identity” that is separate and distinct
from our physical body (Pruzan, 2011, p. 6). In other words, it is not part of our identity, it is our
identity -- our truest and deepest identity – from which all of our observable attributes flow. It
also impacts the appearance of our physical selves (consider how the extent of a person’s vanity
affects his or her appearance). In the same way, the organizational spirit is the invisible, but
truest essence of the organization, which is the source of its culture, actions, policies, practices,
physical manifestations and leadership selection.
While there are clear similarities between organizational and individual spirits, there are
also some important differences. As suggested by living systems theory and discussed in the
previous chapter, organizations are at least two levels more complex than individuals, so the
organizational spirit can be expected to differ in substantive ways. For example, a characteristic
of organizations that adds complexity to both individual and group levels are multiple echelons
or decision making levels. Groups only have one echelon, but organizations have at least two,
but can have many more, with each level literally adding a layer of complexity (J. G. Miller,

1
Source: Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary at www.merriam-webster.com.
2
Source: English Oxford Living Dictionaries at https://en.oxforddictionaries.com.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 119

1978). At each echelon, decisions are made that effect all of those below them, resulting in a
great many impacts, which can be difficult to fully consider, or even track.
Another relevant difference between organizations and individuals is that rather than
having one brain, organizations are “multi-cephalous,” meaning they have multiple brains. As
such, organizational members “act in concert and develop shared meanings, shared cultures and a
collective value system” (Sridhar & Camburn, 1993, p. 729). This supports the assertion of this
study that the spirit of the organization is co-created through dynamic interactions among
individuals on multiple levels, their values, goals and the physical artifacts of the organization
(cf. Cleveland, Byrne, & Cavanagh, 2015; Kolodinsky, Giacalone, & Jurkiewicz, 2008; Neal,
2013). It is neither fully created nor fully held by the top executive, nor can it be completely
destroyed by that person. In keeping with systems theory, the organizational spirit is considered
to be a unique and distinct emergent property of each organization. Each individual human has
his or her own spirit that interacts with, helps shape and is also shaped by the organizational
spirit (Cleveland, et al., 2015), but the invisible organizational spirit cannot be fully found in any
of its component parts and ceases to exist when the organization is dissected.
B. Definition of Organizational Spiritual Maturity (OSM)
Having clarified what is meant by organizational spirit, we have now reached the point in
the study at which the concept of organizational spiritual maturity (OSM) can and must be more
Organizational spiritual maturity (OSM): the extent to which an
organization recognizes its profound interconnectedness with its members,
society, the physical planet and the entire world and consequently respects,
values and seeks to care for and benefit them.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 120

clearly defined. This requires a transition from the concept of spirit to spirituality, which may not
be as straight-forward as one might imagine.
Perhaps the most common element in definitions of spirituality is the concept of
connection. Mitroff and Denton (1999) state that if a single word could capture the essence of
spirituality, it would be interconnectedness. The premise is that the world is deeply connected,
or even one single entity (Capra & Luisi, 2014; Lázár, 2011), and those who are more spiritually
advanced have a greater awareness, or consciousness, of this (Barrett, 1998). However, it is
insufficient to merely be aware of it. There is an understanding embedded in these
conceptualizations of spirituality that consciousness deeply affects one’s understanding of reality
and interactions with the world, and increases in spirituality typically involve striving to increase
or restore connectedness (de Jager Meezenbroek et al., 2012; Lázár, 2011).
Built into this core concept is the implicit, or explicit, recognition that increasing
spirituality involves transcendence– a rising above focus on the self in order to better understand
this connectedness or to actually realize the connection or unity. As Shafranske and Gorsuch
(1984) put it, spirituality is “a transcendent dimension within human experience…in which the
individual…attempts to place the self within a broader ontological context” (p. 231) or involves
an expansion of the concept of self to include more of the world (Liu & Robertson, 2011). The
degree of this transcendence and connectedness represents the extent of spiritual maturity. Those
who are more self-focused are less spiritually mature. On the other end of the spectrum, those
who are highly conscious of this interconnectivity and live in a way that reflects it are more
spiritually mature (cf. Liu & Robertson, 2011).
The spirituality literature discusses various objects of these interconnections, which tend
to fall into three categories: the self, the world (others and nature), and the transcendent (de Jager
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 121

Meezenbroek et al., 2012; Liu & Robertson, 2011; Neal, 2013). These forms are themselves
closely interconnected and interdependent (Delaney, 2005). The first connection, to the self,
helps to link the definitions of spirit, the truest identity of an organism, to spirituality, a sense of
interconnectedness with the world. The sense of connectedness involved in spirituality occurs at
the root of a being, in its spirit, and permeates all that it is – its values, beliefs, actions and
interactions with the world. Marques et al. (2007) state that spirituality “at its very best…is our
link to the deepest, most profound core of our existence” (p. 10). This is echoed in the words of
Hoevel (2011), who states that spirituality is “our deepest -- or highest – activity as human
beings, through which we can communicate at some point with the ultimate roots of ourselves”
(p. 197). The “spiritual path” can help realize the “true self” (Pruzan, 2011, p. 97), which can
only be done by understanding one’s true place in the world, or universe. When applied to
organizations, self-connectedness clearly pertains to the people and operations within the
organization. In other words, the inward focus of the “self” for an organization involves an
understanding of that nature of the organization’s spirit, a sense of connectedness with all that it
is - its members, physical manifestations, practices, policies, programs, vision, mission, etc. All
of these make up the organization.
There is more involved than merely recognizing a person’s or organization’s true self.
The deeper purpose is to recognize the interplay between the spirit and the world. As Palmer
(1994) puts it, “we live in and through a complex interaction of spirit and matter, a complex
interaction of what is inside of us and what is ‘out there’” (p. 23). The spiritual dimensions of
these interactions, which include how the spirit affects and is affected by the world, are often
under-considered to potentially great detriment. Only by recognizing the spirit, can we pay
attention to the ways in which spirits – of individuals and organizations - are affected by, and the
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 122

roles the spirits play in, various situations. When applied to the workplace, we must recognize
that spirits can be “nurtured or damaged” by the work (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000, p. 136), which
is true of the spirits of both individuals and organizations. As this study has indicated
throughout, the current spiritual state of the workplace is not healthy due to a number of factors,
including the largely unchallenged incorporation of harmful societal values into the workplace.
This assessment is supported by Vaill (1998), who argues in regards to spiritual deficiencies of
modern organizations that “these conditions should not continue to rot the spirit of the
organization and the people in it” (p. 227).
The next object of connection is to the world, and all the people, living things and the
physical planet itself (Neal, 2013). Those who are more spiritual have a greater awareness and
concern for the planet based upon a deep respect and reverence for it (Capra & Luisi, 2014;
Delaney, 2005; Dorr, 2008; Pavlovich & Doyle Corner, 2009; Rozuel, 2014; Thompson, 2011).
This is perhaps the greatest area for improvement suggested by this study. One premise of this
study is that organizations are much more deeply connected and have a much more profound
impact on the world than they typically recognize, because its members are often focused on
other things, such as daily tasks, vertical accountability and the bottom line. For instance, the
government has had to intervene to get organizations to conduct environmental impact
assessments of many types of new projects, because organizations cannot be expected to do so
on their own.
The final object of connectedness in definitions of spirituality is to the transcendent,
which is something beyond ourselves that can replace ourselves as the central focus of our lives
and in so doing provide more meaning to our lives. This transcendent object of connection can
take many different forms – “Unity, Absolute, V oid, God, Silence, Love, Wisdom, Energy,
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 123

Mystery,” etc. (Lozano & Ribera, 2004, p. 176). Transcendent objects are also referred to in the
literature as the sacred, and spirituality as the search for the sacred (Sheep, 2006). When these
transcendent, or sacred, objects are beings, such as God or a Higher Power, they often are
believed to play active roles in spiritual development. Many consider a Higher Power as the
source of meaning and purpose (Armstrong, 1994; Liu & Robertson, 2011). For Neal (2013),
this form of connection is about “being open to divine guidance” (p. 9). McMichael (2009)
states that we are co-creators of the universe - God provides the direction, and we provide the
actions. In addition to the guidance we can receive through this connection, we also have the
sense of being cared for by one or more transcendent beings (Dorr, 2008). For others, this caring
is bi-directional. Through our connection with a higher power, we learn to adore the
transcendent and develop an appropriate sense of awe and gratitude that deeply affects how we
live our lives (de Jager Meezenbroek et al., 2012). Clearly, this higher power-focused concept of
transcendent connectedness is a primary focus of religious and theological concepts of
spirituality, but need not be associated with any religion (Delaney, 2005).
Not all conceptions of this transcendent connection are personified deities, and some
scholars specifically state that it is optional (Dorr, 2008) or at least “not crucial” (Ashmos &
Duchon, 2000, p. 136). Thompson (2011) presents what he calls humanist spirituality, in
contrast to a more deistic spirituality described above. In this form of spirituality, there is a clear
distinction between the material and immaterial or metaphysical world. People are able to
transcend the material world and connect to a transcendent realm of wisdom and ideas. Along
these lines, Elkins et al. (1988) stated that spirituality is “a way of being and experiencing that
comes about through awareness of a transcendent dimension” (p. 10). This opens us up to the
“deepest aspects of reality” and allows us to see the world as not disconnected fragments, but
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 124

different aspects of one reality (Lozano & Ribera, 2004, p. 178). Therefore, it can have the same
effect as a deity in serving as the source of our consciousness of interconnectedness that largely
drives the other two forms of spiritual connection. At the most basic level, what is most
important is that the self is transcended to become part of something larger, an interconnected
whole (Sheep, 2006).
The inclusion of a connection to a transcendent object in the definition of OSM required
extensive deliberation, in large part because the scholars differed on its inclusion in the concept
of spirituality. In the end, it was decided not to include it in the definition. While the importance
of connecting to a transcendent object to increase spirituality is not disputed, this connection is
believed to occur primarily on the individual level and not the collective level. While it may be
possible at an organizational level, it is not clear that this is necessary to achieve spiritual
maturity. By way of analogy, consider faith communities (churches, mosques, temples, etc.),
which are organizations. People participate in these for a variety of reasons - to connect and
commune with others, discuss and learn more about how to increase spirituality, or collectively
express adoration for a higher power. However, it is my understanding based on my seminary
education that the role of most faith-based communities – at least Christian churches - is to
recognize that the deeper connection or communion with the higher power occurs at the
individual level and see the primary role of the church as encouraging, facilitating and
supporting this connection. Because individuals may receive guidance from different types of
transcendent connections, the critical aspect of organizations is to have openness to these various
forms of guidance that can be received from anyone – inside or outside the organization.
Another potential aspect of OSM that was omitted is the extent to which it is the role of
spiritually mature organizations to promote the spiritual development of individuals. Some
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 125

scholars define workplace spirituality, which does not pertain to the organizational spirit,
explicitly as “a work environment that recognizes, supports and develops the spirit of its
employees” (Badrinarayanan & Madhavaram, 2008, p. 423). In fact, this was the primary focus
of most of the workplace spiritualty (WPS) literature, because WPS is focused on the spirituality
of individuals. However, this component is not considered to be a necessity in organizational
spiritual maturity. Again, the focus here is on the development of the organizational spirit.
While it is expected that the spirits of individuals will advance naturally through organizational-
level spiritual development efforts to enhance the maturation of the organizational spirit, it is not
believed to be necessary that the organization explicitly focus on the spiritual development of
individuals in order for this to occur. As with the previous omission, the caveat is that the
organization does not in any way block or hinder the spiritual development of its members.
III. Qualities of Spiritually Mature Organizations
Like an individual’s spirit, an organizational spirit is invisible and cannot be directly seen
or observed. However, as the true essence of the organization, all observable organizational
characteristics and qualities flow from its spirit, and therefore reflect its nature. Over 70
qualities associated with spirituality were identified in the literature. Some of these are more
definitional and are already reflected in the definition of spirituality, such as recognition of
connectedness. The remaining were assessed for their applicability to the organizational spirit
and then grouped into six core qualities. Spiritual qualities were synthesized and grouped into
the fewest number of qualities. The resultant six OSM qualities are: love, purpose for the
common good, integrity, wisdom, continual evolution and spiritually-mature leadership &
management. Table 4-1 shows how the qualities in the literature were grouped according to the
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 126

six OSM core qualities. This often required developing subcategories of qualities within the core
qualities.
Following the approach of Cook (2000), as the qualities have emerged directly from
literature to create a holistic picture of OSM, the intention here is “to clarify and explain” these
qualities rather than “propose and defend” (p. 6). In truth, there are multiple ways to categorize
these qualities, which leads to the next point. The most important thing to keep in mind is that
these qualities together paint a holistic picture of a spiritually mature organization. An
organization’s spirit is coherent, which insinuates a degree of coherence in the expression of the
maturity of this spirit. These qualities are not independent, but closely integrated as they reflect
the same spirit. Thus, it would be anticipated that high degrees of maturity in one area would
suggest high maturity in the others, and vice versa. This leads to the final point, which is that
there are no perfect organizations. The vast majority of organizations will not or perhaps cannot
reach full organizational spiritual maturity, in much the same way it is probably not possible for
individuals to reach spiritual perfection. Instead, it is an ideal to which one aspires. Providing
clarity on the vision can provide direction and motivation for the journey.

Table 4-1

Qualities of Spiritually Mature Organizations

Quality of OSM Sub-category Quality of spirituality in the literature
Love General love  “Love”
 Agape
 Caring
 Kindness
Virtuous love  Compassion
 Altruism or other-centeredness
 Mercy
 Generosity
 Charity from org to community
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 127

Communal love  Sense of community/ family
 Compassion and respect for employees
 Promote employee wellness
 As opposite of fear
Purpose for the
common good
 “Purpose for the common good”
 Searching for meaning / calling / destiny
 Service (to employees and/or the community)
 Social responsibility / obligation
 Necessary for security, prosperity and happiness
 The work of the org has a deep sense of meaning
 Mission
 Not profit maximizing
Integrity General integrity  “Integrity”
 Lack of integrity = failure
Integrity as
wholeness
 Wholeness / Completeness
 Integration
 Common organizational identity
o Solidarity / unity
o Harmony/ inner peace
o Transcending differences
o Self-workplace integration
o Employees as full members
o Well-aligned mission and values
 Individual-level integrity of identity
o Authenticity
o Transparency
o Honesty / truthfulness
Integrity as morality  Morality
 Fairness
 Concern for social justice
 Community involvement
 Ethical
Integrity as backbone  Courage
 Hope
 Faith
Continual Evolution  Embrace evolution
 Openness to change
Wisdom Sound judgment  Broader / long-term perspective
 God’s eye view
 Temperance
 Inclusive decision making
o Openness
Continual learning  Valuing differences
 Tendency to become better
Stewardship  Respect for people life and planet
 Sacredness
 Harmony with nature
 Sustainability
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 128

Spiritually Mature
Leadership &
Management
Spiritually mature
leadership (spiritual
leadership not
necessarily
hierarchical
leadership)
 Supports the development of the OSM qualities
 Has a consciousness of interconnectivity to the
whole
 Vision
 Sensitive, kind executives
 Balance
 Focus on the needs of others
 Self-discipline
 Has a strong personal spirituality
 Trusting
 Transparent, willing to share information
 Convey the greater purpose of the work
 Enlightened and compassionate
 Generates feelings of hope and joy
Spiritually mature
management
approach
 Fosters spiritual development in individuals
 Fosters humility, integrity and justice
 Highlights universal moral principles
 Highly collaborative
 Creative, flexible, adaptable
 Open to ideas
 Open to change

A. Love
Organizational spiritual maturity has been defined in this study in terms of both
recognition of interconnectivity and the impact this understanding has on values and actions. It
is insufficient to merely recognize connectedness, or be conscious of it. Spiritual maturity
implies an inherently and deeply positive nature of this connection, and love is the ideal nature of
this connection. Consequently, love is the primary quality of spiritually mature organizations.
To be clear, this is the form of spiritual, non-sexual love that is referred to as agape love by
Christians.
3
Barrett (1998) states that the higher levels of consciousness are “dominated by love
and feelings of connectedness” (p. 161), which means that the process of spiritual maturity not
only increases the sense of connection, but also increases the extent of love felt and expressed.

3
Source: WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. (2003-2008) at www.thefreedictionary.com
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 129

According to Lázár (2011), the spirit is the transcendent, or divine, aspect of humans which is
expressed through love. This section begins by explaining how love emerged from the literature
as the primary quality of spirituality. This is followed by clarifying the concept and explaining
how it manifests in organizational settings, which is presented in two sub-categories – virtuous
love and communal love.
Love is multi- or omni-directional, applying to the self as well as other people, society,
other living things, the planet itself and perhaps the transcendent. It is a broad concept that
encompasses a number of other concepts in the literature and essentially undergirds and informs
all of the other qualities, which is why it is presented first. While it may seem strange to many to
introduce the notion of love into the workplace, this is not a new idea. While traditional theories
of organizations tend to leave little room for love (Argandoña, 2011), the literature fairly
consistently includes love as an expression of spirituality in the workplace (Barrett, 1998; Capra
& Luisi, 2014; Dorr, 2008; Howard, 2002; Johnson, 2009; Karakas, 2006; Lázár, 2011; Melé,
2011; Schabracq & Smit, 2007).
Contrary to some of the literature, it does not appear to be a safe assumption that
recognition, or consciousness, of interconnectedness will in all instances lead people or
organizations to be loving or even care about or prioritize impacts on others in their decision
making (cf. Laloux, 2014). Even if people understand that the impact will ultimately harm
themselves or the organization, they can choose to proceed with the harmful activities for any
number of reasons, such as lacking the courage to do the right thing. This may be especially true
in organizations, in which leaders are often judged by their short-term impacts, such as profits,
which incentivizes them to prioritize profit over concern about adverse impacts (Duska &
Ragatz, 2008; Jurkiewicz & Grossman, 2012; McMichael, 2009). In fact, Cunha et al. (2016)
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 130

found empirically that a strong indicator of organizational love is when people are put before
profits. Leaders may also not have intentions of remaining in the position for the long-term, so
any long-term harm to the world or the organization would be passed on to their successors.
With this possibility in mind, however, research suggests that a stronger sense of spirituality
corresponds to more altruistic, or selfless, behavior (Amin Mohamed, Wisnieski, Askar, & Syed,
2004). While altruism is not the same as love, it is a step in that direction, supporting a strong
correlation between spirituality and love.
Now we turn to the question of what exactly is meant by love in organizations? Clearly,
love is one of the most common subjects of human thought, especially religion and the arts. It is
still a fairly new concept for organizational and management literature (Fry & Nisiewicz, 2013).
Interestingly, although the literature on spirituality often mentions love as a key element, very
few sources actually define the term. There seems to be an implicit assumption that the concept
is universally understood.
Likely the most recent effort to define organizational love was a study conducted by
Cunha et al. (2016) in which they crafted a concept of love in an organizational setting from the
specific understandings of managers who sought to express love through their work (Christian
managers in this case). They concluded that “organizational love can thus be theorized as the
exercise of constructing virtuous, other-oriented human communities that transcend the
productive functions of work and respond to important human needs” (p. 1, emphasis added). It
should be readily apparent that this definition can be considered a consistent outflow of the
concept of spirituality used in this study, because it builds upon the definition of OSM –
transcending sole focus on the needs of the self/organization to seek to benefit society. The
definition of organizational love introduces two additional dimensions of spirituality to this
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 131

conversation that emerge from the quality of love – virtue and community. These concepts
represent the two main aspects of love. Virtue represents the moral goodness of loving actions
and community represents the warm feelings of connection that love produces. However, these
each manifest differently in organizational settings and are presented here as the two subforms of
organizational love.
1. Virtuous Love. The notion of virtue is not necessarily common in modern organizations,
or society for that matter. However, the concept of virtue has historically been a major focus of
Western thought since Ancient Greece, but fell out of fashion. It has recently enjoyed somewhat
of a resurgence in scholarly discourse (Cooper, 1991). Plato and Aristotle considered the pursuit
of virtue, or excellence of character, to be the ultimate goal of human existence. They believed
that it is necessary for everyone to seek virtue in order to create a “good society” defined in
terms of happiness (Crossan, Mazutis, & Seijts, 2013, p. 570). Malloch (2015) argues that
because the concept of virtue is largely missing from our common vocabulary, the concept of
morality has become trivialized or relativized leaving a “moral vacuum.” The only solution is
true virtue (p. xvi). Similar to spirituality, virtue is not directly observable, but can only be
identified through action. Specifically, virtue can be identified through four main types of
action: “1) The repeated practice of character strengths, 2) the exercise of rectitude (justice, truth,
transparency and respect), 3) availability to others (emotionally, physically, spiritually), and 4) a
willingness to recognize and be aware of others’ needs” (Cunha et al., 2016, p. 9). Cunha et al.
(2016) continued on to say that expressions of virtue in organizations equate to expressions of
love. In other words, by seeking to be just, transparent, respectful, available and willing to
recognize the needs of others, an organization expresses love.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 132

Virtuous love incorporates several other spiritual qualities identified in the literature,
including charity (Lázár, 2011; Marques, Dhiman, & King, 2007; Neal & Vallejo, 2008), altruism
(D. Collins, 2010; Fry & Nisiewicz, 2013; Johnson, 2009; Lázár, 2011), compassion (de Jager
Meezenbroek et al., 2012; Fry & Nisiewicz, 2013; Harder, Robertson, & Woodward, 2004;
Johnson, 2009; Lázár, 2011; Marques, Dhiman, & King, 2009; Neal, 2013), kindness (Karakas,
2006; Marques et al., 2007; Maxwell, 2003; Thompson, 2011) and mercy (Lázár, 2011).
Other scholars support the inclusion of virtue in the conceptualization of spirituality. In
some cases, the term ethical is treated synonymously with virtuous, referencing moral, good or
right behavior. Neal (2013) stated that being focused on virtues and values is likely the most
important internal quality in defining what she calls “enlightened organizations,” which are
spiritually advanced. Dent et al. (2011) conducted an analysis of the concept of spirituality and
found that it is often described in ethical terms, which they equate to virtues, such as morality,
goodness, interconnectedness, etc. Lázár (2011) states that “spirituality depicts an attitude led by
hidden superior ethical values uncommon in everyday behavior” (p. 96-7).
One concrete area in which virtuous love plays out is in organizational decision making.
Virtuous love is rational rather than emotional, and has been described as a “habit that facilitates
decision making” (Argandoña, 2011, p. 82). In order to be ethical, which in this context is
equated to virtuous or high moral character, organizational decision making should involve
thoughtful analysis of the costs and benefits of options, as well as what action might be
considered good or bad, right or wrong (Crossan, Mazutis, & Seijts, 2013). This form of love
recognizes the interconnectedness of all parties and moves the organization to act in a certain
way. An action is virtuous, or ethical, if it seeks to benefit the other, or seeks the good of the
other, even if the other is not explicitly known (Argandoña, 2011). Virtuous love leads an
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 133

organization to factor into these calculations the impact on and needs of those both inside and
outside of the organization over the bottom line, profit or potential self-serving gains of the
decision. The resulting actions, according to the definitions developed in this chapter, would
consequently be more loving and more spiritually mature than organizations that do not seek
virtue.
Beyond the benefits of the loving acts, which may be external or internal to the
organization (Fry & Nisiewicz, 2013), the other major impact of virtuous love is the change that
occurs within the individual organizational actors involved in the decisions. In fact, Argandoña
(2011) argues that this is the most important effect. Through virtuous love, organizational
members learn to see and experience the world differently. This can lead the person to seek out
other opportunities to express love, thereby contributing to a “better human climate” and “a
different way of managing, working and living” (Argandoña, 2011, p. 82). For the purposes of
this study, this indicates the process of spiritual development whereby both individual spirits and
the organizational spirit are developed through the process of acting out of virtuous love.
2. Communal Love. The second component of organizational love is community
(Cunha et al., 2016). Community is defined as “Community is a positive structural arrangement
that advances the unity of the individual and society, is a non-alienating human society, and
provides its members with a sense of collective identity.” The colloquial use of the term
community, as used here, includes the concept of communion. Communion add emotional
elements to the definition of community as it entails the senses of belonging and warmth and is
characterized by “friendship, reciprocity, trust, loyalty and a shared and meaningful identity”
(Bowman, 2008, p. 299). While virtue represents the general goodness and morality that comes
from love, the sense of community includes the warmer, more emotional feelings of communion,
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 134

caring and acceptance (Bowman, 2008). Spiritual organizations promote the well-being of their
members and seek to develop caring relationships (Khasawneh, Alrjoub, & Al Zawahreh, 2010).
To be clear, this is not romantic love, or eros, but rather the sense of communion or fellowship
that people within and around the organization have with each other and with the organization
itself (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000). While virtuous love is internal and external, the principal
expression of communal love is internal. Although external sensations of community are
possible, they are not the primary focus. On the organizational level, communal love represents
the internal or self-object of spiritual connectedness described above. This reflects the centrality
of relationships, i.e. interconnections and interdependencies, to spirituality. Connecting
communal love to spirituality, Collins (2010) states that recognizing each person’s uniqueness
and connecting with others are considered “essential attributes” of spirituality (p. 104).
Unfortunately, modern organizations have a tendency to be impersonal and detached from the
people that comprise them – “even indifferent to them” (Cook, 2000, p. 292).
Communal love creates a sense of community in the organization. Communal love is
about creating a sense of solidarity, unity and wholeness that naturally involves breaking down
barriers and siloes (Barrett, 1998). Mirvis (1997) says that “true community…is born of
inclusiveness and comes into being as a group transcends differences” (p. 196, emphasis in
original). Community has been defined in organizational literature as “a way of being together
with both individual authenticity and interpersonal harmony so that people become able to
function with a collective energy even greater than the sum of their individual energies” (Barrett,
1998, p. 153). Therefore, as the active agent for creating community, communal love involves
placing a high value on organizational members so that all members feel that they are full
members of a community that is interdependent and co-responsible, shares objectives and
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 135

interests, with members having mutual concern for the needs of each other and the organization
itself and even being willing to suffer together (Cunha et al., 2016). This can help establish a
“higher level of relationship and of performance” that is marked by “superior bonding” and
relationships that are “less transactional and more emotional” (Cunha et al., 2016, p. 11).
Communal love leads to higher productivity as well. J. Miller (2009) asserts that
“everything that truly motivates people…is included within love and spirituality” (p. 198). This
is because when people feel valued, they believe in themselves, which builds their confidence
and ability to trust. They are then freed to have this impact on others (J. Miller, 2009).
Consequently, in organizations with strong communal love, people genuinely care for each other,
openly share themselves with the whole – their knowledge and heart (Fry & Nisiewicz, 2013).
People contribute more to the organization when they feel the organization cares for them
(Cleveland et al., 2015; Wheatley, 2005). The only time people share knowledge is when they
feel that they are cared for or that they care about the organization (Wheatley, 2005). This
openness is key to the sense of community, connectedness and therefore spiritual development.
Higher levels of trust, willingness to share information and work collectively with others are
indicators of high levels of communal love in the literature and are also identified as
characteristics of higher levels of spirituality (cf. Biberman, 2009). The higher, or superior,
levels of connectedness lead to the organization being understood as a coherent unit that operates
as one system – i.e. there is a deep sense of wholeness, harmony and unity (Fry, 2003; Marques
et al., 2007).
This translates into an organizational culture in which everyone is free to be themselves,
with management there to help them succeed and not judge them (Cunha et al., 2016). People
are allowed to try their best, but are allowed to make mistakes (Fry & Nisiewicz, 2013), because
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 136

they are truly respected, trusted and loved. The potential of everyone is maximized through a
nurturing, embracing and engaging organizational environment (Marques et al., 2007). This type
of communal love helps keep fear at bay, so that people feel free to transcend self-concern and
open themselves to the needs of others (Cunha et al., 2016), thus perpetuating and modeling a
loving community in the work environment.
A key argument for communal love in organizations is that humans have a deep need for
community. It fulfills the “fellowship aspect” of spiritual development that directly addresses the
problematic fragmentation and a sense of loneliness pervading modern organizations (Ashmos &
Duchon, 2000, p. 137). This need for community and fellowship is due in large part to the
dissolution of other informal sources of community and the emergence of the workplace as a
primary source of community, due to the centrality of work in modern society (Conger, 1994).
In the words of Barrett (1998), “organizations are becoming the new communities of the world”
(p. 19). For some people, organizations provide the only consistent connection to other people
and therefore the only source of human connection (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000).
Some might argue that expressions of affection are unnecessary, or even inappropriate in
the workplace (Barsade & O’Neill, 2014). The problem is that, because we all have these needs,
if they are not expressed, then they must be suppressed. As likely any psychologist would agree,
suppression is rarely healthy and often destructive. Whatever people try to suppress, typically
finds a way of surfacing, and often in ways that lead either directly or indirectly to dysfunctional
or harmful behaviors, such as the dark side organizational behaviors described in Chapter 2.
On this topic, Shermer (2008) provides a helpful contrast between the success of Google
and the failure of Enron based on their approach related to community. Google takes a more
communal approach, marked by cooperation and fairness, while Enron promoted intense
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 137

competition between its staff. Google’s philosophy is that the communal values will lead to
greater long-term benefits to stockholders, while corporate greed will not lead to long-term
success (Mandel, 2012). It goes without saying by recognizing the relative success of Google
and Enron that, in the long-run, these approaches had opposite impacts on the organizations, their
health and effectiveness.
Summary. In sum, organizational love is a robust and profound concept that permeates
and informs all aspects of the organization, including its culture, decision making and policies.
The two main components are virtuous love, which is essentially the goodness of love and
communal love, which reflects the feelings of connectedness and communion of love. The other
qualities of OSM that follow emerge from the foundational quality of love and are expressions of
that love that are significant enough to highlight.
B. Purpose for the Common Good
Another of the more consistent qualities of spirituality in the literature is having a
purpose that serves the greater good, rather than being self-serving. This is a direct reflection of
the understanding of interconnectedness that is core to spirituality. The definition of a spiritually
mature organization developed in this study includes the idea that it seeks to have a beneficial
impact on the world. Organizational love involves meeting others’ needs. In short, both
spirituality and love require concrete action in order to be authentic. But it is insufficient to
engage in individual acts of love, virtue or service. Spiritually mature organizations understand
that their very reason for being is to serve the common, or greater, good. Some scholars actually
equate an individual’s or organization’s purpose with the soul on the basis that the purpose
actually defines the true nature of the being (Duska & Ragatz, 2008). Richard McKnight, an
organizational psychologist, connected love and purpose by saying “having a transcendent
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 138

purpose ‘results in being in love with the world’ and allows integration and direction in your life
and work” (Barrett, 1998, p. 150). This quote also points to the importance of the next quality of
OSM -- integrity.
The purpose of serving the greater good is included in many concepts of spirituality in
the literature, sometimes under different terminology. Some directly use the phrase purpose for
the common good (Barrett, 1998; Lépineux & Rosé, 2011; Marques et al., 2007; Melé, 2011;
Neal, 2013), while others state that spiritual organizations have a purpose of service (Biberman,
2009; Howard, 2002; Karakas, 2006; Khasawneh et al., 2010; Kolodinsky et al., 2008; Lips-
Wiersma, 2011; Maxwell, 2003; Mitroff & Denton, 1999; Neal & Vallejo, 2008).
This quality is closely connected to two other important aspects of spirituality that for the
purposes of this study are coalesced into this quality of OSM. The first is the importance of
spiritual organizations to provide a sense of meaning, purpose or calling for its members (de
Jager Meezenbroek et al., 2012; Dorr, 2008; Khasawneh et al., 2010; Milliman, Ferguson,
Trickett, & Condemi, 1999; Sheep, 2006). Demonstrating the centrality of purpose to
spirituality, Vaill (1998) argues that a person’s spiritual condition, or spiritual state, is defined by
“the feeling individuals have about the fundamental meaning of who they are, what they are
doing and the contributions they are making” (p. 217). This indicates that providing meaning to
employees improves the spiritual development of individual members. In some cases, the
organization provides meaning and for others, the organization serves as a conduit or vehicle for
individuals to pursue other pre-existing intentions to benefit the greater good. Their work then
fulfills the need for a sense of purpose and meaning in their lives. If organizations deny their
members’ need for purpose and seek to substitute money or something else for purpose,
employees push back and respond with disaffection and apathy. Organizations often fail to
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 139

recognize that purpose is a strong motivator for people, and that people are energized when they
believe they are contributing to something meaningful that is bigger than themselves (Pink,
2009; Wheatley, 2005).
The second spiritual characteristic closely aligned with this OSM quality identified in the
literature is a sense of social responsibility or obligation (cf. Neal & Vallejo, 2008; Roddick,
1991). When we become truly aware of how we affect others, we naturally develop a sense of
obligation and responsibility for our impacts (Collins, 2011). We cannot easily continue to focus
solely on our own needs, because as Collins (2011) puts it “our small…bubble of separate
individuality bursts...and we awaken to a powerfully implicating new moral context for our
existence” (p. 86). This can occur on the organizational level as well, which is why Barrett
(1998) identifies social responsibility as a key indicator of an organization’s spiritual well-being,
or for our purposes, spiritual maturity.
1. Manifestations. So how does this purpose for the greater good manifest? In
order to answer that question, it is necessary to review a few aspects about purpose discussed in
the previous chapter. Purpose was identified as a key element of systems, and it was discussed
that true purpose cannot be determined by looking at vision or mission statements, but can only
be ascertained by observing the actions and decisions of an organization. The actions of
organizations often contradict the organization’s mission statement and codes of conduct
(Amann & Stachowicz-Stanusch, 2013). It was also discussed that various levels of systems –
individuals, groups, departments – can operate according to differing purposes (Meadows,
2008), often unintentionally and without awareness. This can create situations in which
organizations have unintended and often harmful impacts that are counter to stated purposes.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 140

Spiritually mature organizations are able to transcend a primary focus on self-
preservation that dominates most organizations (Laloux, 2014) in order to seek harmony, or
symbiosis, with society and the planet to meet the needs of those both internal and external to the
organization (Biberman, 2009), such as supplying important goods and services that meet human
needs and improving the environment (Johnson, 2009). In discussing how this may manifest in
multinational companies, Lépineux and Rosé (2011) provide some indication of the broad range
of forms that the common good can take including both intangible and tangible, such as “peace
among nations, scientific knowledge, philosophical works, artistic heritage, biodiversity, a
healthy climate, the quality of life, and shared economic prosperity” (p. 335). They also provide
two broad categories into which common good actions can be grouped: those related to existence
and those related to coexistence. The former actions related to existence involve helping sustain
the existence of the planet and humanity, such as providing energy, water, healthcare, etc.
Actions related to coexistence promote healthy relationships and connections, and include
enhancing civil and political rights, cultural diversity, freedom of information, peace, etc.
(Lépineux & Rosé, 2011).
While the examples given are on the global scale, the common good to which an
organization strives within these categories can be large or small, involving a small number of
people or billions (Barrett, 1998). The good sought includes both internal and external benefits.
An internal purpose for good can involve promoting employee wellness in a number of ways,
such as supporting their self-actualization and promoting a high quality of life (Groen, 2001;
Khasawneh et al., 2010). Organizations that have cultures that promote the common good are
characterized by “trust, meaning, community and a sense of ownership” (Barrett, 1998, p. 142).
They spend less time focusing on tasks and more on building relationships, nurturing
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 141

development and growth of individuals (cf. Wheatley, 2006). The purpose permeates all aspects
of the organization, including the processes for developing and using strategies, budgets, targets,
marketing practices and the selection of employees and external business partners (Laloux,
2014). External purposes for good can include any potential benefit outside the organization,
whether it be for individuals, targeted groups, communities, larger societies, humanity as a whole
or the physical planet. These typically take the form of goods or services, but can also involve
advocacy, policy and systems change.
2. Common Good vs. Profit. This quality of OSM raises questions and a potential
tension in for-profit organizations, i.e. businesses. Many businesses now have integrated
corporate social responsibility, double and triple bottom line perspectives into their business
approaches. These efforts reflect the recognition that they need to consider their impact while
also having a sense of responsibility to their shareholders. In terms of spiritual maturity, these
efforts reflect interim steps towards the fully mature state of the organization.
But businesses must survive, right? How can they survive without maximizing profit,
especially in competitive markets? Won’t they risk their survival if they choose to prioritize the
impact on society over seeking profits? This is a very real concern and challenge for many
business leaders, and raises the question of the true purpose of business. Do businesses exist
solely to make profit for their owners and shareholders? As discussed in Chapter 2, there is a
prevailing assumption that businesses have a legal and moral obligation to maximize profits
(Laloux, 2014; Stout, 2012). This is actually an inaccurate and problematic assumption that has
been labeled the shareholder value myth (Stout, 2012). Many of the dark side organizational
behaviors stem from this erroneous assumption. McMichael (2009) states that maximizing
profits “is something I consider to have dire consequences for the long-term future of our
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 142

country, and certainly not a spiritual approach to business” (p. 159). While profit is necessary to
survive, it is not a sufficient reason to exist. Businesses must provide some value to society
(McMichael, 2009); they must add to the common good. Duska and Ragatz (2008) state this
powerfully:
“When a business strays from a worthwhile goal or purpose, it becomes
corrupt. That means that, when companies forget that they are in business to
provide goods and services for consumers and their animating purpose
becomes pushing products and services to make a profit, they lose their vision
and corrupt their souls” (p. 154).
Some couch this problem in terms of the tendency of businesses to focus on short-term
benefits of decisions, such as short-term profits, rather than taking a longer-term and bigger
picture approach to decision making that considers all those impacted. In reality, as Collins and
Porras (2002) demonstrate in their bestseller Built to Last, businesses that focus on the longer-
term impact of decisions are more profitable and therefore sustainable than those driven by short-
term profits. This issue hints at the weakness of double and triple bottom lines and corporate
social responsibility efforts. When finances get stressed, profit and the short-term tend to take
precedence over social and environmental impacts (The Worldwatch Institute, 2014).
Consequently, Jurkiewicz and Grossman (2012) state that each decision an organization makes
that seeks short-term advantage over the greater good is a movement towards evil. This is
because in doing so the organization is justifying dark side behaviors that harm others.
A consistent stream of corporate corruption has greatly damaged the trust that society has
in the for-profit sector. Wilson (2004) claims that regaining trust will require “nothing less than
rethinking the basic purpose and responsibilities of the corporation. Restating corporate purpose
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 143

in terms of social needs rather than solely of maximizing profit is the surest way” (p. 21).
Organizations that are more conscious of interconnectedness have clear limits to what they are
willing to do in order to make profit. Profits are contained within an ethical framework (Barrett,
1998). The long-term perspective indicates that most successful organizations are those that help
create stability, security and prosperity for all. “The subjugation of self-interest to the common
good is the hallmark of a successful long-term culture” (Barrett, 1998, p. 28).
Summary. Every organization must determine what it is, what it stands for, and why it
exists. Making profit is insufficient. Organizations must seek to add value to the world. This
can be compromised and even lead to harm if self-serving goals are prioritized over mutually
beneficial ones. Each organization has a net impact on the world, which is either positive or
negative. This is the sum total of the many impacts they have on individuals within and outside
the organization as well as larger society, including policies, the economy and the physical state
of the planet (i.e. the environment). Using living systems terminology, the organization is either
parasitic on or symbiotic with society (Miller, 1978). This is rarely easy to determine, because
the impacts of organizations are typically broad and deep – affecting a great many people and
systems. In fact, for these reasons it may be impossible to establish the complete impact of an
organization. A critical point is reached if an organization determines that it cannot continue to
have a beneficial impact and survive. The result of this decision reflects spiritual maturity.
Those choosing to inflict harm in order to survive are less spiritual and those that put the greater
good ahead of the organization’s and choose to cease operations are more mature. This pertains
to the situation mentioned in Chapter 1 in which two organizations chose to harm the collective
mission of a collaboration in order to preserve their organizations, while others specifically
stated that they would dissolve their organization if it was in the best interest of the greater good.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 144

Again, the former position reflects low OSM and the latter high OSM. This is consistent with
portrayals of spirituality and love in society and most religions in which the greatest forms of
each are reflected in instances of great self-sacrifice, even to the point of death, as in the example
set by Jesus Christ and other venerated martyrs.
C. Integrity
In addition to love and a purpose for the common good, spiritually mature organizations
display a high degree of integrity (Dorr, 2008; Johnson, 2009; Lee, Lovelace, & Manz, 2014),
and increasing integrity has been identified as a pathway to increasing spirituality (Karakas,
2006). Hendricks and Hendricks (2003)claim that “spirituality flows from the source-spring of
integrity and withers without that source” (p. 429). Integrity refers to coherence of spirit,
identity, beliefs, values, purpose, goal and actions. It involves existing and operating in a way
that is fully consistent with connectivity from the deepest levels of the organizational and
individual spirits through internal relationships and operations to external actions,
representations and impacts. People and organizations with high integrity will not act in ways
that are inconsistent with their words or beliefs (Michael, 2013). They can be trusted to do what
they say they will - they practice what they preach. For this reason, honesty is often identified as
a key component of integrity (Johnson, 2009; Koehn, 2005; Solari & Torre, 2013) with some
scholars even using the terms synonymously (cf. Michael, 2013). Over time, integrity is
“earned” through consistency, especially when tested during difficult times. Consequently, other
terms often associated with or used to define integrity are consistency, congruence and continuity
(Michael, 2013). This robust concept is presented in four subsections, starting with the levels of
integrity, followed by the integrity of identity, integrity as morality and finally integrity as
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 145

backbone. Before moving forward, an examination of the general concept and its connection to
spirituality is presented.
The importance of integrity to organizational spirituality has been captured well by
Hendricks and Hendricks (2003), who state:
“Spirituality flows from the source-spring of integrity and withers without that
source…Spirituality cannot flourish in the absence of integrity because the
potential spiritual energy of individuals and synergy of groups drains away in
power struggles, blame, mistrust, and withholding. In contrast, when
organizations stand on a base of integrity, relationships, vision, and creative
innovation blossom” (p. 429).
The main idea is that spirituality is about connectedness and the quality of integrity
involves being and acting in a way that reflects a deep understanding of this connectivity that
emerges from within the organization and extends all the way outward to include the whole
planet, perhaps beyond. Operating without integrity reflects a failure to sufficiently recognize or
value this connectivity and can result in very real harm, including to the sense of connectivity, or
integrity, within the organization and between the organization and the outside world.
The dictionary defines integrity as “firm adherence to a code of especially
moral…values,” “an unimpaired condition” and “the quality or state of being complete or
undivided” (Integrity, n.d.). This definition and the use of the term in the literature suggests that
the term integrity has two main areas of manifestation in organizations – integrity as wholeness
of identity and integrity as morality (Schabracq, 2007). Standing firm against pressures that may
seek to divide an organization or cause it to compromise its morals requires backbone, or a
resoluteness in the face of these pressures. This is the final subtopic of integrity. These
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 146

overlapping subcategories of integrity are discussed separately below. Additionally, integrity is a
robust and multilayered concept. Because it is based upon consistency and coherence, any
inconsistency essentially destroys the integrity of the organization, making it largely an all-or-
nothing quality. In order to be real, integrity must pervade all levels of the organization. If it is
lacking at any level, it is lacking in the organization. These different levels are clarified below.
1. Levels of Integrity in Organizations. For the purposes of this study, the levels
at which integrity is necessary include: intrapersonal, interpersonal, intra-organizational, extra-
organizational, societal and planetary levels. Intrapersonal integrity is the extent to which
people act in ways that are consistent with their personal beliefs. Interpersonal integrity
involves the extent to which people or groups act or operate in ways that strengthen connections
or foment disconnect, such as violating the values and purposes of an organization or any of the
power struggle actions mentioned in the quote above.
Intra-organizational integrity is the strength of alignment of all individuals, groups,
teams, departments and divisions with the values, purposes and messages of the organization.
Previously in this study, the problem of individuals and groups within an organization operating
with potentially contradictory purposes was identified. Keeping these “sub-purposes in
harmony” indicates intra-organizational integrity (cf. Meadows, 2008, p. 16). Extra-
organizational integrity pertains to the organization’s connectivity with external parties, such as
stakeholders and other organizations with which it deals directly. Much like individuals
operating internally, organizations can engage in many of the same actions described in the quote
above that create disconnect between the organization and external parties, such as power
struggles and withholding vital information that could advance the common good.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 147

Societal integrity is the extent to which an organization deals openly and honestly with
the general public while pursuing aims that seek to benefit and not harm their host community
and larger society. This also involves the willingness to hold itself accountable and take
responsibility for any mistakes, such as environmental disasters. Planetary integrity pertains to
the connectivity between the organization and the entire planet. Organizations can operate in
ways that are unsustainable by overusing resources and damaging our life-support systems. This
is a lack of integrity, because it reflects a failure to recognize or value the full extent of its
interconnectivity and act accordingly. Its destructive actions break its connections with the
planet, and it consequently cannot be trusted to act responsibly, or with integrity in its
relationship to the planet.
2. Integrity of Identity. Selman et al. (2005) contend that achieving a sense of
spiritual wholeness “demands the most intense personal integrity. It demands that we become
aware of and live out of that deep center of ourselves that transcends all the fragments into which
our lives have shattered” (p. 29). In fact, the root of the word integrity is the concept of
wholeness (Hendricks & Hendricks, 2003) which is similar to the state of being unimpaired.
Wholeness of identity is the direct opposite of the fragmentation and compartmentalization that
is rampant in and even characteristic of modern organizations. Therefore, the work of integrity
involves “making the self whole” (Koehn, 2005, p. 132).
Those with high integrity can be said to be whole because they lack a distinction between
inner life and outward behavior, which is a sign of spiritual maturity (Johnson, 2009). When
there is no consistency of identity, there is compartmentalization, and the compartmentalized
persona cannot be the true self (Koehn, 2005). Furthermore, the lack of consistency and
wholeness of identity has been identified as a characteristic of psychopaths (Schabracq & Smit,
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 148

2007). Integrity both helps to reveal and establish a strong and coherent identity, because the
consistency of beliefs, principles, policies and actions that endure over time provide a clear and
undistorted understanding of the nature of the true self (Schabracq & Smit, 2007). For this
reason, multiple religions consider integrity “the activity of the true self” (Koehn, 2005, p. 127).
Developing integrity of identity requires that individuals and organizations be authentic,
self-aware and truly honest with themselves, which allows them to know themselves more
wholly and completely (Seybold-Clegg, 2007). Similarly, integrity according to Jungian
psychology involves the ability to confront the inner parts of ourselves that we have not been
willing to confront, the darker aspects of our true selves or spirits. From here, the paths for
developing integrity of identity for individuals and organizations diverge somewhat as described
below.
a) Integrity of individuals’ identities. On the individual level within an organization,
there are two distinct requirements for a member’s identity to be whole and have integrity. First,
they must be allowed to bring their full selves to work. Henry Ford famously complained “why
is it that I always get the whole person when all I really want is a pair of hands?” (Pollard, 1996,
p. 25). Sheep (2006) follows this with the recognition that “whether or not organizations want
the whole person, whole persons report for work” (p. 358). The wholeness of people refers to
their complete identity, all the hats they wear (spouse, parent, child) as well as all of their beliefs,
emotions, experiences, and of course their spirits.
The term self-workplace integration refers to the extent to which the whole person is
integrated into the organization (Sheep, 2006). Organizations must decide whether to invite the
wholeness of its members into the workplace. Choosing not to welcome the whole person can
result in the stifling of important sources of information, creativity and innovation that prevents
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 149

organizations from achieving their maximum effectiveness. To be clear, the argument is not that
anything goes in spiritually mature organizations, but rather that spiritually mature organizations
not only allow the whole person to enter the organization, they recognize the value of and
embrace the wholeness of all members of the organization community. In spiritually mature
organizations, members are also unwilling to accept fragmentation of themselves and are
encouraged to engage their whole selves, including their beliefs, feelings and values (Bowman,
2008). In this environment, differences are not only tolerated, but embraced or even transcended
(Mirvis, 1997), and the value of and tendency towards conformity are rejected. In this way, these
organizations actually help individuals achieve their “full potential as a whole person” (Sheep,
2006, p. 360).
The second requirement for whole individual identities is integrity or alignment of the
beliefs and values of individuals and the organization. A term used for this in the literature is
organizational identification, which is the extent to which an employee identifies with the
organization. This depends upon his or her perception of congruence or oneness with his or her
organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). When members do not agree with the values of the
organization and perceive a conflict with them, it is difficult to identify with it. Barrett (1998)
also argues that in this situation “it is impossible to care for the organization, because the
organization does not care for us” (p. 146). In order to survive and thrive in this situation,
members must learn to suppress the parts of themselves that do not agree with the organization
and possibly even hurt by not feeling valued and appreciated. The individual often detaches and
creates a false professional persona in order to protect his or her identity (Barrett, 1998). This
further exacerbates any existing fragmentation and compartmentalization in the organization.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 150

The employee can take another route. They can change their beliefs to align with the
organization, and in so doing cede moral authority to the organization. As discussed in Chapter
2, this can result in identity dysfunctions, such as an over-identification with the organization in
which their self-worth and identity is overly determined by the organization. This opens the door
for moral and ethical disengagement, in which organizations create their own morality that can
conflict with that of broader society (Schwartz, 2004). By promoting the development of whole
people, spiritually mature organizations help to establish strong and clear individual identities,
which allow for the establishment of healthy boundaries within the organization.
b) Organizational identity integrity. In addition to strong individual identities, to be
spiritually mature, an organization’s identity must also have integrity. Interestingly, the idea that
organizations even have identities is relatively new – being attributed to Albert and Whetten
(1985 as cited in Gioia & Patvardhan, 2012, p. 50), who defined it as “that which is central,
enduring, and distinctive about an organization.” Much of what was said about the integrity of
individual members’ identity applies to organizations as well. However, a bit more must be said.
Complete integrity of the organization’s identity is critical for a number of reasons. Consistency
of organizational identity creates a sense of comfort, trustworthiness, safety (Schabracq & Smit,
2007; Maak, 2008), inner peace (Maak, 2008), harmony (Koehn, 2005; Maak, 2008), solidarity
and unity (Lázár, 2011; Melé, 2011). The opposite is true if the organization’s identity is
unstable or unclear – there will likely be discomfort, anxiety, stress, lack of safety, lack of peace
and harmony and great discord and fragmentation. This pertains both internally and externally.
In order to have integrity of identity, all expressions of identity must be consistent. This includes
virtually all perceivable aspects of an organization, such as: branding, mission statements,
actions, decisions, positions, policies, practices, physical space, etc. Any inconsistency calls into
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 151

question the true intentions and identity of the organization, and threatens to damage the integrity
of the organization’s identity. Again, this is an ideal state of spiritual maturity that may not be
possible in reality, but nevertheless worth striving towards.
A premise of this study is that the organization’s spirit is its true nature. However, this is
not the same as its identity. An identity can be and is often intentionally crafted and/or
manipulated. For instance, an organization driven by a self-serving spirit can project a caring
identity purely for the sake of maximizing profit rather than authentic compassion.
Unfortunately, this is perhaps a likely explanation for many corporate social responsibility
programs. As expressed at the beginning of this section, spiritual maturity allows for no such
duplicity. In fact, the greater the integrity, the lesser the distinction between internal and
external selves, or identities. Therefore, a strong organizational identity reflects high integrity
and spiritual maturity.
But what is an organization’s identity and how is it created? Is an organization simply a
collection of people and buildings? Is it the identity established through legal documents and
processes? The latest thinking on the development of organizational identity is that it is a very
complex construct with three “bases of identification” – relational, behavioral and symbolic
(Cardador & Pratt, 2006). This provides a helpful framework with which to understand
organizational identity. As indicated at the outset of this section, the truest identity of an
organization lies in its spirit, and the nature of this spirit comes to be known through the
combination of what it does and how it relates to people or other entities and how it presents
itself in symbols. These include all actions and relationships by organization members internally
and externally. This is how the organizational spirit and organizational identity are co-created by
its members.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 152

A review of the qualities of OSM in this chapter reveals that they pertain to relationships
and behavior, and many of the qualities involve both, such as love. Love implies a strong
relationship or bond, but without action is not love. Actions speak louder than words, because
behavior often reveals true intentions. This is why Meadows (2008) stated the only way to truly
assess an organization’s purpose is to observe the actions of the organization. The symbols an
organization uses to convey its identity are essentially the intentional projections of how it views
its own identity and is often coupled with the organization’s narrative, or story, which it tells the
public about itself and its identity (cf. McAdams, 2001; Pratt, 2012).
As with individuals, organizational identities are not static, but constantly evolving. With
all of these moving parts, it makes sense that there may be inconsistencies, which can serve to
diffuse and confuse the identity of the organization, thus compromising its integrity.
Recognizing that organizations are always in a state of flux, integrity then refers to the coherence
across the moving parts. Integrity requires continual monitoring to ensure that all aspects of the
identity are consistent, adhere to the values, beliefs and principles of the organization and are in
keeping with its purpose, vision, mission, goals and objectives.
Turning back to the notion of integrity as wholeness, what does it mean for an
organization to exhibit wholeness of identity, and not just consistency? As living systems,
whole organizations are comprised of its members in a state of mutual interdependence. Clearly
however, not all organizations recognize this. Less spiritual organizations view employees as
there to meet the needs of the organization in exchange for compensation. More spiritual
organizations consider all of its people as members, which means “a distinct part of a whole”
(Harder et al., 2004, p. 92). In recognizing the interdependence of the organization and its
people, the organization recognizes that it is there to meet the needs of its members as well,
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 153

resulting in a “mutual commitment to the other’s well-being” (p. 93). This explains the very
intentional use of the term “member” throughout this study to refer to all people involved in an
organization – including its board, leadership, management and staff – as it reflects the fact that
the organization is comprised of whole people and when it recognizes this and treats them as an
integral part, it then becomes whole as well.
3. Integrity as Morality. In addition to a clear and coherent identity, another
critical requirement of organizational integrity is congruence between moral principles and moral
action. This is applied to its interactions with all stakeholders and means that the moral action is
taken regardless of the consequences of the action. The intentions are the defining element of the
moral action (Michael, 2013). This is supported by a Confucian notion of integrity, which
involves behaving in an “upright way” that sets an example for others and is driven by
compassion and service to the broader community (Michael, 2013). This aspect of integrity is
supported by the United Nations (2013) as well, which promotes “principled businesses” that
have a “culture of integrity” that advances human rights and other values by creating a moral
code to guide employees and partners (p. 11).
When unethical behaviors are incentivized or ignored in an organization, it creates moral
confusion (D. Collins, 2010), which leads to the common problem and process of moral and
ethical disengagement at all organizational and individual levels as described in Chapter 2.
This creates a dangerous situation in which the organization establishes its own sense of morality
centered on its needs that conflict with those of the broader community (Schwartz, 2004). In
other words, the good is that which is in the best interest of the organization, regardless of how it
affects others. This can decrease connectivity resulting in decreased extra-organizational,
societal and/or planetary integrity. This is likely the reason the concept of integrity is often
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 154

defined in terms of consistently acting morally (cf. Integrity, n.d.; Michael, 2013; Johnson,
2009). Organizations have powerful impacts on the morality of their members (Schwartz, 2004),
especially when coupled with identity dysfunctions.
A conceptual clarification is in order here. The quality of love included virtuous love that
overlaps to a great degree with the concept of morality. At the risk of oversimplifying, for the
purposes of this study the concepts of virtue and morality are differentiated as such - virtue
pertains to doing what is good and kind towards another motivated by affection rather than other
motivations, such as a sense of obligation. Morality is doing what is right and just according to
some moral standard. There is clearly overlap in these concepts as right actions are often defined
by their goodness, in that they have some positive impact on another.
The moral standard used to define morality is critical. If it is dangerous for organizations
to establish their own morality, what standards should they use. Not any standard will do (Maak,
2008). Both individuals and organizations will be seen as having integrity only if their behavior
is motivated by the “right intentions” (Michael, 2013, p. 26). Scholars have tried to clarify these
standards. Some refer to the Confucian concept of jen, which refers to perfect or complete virtue
including all of the virtues mentioned in virtuous love above, such as kindness and caring, but
also courage, loyalty, piety, etc. (Koehn, 2005; Solari & Torre, 2013).
For the purposes of this study, the well-regarded levels and stages of moral standards
developed by Kohlberg are used (see Table 4-2). These stages are relevant in any culture, stages
cannot be skipped, and one cannot go backwards to a lower stage (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977).
The stages reflect a systematic increase in consciousness of interconnectivity. Consequently, the
stages naturally suggest a fairly clear correlation between moral and spiritual development, with
the lower levels of each being more self-focused and the higher levels being informed by a
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 155

recognition of interconnectivity with the whole. As one might expect, Jurkiewicz and Grossman
(2012) suggest that organizations operating at the lower two levels of moral development
exemplify organizational evil. Duska and Ragatz (2008) support this by saying that self-interest
at the expense of another is immoral, or a “moral flaw” (p. 161).
The goal of moral development in Kohlberg’s framework and also spiritually mature
organizations is Stage 6 – Universal Ethical Principle orientation. This is considered the
“culmination” of the prior stages and the highest level of morality. It involves adhering to
principles, such as fairness, human rights and the right of all humans to dignity (Jurkiewicz &
Grossman, 2012, p. 5), that are based on universal standards that are “absolute and inviolate” and
therefore supersede laws, customs, relativism and pragmatism. This is also supported by
Michael (2013), who promotes the use of one’s conscience as an internal compass to assess
morality, even defining integrity as behaving in a way that does not violate one’s conscience
(Michael, 2013). Other scholars suggest that spiritual organizations must adhere to increased
moral standards, but organizations tend to fall short of Stage 6. For example, Sheep (2006)
introduces what he calls a “cosmopolitan source of moral reasoning,” which involves using
external societal considerations in assessing morality (p. 357). He argues that this was a new
development, but it still only seems to reach Stage 5.
Table 4-2
Kohlberg’s Levels of Moral Development
Level 1 – Pre-Conventional Stage 1 – Obedience and punishment driven
The physical consequences of action determine its goodness or
badness, regardless of the human meaning or value of these
consequences. Avoidance of punishment and unquestioning deference
to power are valued in their own right, not in terms of respect for an
underlying moral order supported by punishment and authority.
Stage 2 – Self-interest driven
Right action consists of that which instrumentally satisfies one's own
needs and occasionally the needs of others. Human relations are
viewed in terms like those of the marketplace. Elements of fairness, of
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 156

reciprocity, and of equal sharing are present, but they are always
interpreted in a physical, pragmatic way.
Level 2 – Conventional Stage 3 – Conformity driven
Good behavior is that which pleases or helps others and is approved by
them. One earns approval by being "nice."
Stage 4 – Law and order orientation
There is orientation toward authority, fixed rules, and the maintenance
of the social order. Right behavior consists of doing one's duty,
showing respect for authority, and maintaining the given social order
for its own sake.
Level 3 – Post-Conventional Stage 5 – Social contract
Right action tends to be defined in terms of general individual rights
and standards which have been critically examined and agreed upon
by the whole society.
Stage 6 – Universal Ethical Principle orientation
Right is defined by the decision of conscience in accord with self-
chosen ethical principles appealing to logical comprehensiveness,
universality, and consistency. At heart, these are universal principles
of justice, of the reciprocity and equality of human rights, and of
respect for the dignity of human beings as individual persons.
Source: Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977, pp. 54-55

Integrity as morality indicates a consistent adherence to moral standards. This gives the
perception that the individual or organization is moral and can therefore be trusted to act in a way
that is beneficial and not harmful. Conversely, a lack of integrity destroys trust, which can take a
great deal of time to re-earn (Johnson, 2009). When people or organizations lack integrity, they
are able to justify all kinds of dark side behaviors to achieve their ends (Koehn, 2005). For this
reason, selfishness is considered a “moral flaw,” because it will ultimately lead to sacrificing
justice in order to achieve self-serving desires (Duska & Ragatz, 2008, p. 161). In other words, it
is not possible to be self-serving and reach Stage 6. This requires the willingness to sacrifice the
well-being of the individual and even the organization in service to the greater good, which is
achieved by maintaining integrity to universal ethics.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 157

Ethics. A word must be said here to connect this discussion with the extensive literature
on organizational ethics. For our purposes, the terms “moral” and “ethical” are considered to be
interchangeable as they both pertain to adherence to moral standards. This is based on the
definition of ethics as the study of morality (Cooper, 2012). A great many scholars use the term
ethical instead of moral to refer to this core characteristic of spirituality (Argandoña, 2015; Dorr,
2008; Khasawneh et al., 2010; Lázár, 2011; Schabracq & Smit, 2007). Lázár (2011) presents the
primacy of the concept in spirituality by stating “spirituality depicts an attitude led by hidden
superior ethical values uncommon in everyday behavior…representing a transcendental system
of values” (p. 96-7). An ethical climate reflects the degree of morality of an organizational
culture, as discussed in Chapter 2, which conveys acceptable and preferred behaviors. People
learn what is acceptable behavior through observation and a continual and often subconscious
process of assimilation and adaptation (Schabracq & Smit, 2007). The subtle nature of this
process is part of its power and danger, as it can lead good people to do very harmful, even evil
acts (Zimbardo, 2007)
4. Integrity as Backbone. Finally, a word must be said about the courage and
strength necessary to have integrity in one’s identity and morality. Courage is identified by some
as a spiritual quality (Dorr, 2008; Khasawneh et al., 2010). This sub-quality was almost not
included here, because none of the other qualities would be possible without this, so it almost
goes without saying. It was included, however, based on the recognition of both how rare and
how critical it actually is. When faced with situational pressures, very few have the fortitude to
resist authority (Milgram, 1975), although we would like to believe that we do.
The term backbone was used here to represent the minimal level of internal strength
required to maintain integrity, because this strength may come directly from courage, or it may
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 158

also reflect the spiritual qualities of hope or faith (Schabracq & Smit, 2007). In general, the
greater the disparity of morality between the actor and the situation, the greater the courage
required, because the risks to the actor will be greater. In other words, it requires a great deal of
backbone for an employee to challenge his or her organization. It also requires a great deal of
backbone for an organization to withstand economic and political forces in order to stand for
what is right. This essentially involves a strong presence of all the other spiritual qualities. It
involves putting the needs of others above those of the self or organization, which requires a
depth of love that is self-sacrificial and a purpose of serving the greater good. It also requires
wisdom in recognizing the bigger picture and the full impacts of the decision or action that is
being opposed.
D. Wisdom
Spiritually mature organizations display wisdom (Howard, 2002; Thompson, 2011),
which is a fairly robust concept. Extensive literature is available on the concept of wisdom,
including its application to organizations (cf. Edwards, Biloslavo, Kwaymullina, &
Kwaymullina, 2012; Malloch, 2015; Spiller, Pio, Erakovic, & Henare, 2011). Briskin et al.
(2009) provide a definition that reflects the breadth of this common term on a collective level:
“Wisdom: Exercising sound judgment, reflects great understanding of people
and of situations. Consideration of multiple perspectives and forms of
intelligence. Wisdom in groups is demonstrated by insight, good sense, clarity,
objectivity, and discernment rooted in deep caring and compassion” (Briskin,
Erickson, Ott, & Callanan, 2009, p. xvii).
Based on this definition and the extant literature, the concept of wisdom is presented in three
aspects – sound judgment, continual learning and stewardship.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 159

1. Sound Judgment. An analysis of definitions of spirituality from scholarly
journals found general agreement in those definitions on the inclusion of qualities related to
sound decision making, including discernment, insight and openness (Dent, Higgins, & Wharff,
2005). Several other spiritual qualities are related to sound judgment. Spiritual organizations
tend to seek deeper levels of truth and are more apt to develop creative solutions, and they have a
higher tolerance for risks and ambiguity (Marques et al., 2007). Bartunek et al. (1983) agree that
developmental maturity creates higher tolerance for ambiguity but add that it also increases the
ability to empathize with differing positions in order to better understand them. Sound judgment
requires both inclusive and well-informed decision making processes.
a) Inclusive decision making. Some scholars argue that openness is a core attribute of
spiritual organizations (Biberman, 2009; Kolodinsky et al., 2008; Thompson, 2011), because
wise decisions require consideration of diverse perspectives (Koehn, 2005), that can improve
problem solving and counteract groupthink (Schabracq & Smit, 2007). Wisdom involves self-
awareness that requires that we acknowledge the limitations of our knowledge and the fact that
we are not always aware of what we do not know. This recognition of limits reflects a key
quality of spirituality – humility (Johnson, 2009; Neal, 2013). Porter and Norris (2013) state that
“Workplace spirituality manifests most brilliantly when organizational structures are
participative in nature” and that workplace is “nearly nonexistent” in controlling, top-down
hierarchies (p. 434). This is in part because it allows people to bring out the best in each other
and collectively serve as good stewards of the organization (Porter & Norris, 2013).
Especially in the modern information age in which data are being generated faster than
any one person can absorb, the old top-down decision making processes are ineffective, because
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 160

they do not allow access to the full store of “information capital” the organization has scattered
across its members (cf. Harder et al., 2004, p. 97). Wheatley (2006) explains it this way:
“We need a constantly expanding array of data, views, and interpretations if we
are to make wise sense of the world. We need to include more and more eyes.
We need to be constantly asking ‘Who else should be here? Who else should
be looking at this” (p. 66).
In addition to generating potentially more effective ideas, this invites employees to
incorporate more of themselves into the work (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Barrett, 1998;
Biberman, 2009; Marques et al., 2007; Schabracq & Smit, 2007). Subsequently, they experience
a greater sense of fulfillment and wholeness, both of which help them feel a greater sense of
ownership of the work (Barrett, 1998), communal love and a stronger identity with the
organization. The organization benefits by tapping into more of the personal power of its
members that can help it achieve its goals (Marques et al., 2007). Conversely, researchers have
found that top-down decision making not only makes employees more passive and less creative,
but has even been found to have a negative impact on both their moral and spiritual development
(D. Collins, 2010; White, 1999).
For these reasons, some scholars identify participatory decision-making processes as a
characteristic of spiritually advanced organizations (Groen, 2001; Khasawneh et al., 2010) .
Empirical research has shown that more spiritually advanced leaders are more likely to adopt
democratic management styles, because they value diverse perspectives, have greater trust
(Marques et al., 2007), place greater value on other members, and are less likely to be driven by
fear or the need to hoard power. The mechanisms for ensuring inclusive decision making are
discussed further below in the section on spiritually-mature leadership and management.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 161

b) Informed decision making. Wisdom also requires a great deal of discernment in terms
of the data that informs and bases upon which decisions are made. A clear distinction should be
made between data from opinion. Some perspectives are based upon lived experience, education
and/or research directly related to the decision in question – all legitimate data. Other
perspectives are uninformed and based upon assumptions often influenced by biases. Sound
judgement requires discernment of the quality of sources of input and whether more data are
required. Just as importantly, political pressures must be clearly identified and not allowed to
interfere or short-circuit the judicious consideration of the facts or steer the decision away from
the values of love, purpose for the common good or integrity. Consistency with these values is a
hallmark of sound decisions.
I have personally been involved in many professional discussions in which people met in
a room with the goal of hashing out a decision through dialogue with seemingly very little regard
for data or facts. The approach seemed to rely solely upon the logic and opinions of the people
in the room, many of whom had no direct experience that would inform their positions or
assessment of the impacts of the decision. Those with direct experience happened to be lower
level and as such were given less credence. As a lower-level staff member myself, I have
actually been reprimanded for taking a position based on data rather than “remaining neutral”
and open to the opinions of others. This reveals some of the complexity of the situation, and the
dynamics that exist beneath the surface of conversations. Unless it is made clear what data
people have (or do not have), decisions can easily be made that run counter to best practices and
lessons learned. In the current age of the internet, there seems to be little justification for
organizations not to conduct at least basic internet searches in order to inform their
understanding of the anticipated impacts of their decisions, and/or identify best practices learned
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 162

from others. Anything short of this reflects a lack of sound judgment and therefore lower levels
of wisdom and spirituality.
2. Continual Learning. In order to stay informed so that they can make sound
decisions, organizations must adopt an attitude of continual learning. Barrett (1998) argues that
most established companies become arrogant and too rigid in their beliefs and knowledge, which
causes them ultimately to fail. They believe they have all the answers and are unable to adapt
and evolve in response to the rapidly changing world. Only those that are continually open to
input from a wide variety of sources, challenge assumptions and seek self-knowledge will
survive (Barrett, 1998). In addition to this pragmatic rationale, other scholars have identified
continual learning or growth as a spiritual quality as it is related to humility, openness, valuing
differences and a tendency to seek betterment (Capra & Luisi, 2014).
An interesting and perhaps important suggestion from the literature is that those at
different spiritual levels utilize different learning approaches, which should ultimately inform the
management style utilized (Cochrane, 2004). More specifically Cochrane (2004) identified four
levels of spirit, learning and management – Zero, One, Two and Three. Zero Level involves no
conscious learning, but only subconscious learning, such as behavioral conditioning (e.g.
Pavlov’s dogs). Spirituality at this level is unquestioning acceptance and compliance – with a
tendency towards fundamentalism. Management at Zero Level is strictly authoritarian as the
expectation is that workers are to engage thoughtlessly and obediently (Cochrane, 2004). In
other words, they are to bring a minimal amount of themselves to the workplace. At the highest
level, Level Three, spirituality involves a deep sense of interconnectivity, or unity with the
world. The individual and organization are fully integrated into the whole. Therefore,
knowledge is not external, but comes largely from intuitive, internal sources. Learning is highly
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 163

reflective in order to draw out internal truths. Management at Level Three involves many of the
aspects of OSM mentioned in this study, such as focusing on the greater good and putting people
first (Cochrane, 2004).
3. Stewardship. A key aspect of a sound decision-making process is consideration
of the big picture and long-term implications, which several authors have identified as a spiritual
quality (Marques et al., 2007; Marques et al., 2009; McMichael, 2009; Neal & Vallejo, 2008;
Neal, 2013). Some have called this a “God’s eye view” (Liu & Robertson, 2011, p. 37) or
simply advocate for a broader perspective (Marques et al., 2009). This quality supports the other
OSM qualities in that it involves considering the overall impact of decisions, including whether
they have integrity, are pursuing the common good and are loving. Michael (2013) states that
people of integrity avoid short-term thinking.
A central idea regarding long-term implications focuses on the effects of an
organization’s actions on the natural planet, such as the rate of use of natural resources and the
impact on our life-support systems. Several scholars include harmony or connectedness with
nature as reflections of spirituality (Biberman, 2009; de Jager Meezenbroek et al., 2012; Dorr,
2008), recognizing that many organizations are responsible for much, if not most if the damage
to the planetary life support systems, as discussed in previous chapters (Barrett, 1998). The wise
and respectful management of natural resources is often referred to as stewardship and is a core
component of many indigenous forms of wisdom around the globe (Edwards et al., 2012;
Hartmann, 2004; Spiller et al., 2011). Like spirituality, wisdom also involves recognizing the
deep interconnectedness of the world and assuming stewardship over creation with the goal of
achieving the sustainable and equitable well-being of humans and ecosystems (Spiller et al.,
2011).
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 164

For the concept of OSM, this is expanded to refer to the effective stewardship of all
resources, which include natural, financial and human. Many organizational decisions involve
the use of resources, which can be used wisely, or ineffectively and wastefully. This is a spiritual
concept, because the use of resources involves the recognition of interconnectivity, and the
resultant respect and value placed on these things based on recognition of how they affect us,
others and the entire planetary system.
Stewardship of natural resources is fairly simple to comprehend. Humans and other
creatures depend on the natural world for our very lives, and using those resources without
considering the implications of that usage on the whole system is poor stewardship and will
inflict untold harm, making this by definition dark side behavior. The use of financial resources
is also an indicator of spirituality as it reflects values and priorities. This applies most directly to
organizations with the sole purpose of benefiting others, such as government, nonprofits and
philanthropies. Any funds that are wasted or not used efficiently are unable to have the benefit
for which they are intended. Therefore, poor financial stewardship can result in preventing
benefits or causing needless suffering. This can reflect a lack of awareness or consciousness, and
suggests room for improvement in the depth of love or compassion for others on the individual
and/or collective level in the organization. Spiritually mature organizations are also naturally
good stewards of their human resources, based upon the high value they place on employees.
For the benefit of both the organization and the individual, they strive to help all members
achieve their full potential and maximize the use of their personal power. Spiritually mature
organizations create environments that promote this (Marques et al., 2007), which involves
opening the door for everyone to bring their whole selves and apply their full minds, hearts and
spirits to the work.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 165

E. Continual Evolution
Continual evolution was an unexpected addition to the list of qualities of OSM, but as
with the other qualities, it could not be omitted due to its integral and unique place in the overall
concept of OSM as it has emerged from the extant literature. Initially, this quality was included
as part of continual learning under wisdom. Then a clear and important distinction became
apparent – wisdom pertains primarily to more cerebral aspects of decision making and action,
whereas evolution pertains to a more comprehensive and fundamental notion of organizational
change. While wisdom involves continued learning which presumably leads to changes in
beliefs, actions and behavior, this is insufficient. The degree of change needed in organizations
is greater and the extent of change more pervasive and profound than what can be produced
solely through learning. The evolution must occur in the very spirit of the organization.
What exactly is meant by the term evolution? Evolution involves high degrees of
organizational change. While more spiritual organizations are more likely to be open to change
(Biberman, 2009), simple change is insufficient in the modern fast-paced era. The only way for
organizations to survive is to “embrace evolution” (Barrett, 1998, p. 15). There are three levels
of organizational change – change, transformation and evolution. Change is “doing things
differently.” Transformation involves a “different way of being” that results from changes in
values, beliefs and assumptions. Evolution exceeds both of these both in duration and extent.
Both of the above are discrete instances, while evolution is a state of continual change and
transformation. It entails “constant adjustments in values, behaviors, and beliefs based on
learning gained from internal and external feedback” (Barrett, 1998, p. 14). This clarifies why
inclusivity and continual learning are critical but insufficient, as they inform organizational
changes but are not themselves the change. Therefore, organizations that prioritize learning and
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 166

are able to naturally learn will evolve faster (Barrett, 1998). Barrett (1998) argues for additional
organizational characteristics needed to support evolution, including having a purpose for the
common good and strong internal cohesion, which is referred to here as intra-organizational
integrity. This further helps elucidate the integrated nature of the qualities of OSM.
The change process in the natural world suggests certain patterns for evolution in living
organisms that apply to organizations as organic, living entities. First, in addition to continual
small, incremental changes, evolving entities often experience quantum leaps, in which they
make large jumps to the next higher stage of being (Hubbard, 2015). The application of this
pattern to other situations is referred to as stage theory in the literature (Cochrane, 2004). At
each stage, there are higher levels of consciousness, complexity and freedom (Hubbard, 2015).
Because evolution involves moving to higher levels of consciousness, things look different at
each stage. In other words, it creates a paradigm shift, which is what is needed (Hartmann, 2004;
Hawken, 2007), as discussed in previous chapters.
Another characteristic of natural evolution is that evolutionary jumps are typically
preceded and sparked by crises. As Hubbard (2015) explains, “When nature reaches a limitation,
it does not necessarily adapt and stabilize; it innovates and transforms” (p. 54). Wheatley (2005)
calls these prompting events messes, and states that this is an era of many messes. The extent of
change needed was also explained in Chapter 2 of this study. The sustainability of the human
race could very well depend upon it. This sentiment is echoed by other scholars. Korten (2006)
suggests that quantum leaps are needed by saying that otherwise “we will continue to squander
valuable time and resources on futile efforts to preserve or mend the cultures and institutions of a
system that cannot be fixed and must be replaced” (p. 20). Cook (2000) states:
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 167

“By now, the universal and irredeemable dysfunctionality of contemporary
Western organizations has been generally admitted, if not accepted…These
conditions of deterioration are at once both the legacy and the end of the
organizations that, over a period of three centuries, came to dominate the
Western world…Consequently, there is not an enterprise of any kind, public or
private, that is not at serious risk of imminent demise – for the better, of
course. The passing away of the modern corporation-model organization is as
inevitable as its successor is irresistible” (p. 3-5).
In other words, significant change in the form of successive transformations represented by
continual evolution is not only necessary, it is perhaps inevitable and likely soon.
Another popular model of evolution called spiral dynamics was developed by Clare
Graves and involves an upward spiral of development and consciousness through which humans
evolve. The visual representation of the spiral gets larger at the top representing the broadening
and opening of consciousness. She identified eight stages, which she calls memes, each
designated by a color. Unlike the other conceptualizations described above, rather than quantum
leaps, this model suggests that people flow up the spiral to the higher stages that “transcend and
include” all of the prior stages (Wilber, 2000b, p. 11). Each stage moves closer to holism, or the
consciousness of complete unity and perceptions of how everything in the universe is integrated
(Wilber, 2000b).
There may be a natural question about whether “continual” evolution is necessary, or
even possible. In other words, is it possible to continually evolve, or is there a limit? Kohlberg’s
stages of morality can help clarify this point. There are six stages, and the sixth and final stage is
the ideal. Once reached, it is no longer possible to advance to new stages. One simply stays
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 168

within that stage. New learning is always possible in terms of the application of morality in new
and varied situations, but evolution to a new way of being is no longer possible. Conversely, the
spiral dynamics model of development is open-ended, indicating that the growth is never
complete (Wilber, 2000). Is this also the case with organizational spiritual maturity? At the
current time, the answer is unknown. It is all conjecture. In fact, because this is the first true
writing on the topic, it is simply pointing the way to new and uncharted territory. It is anyone’s
guess what will be found down the road. At some point, it may be possible to identify standard
levels of OSM as well as many ways to advance through them. The point here is that at this
early stage in the conceptual development, there is a great deal of room for evolution and no
clear indication that there is a limit. Therefore, it is considered a core quality of this initial
conceptualization of spiritual maturity.
F. Spiritually-Mature Leadership and Management Approaches
The development of the spiritual qualities described above on the organizational level
would not be possible without spiritually-mature leadership that is reinforced through the
organization’s management approach. When expressed as a quality of OSM, the term “leader”
refers to any person(s) assuming a lead role in advancing the spirituality of the organization.
This may or may not be the hierarchical leader, or top executive. This bifurcation is fairly
common in societies around the globe in which priests, rabbis, imams, etc. lead spiritual
development but do not often serve political leadership roles, at least in most countries. This is
also analogous to many indigenous tribes, which have chiefs but also have wise men, or
shamens, who have the responsibility for spiritual development. In societies across the globe,
spiritual and political leaders are often disconnected roles. Therefore, the top organizational
leadership not need be the leader of spiritual development; however, they clearly play a large role
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 169

in supporting the development of OSM and the ensuing transformations and evolution that
naturally occur. Any inconsistency between the beliefs and behavior of the top executives and
those espoused by the organization represents a problematic lack of organizational integrity and
sends mixed messages to members and other stakeholders.
1. Spiritually Mature Leaders. The role of spiritual leaders in spiritually mature
organizations is three-fold. First, they create the vision (Barrett, 1998; Khasawneh et al., 2010;
Marques, Dhiman, & King, 2007; Neal & Vallejo, 2008), which includes the vision for the
organization’s spiritual development as well as the greater purpose of the organization (Fry &
Nisiewicz, 2013; Goodpaster, 2011). It also involves the ability to convey and engage others in
the vision and apply it to daily decisions (Seybold-Clegg, 2007). Second, leaders must serve as
models for how to embody and apply the desired spiritual qualities in the workplace and through
the work. They must display the highest levels of integrity, or risk losing credibility and their
ability to lead and guide others (Pruzan, 2011). Pruzan (2011) also identifies the need for
spiritual leaders to model a sense of peace and calm in organizations, especially in times of trial.
Third, the spiritually mature leader must help to create an organizational culture and environment
that promotes the evolutionary development of the organizational spirit and of individual
members (Fry & Nisiewicz, 2013; Johnson, 2009; Vasconcelos, 2015). This includes
establishing and reinforcing spiritually-mature management approaches that are consistent with
OSM qualities (Neal, 2013).
Many other qualities have been identified in the literature as characteristic of spiritually-
mature leadership. Most of these support the roles described above. For instance, spiritual
leaders must be open to the ideas of others (Biberman, 2009), open to change, be self-disciplined
and have a healthy work-life balance (Seybold-Clegg, 2007). They should be sensitive and kind
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 170

(Marques et al., 2007), enlightened and compassionate (Nandram & Borden, 2011; Seybold-
Clegg, 2007) and focused on the needs of others. This requires a great deal of transparency
(Biberman, 2009), and dealing above-board, so to speak, with everyone internally and externally,
such as not withholding important information, not lying or even telling half-truths (Seybold-
Clegg, 2007). They must be continually developing spiritually as well, which requires that they
be sufficiently authentic, humble, open and honest about their own shortcomings in order accept
feedback (Secretan, 2009). They should generate feelings of hope and joy (Johnson, 2009), and
in dealings with others, they should be trusting, highly collaborative and transparent (Biberman,
2009).
Because these qualities are so varied and vital to the spiritual development of the
organizations, it would behoove organizations to pay close attention to the spiritual state of all of
their leaders (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000) to ensure at a minimum that individual leaders do not
compromise the spiritual development of the organization and/or its members. Johnson (2009)
takes this a step further to argue that spiritual organizations actively equip their leaders
spiritually. However, it is clear that it would be easier and likely more effective if leaders
possess strong spiritual qualities when they assume a leadership role rather than waiting until
after they become leaders for the organization to attempt to develop them.
2. Spiritually Mature Management Approach. The management style promoted
and adopted by an organization reflects and hopefully helps advance its spiritual maturity. It is
both unnecessary and infeasible to develop a complete and prescriptive description of the many
aspects of management, such as the thorough explication presented by Laloux (2014).
Management styles must fit with the work and purposes, as well as the geographical,
professional and political contexts. The organizational structure and functions should be organic,
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 171

emerging naturally in the specific context to achieve specific purposes (Cochrane, 2004). A fully
spiritually mature management style in an emergency room will likely look very different than
an equally spiritually mature style in a museum, philanthropy, church or retail store. For
instance, a highly inclusive participatory style is promoted as a spiritually advanced management
approach in the literature, in which lower-level staff and sometimes external stakeholders are
invited to participate in decision making processes (Barrett, 1998; Cochrane, 2004; Collins,
2010). But this typically requires more time, and in certain instances in which people’s lives are
at stake (e.g. ER, police, fire, military, etc.), it may be more necessary to have a very clear
command-and-control style, at least at certain times. Rather than provide details about styles,
this section will present the most common characteristics of spiritually mature management
styles identified in the literature.
In general, spiritual management styles tend to be less hierarchical, flatter and more
decentralized. This is based on higher levels of trust, openness, the desire for continual learning
and greater belief in collective wisdom over assumptions of top-down wisdom superiority. This
further plays out in the encouragement or even requirement of cooperation internally across
organizational units (Biberman, 2009) as well as externally with those seeking similar purposes.
Some believe that the shift to a participatory management style is both necessary and inevitable
(Barrett, 1998). This approach is natural for spiritually mature organizations, because it involves
several spiritual qualities, such as welcoming all people as equal members of the organization
through communal love; it is inclusive and reflects a wise desire to be informed; it requires
humility of leadership to recognize they do not have all the answers; and finally, it involves
openness to new ideas and to change, or continual evolution.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 172

Participatory styles also involve the empowerment of employees, which is another key
characteristic of spiritual management styles identified in the literature. Scholars have found that
organizations that adopt a highly empowering approach exhibit greater integrity between the
organization’s spiritual values, “employee work and spiritual attitudes, and organizational
performance” (Milliman et al., 1999). In other words, because they feel more a part of the
organization, they are more apt to assimilate the values and take increased ownership of the
work. This sense of ownership is further increased when they actually have some real
ownership, as with stock-sharing programs (Barrett, 1998). Conversely, organizations that adopt
top-down decision making generate passivity and detachment in subordinates that can have
highly negative impacts on both their moral and spiritual development (Collins, 2010).
Empowerment is much easier said than done. This is why many approaches seem to be
empowering on the surface, but may represent only a minor shift of power. Jaffe and Scott
(1993) argue that it must exist on three levels – in the mindset of individuals, personal and
intergroup relations and organizational policies and structures. They further argue for
empowerment to be real, employees must believe that they can and actually be able to make real
change in and through the organization, be sources of creativity, behave in self-managing ways
and have input into organizational policies. A common way for this empowerment to manifest,
in addition to participating in decision making, is through the encouragement of creativity and
innovation (Barrett, 1998; Biberman, 2009; Neal, 2013) that advances the work and results in
continuous improvements (Milliman et al., 1999). Self-management, or the autonomous
operation of organizational units with minimal hierarchical control, has also been identified as an
important aspect of empowering, spiritually mature organizations (Liu & Robertson, 2011;
Milliman et al., 1999).
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 173

IV. Spiritual Qualities Not Included
In developing the qualities of OSM described in this chapter, certain spiritual qualities
promoted in the literature were not included for various reasons. These are briefly explained
here to demonstrate that they were in fact considered rather than overlooked and also to further
clarify OSM by clarifying what it is not. The main reason these were omitted is not due to
disagreement, although there are some of those, but rather due to the purpose of the OSM
qualities, which are to identify definitional qualities of spiritually mature organizations. These
qualities either reflect spirituality or could advance it, but in the end are optional and not
essential to the same extent as those described in this chapter. For example, Neal (2013) lists as
a defining characteristic of spiritually advanced organizations that they are actively involved in
the spirituality in the workplace movement. Although this may be useful in helping
organizations to rapidly evolve and develop spiritually, it is not considered an essential
component of OSM.
Several qualities were omitted, because they were too closely tied to religious practices,
such as the role of organizations helping to advance the development of individuals’ relationships
with a higher power, which is promoted by the International Center for Spirit at Work (Biberman,
2009). However, as mentioned in the section on the definition of OSM, it is believed that people
may or may not have higher powers as their object of transcendent spirituality. Additionally,
individuals can fully develop these relationships outside the workplace; therefore, it is not
necessary that organizations help develop them. This would also seem to open a potential
Pandora’s Box by requesting that a great many different religious and spiritual practices be
allowed in the workplace, which may need to be approved for the sake of equality, but which by
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 174

consuming attention, energy and resources may ultimately interfere with and not contribute to
achieving the purpose of the organization.
Related to these qualities is the exclusion of mystical experiences as essential aspects of
spirituality (de Jager Meezenbroek et al., 2012), which can vary greatly from ecstatic experiences
of oneness with the transcendent or the whole of creation (Hood, 1975) to setting an empty chair
at meeting tables in order to invite creative forces into the room (Neal, 2013). Once again, while
these may be helpful, they are not considered definitional aspects of OSM. A final omission is
the exclusion of a suggested requirement that organizations include spiritual terms and imagery
in their marketing and public relations (Neal, 2013). The reasoning for this omission is similar in
that as with individual spirituality, it need not be overtly conveyed in order to be real. An
organization displaying all of the qualities of OSM will naturally convey a high level of
spirituality through its mission, actions and interactions and need not overtly include them in
marketing.
The final reason for omitting qualities includes those that are considered to be indicators
of the existing of OSM qualities. In other words, they are secondary qualities that will be
present, but are not themselves separate and distinct. A key example is trust, which many
identify as a spiritual quality (Barrett, 1998; Biberman, 2009; Dorr, 2008; Marques et al., 2007;
J. Miller, 2009; Thompson, 2011). Surely, trust is present in spiritually mature organizations, but
the existence of trust is not something that can necessarily be directly pursued in the way the
other qualities can. It is essentially a product or outcome of the consistent application of other
qualities, such as integrity, wisdom and purpose for a common good.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY (OSM) 175

V. Conclusion
The dark side organizational behaviors can be directly addressed through the pursuit of
organizational spiritual maturity. The specifics of the qualities displayed by spiritually mature
organizations that do not display DSOBs, or at least minimizes them, were described in this
chapter. The following chapter takes the next step to describe specific practices that
organizations can employ that reflect these qualities, and the final chapter ties it all together by
providing suggested processes for developing OSM along with useful tools that synthesize much
of the research to guide application.

ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 176

Chapter 5: Spiritually Mature Organizational Practices
With the importance and concept of organizational spiritual maturity clarified, we now
turn our attention to how those qualities can manifest in practice. It begins with a description of
key organizational practices that emerged from the literature as being especially important in
advancing multiple organizational spiritual qualities. Then practices for improving each of the
specific OSM qualities are presented. While some of the practices described in this chapter may
represent minor improvements, others are drastically counter to common organizational
practices. The initial reaction may be that these approaches have no place in the work
environment. However, this study has demonstrated the need for substantial changes in our
understanding of organizations and how they operate. A truly spiritually mature organization
will not likely resemble most organizations today, which is a good thing. Compared to most
existing organizations, spiritually mature organizations can be expected to be more effective at
what they do, have much more positive impacts on the world and be much better places to work.
Wherever possible, specific practices in actual organizations are presented as examples to clarify
both how the practices can be applied as well as their feasibility. Not all ideas can be expected to
work in every organization, but with creativity and thoughtful consideration, many of them are
viable options.
I. Key Practices of Spiritually Mature Organizations
Through an analysis of the literature on advancing the qualities of OSM, a small number
of practices emerged fairly consistently. Some of these were presented as means for developing
more than one OSM quality. This section presents these key practices, while the next section
presents steps and targeted practices intended to improve individual OSM qualities. It is
infeasible to adequately cover all the practices available to improve OSM. Instead, the intention
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 177

is to provide some guidance with sufficient clarity to allow organizations to move forward in
developing the desired qualities.
A. Reflective Practice
The first key practice in developing organizational spirituality is the development of
reflective practice. To be effective, reflection needs to be incorporated into every aspect of the
work. It needs to be systematized, and many different processes will work. There is a great deal
of literature and guidance on the topic, including an academic journal dedicated to the topic
simply called Reflective Practice that has been in publication since 2000. Reflection is necessary
for increased spirituality, because it is the most direct means for increasing consciousness. By
learning more about itself, an organization better understands how it relates to others and the
world. Wheatley (2006) argues that in order for a system to be changed to become healthier, it
needs to learn more about itself from itself. The steps presented above indicate the importance of
this continual approach to maintaining the spiritual development work. Because the spirit lies at
the core of an entity, the beliefs and values that emerge from it are often below the level of
conscious decision and are consequently unexamined and unchallenged. The only way to
develop the spirit is through continual reflection upon these deeper aspects of its being that drive
and shape behavior. Otherwise, like individuals, organizations will continue to plug along
unaware of the unchecked and potentially misguided or even harmful beliefs and assumptions
that drive it. The dangers of this were more fully described in Chapter 2, in which it was
mentioned how unreflective practice can lead to dark side organizational behavior and even
organizational evil. However, reflective practice is comprehensive, extending beyond the
spiritual development process described in the steps above to include all aspects of
organizational life and work (Barrett, 1998). Barrett (1998) likens healthy organizations to
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 178

“finely tuned athletes that take care of their bodies, minds, and their spirits” (p. 5). Reflective
practice is a way to keep organizations finely tuned.
Reflective practice helps ensure integrity, because it involves paying close attention to the
alignment of values, mission, actions and behaviors. When these evolve and change over time,
reflective practice will spark a reassessment of beliefs or actions. It advances wisdom, because it
brings new insights and information to inform decision making. This new information also
informs continual evolution.
Organizations need to review the options for incorporating reflective practice and decide
which approach would work best. What is important is that all members of the organization are
involved (Wheatley, 2006). This can involve building reflection into meeting agendas. A
common starting place is a simple “Plus/Delta” exercise in which participants are invited to
identify aspects of the activity or project that worked and areas that could be improved the next
time. In this way reflective practice is a critical element of and directly informs both continual
learning and continual evolution. While any aspect of an organization can be reflected upon, in
her consulting role Wheatley (2006) starts with three main areas: organizational identity,
relationship development and connecting to new reflective information.
B. Empowerment
Seemingly the most commonly suggested practice to advance various qualities of
organizational spirituality presented in the literature is through empowerment. Ibrahim and
Alkire (2007) found 29 different definitions of empowerment in literature, but for our purposes
empowerment is defined as “the process of conferring decision-making capacity upon those who
previously had been unable to decide matters for themselves or had limited ability to do so”
(Jagd, 2009, p. 592). For the most part, the focus of this section is on empowerment of
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 179

employees, but people outside the organization can also be empowered by including them into
decision-making processes. Empowerment has a profound impact on developing the
organizational spirit, which can be demonstrated by its impact on several OSM qualities.
Empowerment helps generate a more loving community by helping people feel more
valued and respected and increasing safety. Top-down decision making has been equated to a
paternalistic and demeaning parent-child relationship between decision makers and subordinates,
while self-managed groups and individuals have healthier and more respectful adult-adult
relationships. Empowerment reduces the fear that prevents people from feeling fully safe due to
a lack of voice in their well-being (Laloux, 2014). Delbecq (2008) reasons that, if leaders are
truly grounded in love, they naturally move away from unnecessary centralization and control
“because they respect the individuality and gifts of all associates in the organization” (p. 108).
Additionally, they actually enjoy receiving input from those they value. Through participatory
processes, people develop strong social connections and a sense of camaraderie, which
strengthens the sense of community (D. Collins, 2010; Houghton, Pearce, Manz, Courtright, &
Stewart, 2015). It also increases their sense of equity and justice (Pearce, Waldman, &
Csikszentmihaly, 2006).
Empowerment increases integrity in a couple ways. It brings all employees into the
decision-making process thereby increasing the potential that the organizational identity and
purpose align more closely with those of each individual. It also helps increase understanding
and buy-in of the identity and purpose and therefore increases the likelihood that all
organizational members will act in congruence with them. In short, because they are more
involved in the decisions, they perceive a greater sense of ownership and accountability (D.
Collins, 2010).
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 180

Empowerment increases wisdom by increasing the extent to which decisions are
inclusive and well-informed. Great Place to Work® is an organization that analyzes and certifies
organizations as great places for employees to work. They have found that what they call
“highly-evolved workplaces” are increasingly moving away from top-down approaches and
towards more empowering management styles in an effort to tap into the “collective knowledge
of the organization” (Great Place to Work, 2016, p. 5). This is because employees bring a wide
range of perspectives and experiences into the process from all levels of the organization.
Laloux (2014) contends that when people do not feel empowered, they self-sensor and fail to
fight for their concerns, which “comes at great cost to us and the world” (p. 172), because we are
unable to benefit from their ideas. Inclusion of these voices helps ensure that the many costs and
benefits of decision options are considered (P. J. Robertson & Choi, 2010).
Finally, empowerment is a common aspect of spiritually-based leadership and
management, because it indicates true love and valuing of subordinates and deep care for their
well-being. It also indicates fairness and justice, because those who are affected by decisions
should have the opportunity to provide input on them (Bowman, 2008).
Within organizations, it can take two different forms. Psychological empowerment is the
most common in the literature (Baird & Wang, 2010) and is an increased sense of self-efficacy
(Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2010) or control that employees feel (Maynard, Gilson, & Mathieu,
2012). Structural, or managerial, empowerment is the actual decision making authority given to
them by the organization through its decision-making structure (Baird & Wang, 2010). Some
argue that true psychological empowerment cannot happen without structural empowerment.
Additionally, people can be empowered at the individual team levels within organizations
(Maynard et al., 2012).
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 181

Giving decision making authority to someone means taking it away from someone else in
order to create a more balanced or shared power structure. For this reason, it results in a flatter
organizational structure with decentralized decision making, and the adoption of a looser and
more integrated structure such as a matrix, or a network (Biberman, 2009). In this section, the
role of empowerment in advancing OSM qualities is presented along with some options
organizations can adopt to increase it.
Great Place to Work strongly recommends that all organizations challenge any conclusion
that decision making cannot be shared. They believe that at the root of this perspective is an
unfounded fear, a desire for power or control, lack of trust, lack of humility, arrogance, and/or
negative assumptions about others (Great Place to Work, 2016). More reflection could help
identify and hopefully uproot these negative, destructive and perhaps even dysfunctional issues
and beliefs.
There are many ways of empowering people. Only some of the major approaches are
presented below. They represent a spectrum from least to most empowerment. Additionally,
some forms of empowerment are more effective than others depending on the situation (Zhang &
Begley, 2011), such as the culture of the country in which the organization is situated (Fock, Hui,
Au, & Bond, 2013). This means that approaches cannot be expected to work the same in every
context and the approach should be carefully selected and monitored.
1. Participatory Decision Making. Participatory decision making involves inviting
people to provide input on decisions in which they have typically not been involved. The final
decision-making authority may vary. Starting from Arnstein’s (1969) ladder, various spectra of
participation have been identified to convey the extent of decision making authority given to
those invited to participate in the process (IAP2, 2007; Lukensmeyer & Torres, 2006; Nabatchi
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 182

& Leighninger, 2015; Nabatchi, 2012; Vigoda, 2002). Common levels are (in increasing order):
consult, involve, collaborate and empower, with empowerment being fully delegated decision-
making authority (Nabatchi, 2012). For example, a Los-Angeles nonprofit Para Los Niños,
invites community members in to interview and vote on staff who will be working with them
through their place-based effort. While the organization reserves the right to veto the decision if
they have strong reservations, thus far they have honored the selections of the residents.
One note of caution is that participatory decision making that only involves receiving
input has the potential of backfiring if not managed properly. For instance, if a group providing
input strongly favors one course of action, but the decision makers choose a different course,
people can feel even less empowered than with no input at all, not to mention that the exercise
was a waste of their time (Chaston & Lips-Wiersma, 2015). In order to prevent this, it is
essential that the coordinators clearly explain how the input will be used (Creighton, 2005), and
then loop back to explain the decision, especially when the decision made counters the position
expressed by the participants. Because of its effect on relationships and the ability to build or
erode trust, the process here is more important than actual agreement. In general, people tend to
be reasonable. If leaders take the time to explain their decisions, including the logic and all the
factors considered and how input factored into the decision, as long as the decision is reasonable
given these factors, then this transparency can build trust, while also serving to increase
employees’ understanding of the values of the leaders and the organization. Conversely, if the
logic is poor and it is clear that the voices of the participants were not truly considered, trust will
naturally be undermined. However, if the decisions are presented in a manner that allows
dialogue, employees can convey their reservations, which should inform future decision making.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 183

Participatory decision making can involve a wide range of stakeholders, ideally and
where practicable all of those impacted by the decision, or their representatives. While the other
forms of empowerment primarily target those within the organization, this form can also be used
to empower those outside the organization, which is typically referred to as public participation,
although a great many terms have been used with minor variations in meaning.
1
D. Collins
(2010) suggests creating decision-making teams to develop processes that are trained on
effective decision-making. The design of these processes needs to take into account the context,
should clarify the purposes and can be expected to be iterative, requiring continual redesign and
course correction based on experience and feedback (Bryson, Quick, Slotterback Schively, &
Crosby, 2013). There are a wide variety of ways to get public input, especially in the age of
modern technology. Several guides exist for effective design, management and evaluation of
public participation efforts (cf. Bryson et al., 2013; Creighton, 2005; Kaner, 2014; Nabatchi &
Leighninger, 2015; Nabatchi, 2012).
Convenings of virtually any size can be held to get input on decisions or collectively
make decisions through a variety of techniques, such as dot democracy (simply placing a dot
sticker by a preference), straw poll and mapping. The organization AmericaSpeaks… has
developed techniques for group decision making involving thousands of people using cutting-

1
Terms used include: public deliberation, public engagement, participatory planning, collaborative
planning; and when used by public organizations: democratic planning, public consultation, deliberative democracy,
participatory democracy, participatory governance, discursive democracy, direct democracy, democratic deliberation,
deliberative civic engagement.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 184

edge technology, which was used to select the final design for the rebuilding of the World Trade
Center in New York City.
2. Self-Organized Teams. One of the more advanced approaches to participation
involves self-organized teams. In addition to having discretion on how employees manage
themselves, organizations adopting this approach allow teams to form, evolve and disperse on
their own rather than leadership creating the teams. This is a very organic process, in some cases
intentionally seeking to mimic natural processes. The theory is that that the values, vision and
mission of the organization serve as a form of “genetic code” that guides their work, much like
natural systems, such as an ant colony, beehive or cell. In fact, some scholars have used the term
cellular organizations (Miles, Snow, Mathews, Miles, & Coleman, 1997) to describe a particular
structure comprised of self-organized teams or cells. This language is consistent with the
viewing of organizations as living systems (Robertson & Choi, 2010).
This genetic code has a “surprisingly small number of rules” (Broekstra & de Blot, 2011,
p. 303) with the indication being that humans do not need a high degree of instruction or control
to be effective, and in many instances would actually be more productive with more freedom.
The prevailing assumption is that without strict controls there would be chaos, however nature
demonstrates that self-organized systems actually exhibit a high degree of consistency, stability
and adaptability (Capra, 1996).
In self-organized teams, lower-level staff members are given the authority and discretion
to make decisions in a responsive manner, which allows greater flexibility, adaptability and the
ability to quickly adjust the use of resources in response to the ever-changing environment
(Fradette & Michaud, 1998). Therefore, self-organization is a primary mechanism of
organizations that continually evolve. Self-organization also creates more space for creativity
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 185

and innovation, which requires a great deal of experimentation and risk taking, which cannot
happen in highly controlled situations. While the cells within an organization, in the form of
fluid work teams, are self-managing, they are also highly interdependent, consistent with
spiritual conceptualizations. This means that they must routinely engage other cells that are
affected to participate in decision making processes. Another important characteristic of self-
organized teams is that they have no formal leadership, but rather leadership is much more fluid
as it is determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the alignment of the skills and
knowledge with the needs for that particular project (Robertson & Choi, 2010).
Philadelphia-based Resources for Human Development (RHD) has a well-developed self-
organizing structure. It is based on fundamental assumptions about employees, including that all
people are of equal worth, that people are essentially good and that there is no one way to
manage issues. Teams of 20-50 employees are responsible for all aspects of operations,
including strategy, budgeting, staffing and monitoring results. There are no job descriptions
within the units. There are no middle managers, and Unit Directors have no power to make
unilateral decisions. Central staff at the headquarters is minimal and focuses on supporting the
teams. The focus of leadership in general, whether local or at headquarters, is to support the
team to resolve challenges. As an indicator of the effectiveness of this approach, RHD has
enjoyed an average annual growth rate of 30 percent for over 40 years and has grown to over 200
teams (Laloux, 2014). Another well-known form of autonomous and self-organizing teams is
called Holacracy. This has many other elements incorporated that go well-beyond self-
organizing and is therefore discussed in more detail in the section on spiritually-mature
management.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 186

3. Democratic Organizations. The most extreme form of empowerment is true equality
in decision making. Bowman (2008) argues that an ideal-type spiritually informed organization
would have its leadership elected by the employees rather than “imposed on them” (p. 313).
This pertains to team leadership as well as the top organizational executive as well. The leader
would therefore naturally reflect and model the collective values of the organization. This would
essentially invert the power structure so that the leader is the servant of all and therefore
accountable to them. Bowman further argues that this is the only way to prevent the
dysfunctions of top-down bureaucracy, which inherently diminishes the dignity of individuals
and tends to suppress morality by promoting unquestioning obedience. Equality is required for
true community, and leadership election is the most effective way to attain this.
Tourish and Pinnington (2002) make an interesting case that by their very nature, the
terms leader and follower imply a power differential, so leadership dynamics are intrinsically
unequal, and any effort to eliminate the power differential is essentially an illusion. Therefore,
while it may be possible to be less hierarchical, hierarchy is never completely absent (Chaston &
Lips-Wiersma, 2015) in a structure that consists of leaders and followers. An option to address
this adopted by the Best Start community change effort in Los Angeles is to refer to all members
as leaders, but acknowledging that everyone plays a different role in collectively achieving goals,
yet all are equally valued and important. Of course, applying this to an organizational setting
would have profound implications, such as democratizing compensation packages.

It is often assumed that a hierarchy needs to be top-down or autocratic, however, Ackoff
(1994) presented a model for a democratic hierarchy called a circular organization. These have
three main characteristics: 1) “the absence of an ultimate authority, the circularity of power; 2)
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 187

the ability of each member to participate directly or through representation in all decisions that
affect him or her directly; and 3) the ability of members, individually and collectively, to make
and implement decisions that affect no one other than the decision maker or decision-makers” (p.
117). Rather than people being subject to a higher authority, everyone is subject to the
“collective authority” of all others in a circular manner.
C. Create a Safe and Open Working Environment
The literature on spirituality in relation to organizations expresses the necessity of
creating a safe and open environment for spiritual development for several reasons. This is
necessary for the development of some, if not all, of OSM qualities, including at least communal
love, wisdom, integrity, learning and spiritually-based management. If people do not feel safe,
they will be unwilling to engage their full selves in the work. Fear will abound. Fear is the
enemy of community and stifles creativity and innovation (Helliwell, 2009). It prevents people
from speaking up and sharing their thoughts, thus preventing the organization from benefitting
from the best thinking of their employees (Laloux, 2014). This impedes the level of wisdom
input into a decision, learning and evolution of the organization. If people are not sharing all of
who they are, they are fragmented and putting on a saccharin professional persona they feel they
must in order to survive and advance in the organization. This prevents their individual integrity
by creating a bifurcation between who they truly are and who they are at work. This in turn,
impedes integrity on the organizational level, because it can result in a discrepancy between the
true values of employees and those of the organization.
To create a safe work environment, organizations must attend to the psychological safety
climate. This is affected by several factors, including the degree to which the organization
focuses on employee well-being, the extent to which they have a voice in the organization and
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 188

especially the quality of interactions between employees (Cleveland, Byrne, & Cavanagh, 2015).
All of these have the power to generate or unintentionally undermine safety and trust (Laloux,
2014). To promote positive behavior, some organizations create ground rules for a safe
environment or Codes of Conduct,
2
which often include important guidance for interacting in
certain situations, especially when conflicts arise, in order to help ensure that everyone feels safe.
All employees should be trained on these during orientation, and they should be reinforced in
various ways throughout the organization. Resources for Human Development (RHD) trains its
staff to refrain from demeaning speech and behavior, disconfirming the other person’s reality and
intimidation/ explosion (Laloux, 2014).
An important focus of these ground rules is meeting practices. According to Laloux
(2014), meetings “more often than not…turn into playfields for the egos that push the souls into
hiding…. To feel safe, some people seek to dominate the proceedings and others withdraw” (p.
162). For this reason, some organizations ask for volunteers to serve as ground rule monitors.
Berlin-based health care provider Heilingenfeld has the monitor ring small cymbals called
tingsha bells when they believe a ground rule has been broken or the meeting has drifted from its
purpose. If an organization knows that a touchy subject needs to be addressed, they can utilize
an objective, external facilitator to ensure that the discussion stays on track and does not get too
personal. RHD and the Dutch home care company Buurtzorg utilize this approach (Laloux,
2014).

2
Codes of conduct are also identified by scholars as an important means for ensuring organizational
integrity, as discussed in a later section of this chapter (D. Collins, 2010).
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 189

II. Developing Specific Organizational Spiritual Qualities
In addition to the general approach to increasing OSM and the key practices that improve
multiple qualities, each of the OSM qualities can be developed directly. This section presents
some guidance and techniques to this end. These are not less important or powerful than the key
practices presented above, but rather more targeted. The extent of discussion on the qualities is
necessarily uneven, because topics either require differing degrees of explanation and/or have
more options to be shared. For example, purpose for a common good is straight-forward
compared to creating communal love and ensuring integrity, which are comparatively complex.
Real-world examples are presented to help further clarify how the practices may take shape in
reality. However, these are only to be understood as examples and not in any way delimiting to
the ways in which diverse organizations may apply or exhibit the qualities in their own unique
contexts.
A. Love
In the previous chapter organizational love was presented as a profound and all-
encompassing quality that pervades all aspects of the organization and serves as a foundation for
all other qualities of OSM. The converse is also true; all demonstrations of OSM ultimately
demonstrate love. As such, all of the steps presented in this chapter can be seen as advancing
and increasing organizational love. However, there are some actions that more directly increase
this quality.
1. Virtuous Love. The primary forum for expression of virtuous love presented in the
preceding chapter is in organizational decision making. Seeking to express virtuous love
requires that the work be approached from a specific angle. The focus needs to shift from what
is in the best interest of the organization? to what is the right thing to do? (Laloux, 2014). This
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 190

is a seeking of virtue. The need for this shift applies to all organizational decisions, and results in
expressions of virtuous love both small and large, internal and external. It involves the
organization seeking to do right by its members, its community, society, nation, planet and all
those it impacts in recognition of its deep interconnectedness with all of these. Beyond this base
level of seeking to do the right thing, i.e. be ethical or virtuous, when genuine, this love often
pervades the organization leading it to naturally to go above and beyond what is right in order to
proactively increase its beneficial impact. Consequently, there are two aspects of virtuous love –
minimizing harm and maximizing benefit. The first practice recommendation is that
organizations seeking to improve OSM challenge themselves in their reflective practice to
wrestle continually with these existential issues. One way of institutionalizing virtuous love is
through the active development of an organizational conscience.
Organizational conscience. An interesting suggestion in the literature for improving an
organization’s impact on the world, and thus displaying virtuous love, is to actively develop an
organizational conscience. Unlike spirits, organizations do not naturally have a conscience
outside those of its members (Blythe, 2014). An organizational conscience:
“shapes how an organization pursues certain goals (profitability, market share,
competitiveness, etc.) by accounting for its moral obligations to groups and
individuals who are affected by its decisions and activities” (Maines, 2011, p.
360).
This positions organizational conscience as a direct solution to many forms of
organizational evil, which can occur when people are not considering the full impacts of
organizational decisions and activities. Spirituality involves the recognition of interconnectivity
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 191

and interdependence and the subsequent caring that results and sense of obligation regarding the
organization’s impact. The organizational conscience is this sense of responsibility. Thus, it
both reflects and helps develop increased organizational spiritual maturity. Caring about the
impact of the organization is the first step. When the organization truly examines its impacts, it
further increases its consciousness of interconnectivity. By drawing attention to these areas for
improvement, the examination of the conscience sparks growth and maturity. This naturally
leads to behaviors that are increasingly more moral and loving, resulting in decreased harm and
increased benefit to the world. For this reason, the examination of the conscience has
historically been aligned with the quest for unity with the God, or the transcendent (Maines,
2011), which is to say, spiritual development.
Organizations can create and cultivate an organizational conscience by ensuring that the
organizational values, vision and mission developed in Step 4 above are moral and move the
organization towards greater morality. Additionally, a separate Code of Ethics can be created to
further clarify expectations regarding the application of the mores into practice in the specific
work of the organization. Demonstrating this conceptual connection, ethics can be defined as
conforming to conscience (Blythe, 2014; D. Collins, 2010). Maintaining integrity to this code is
another issue altogether, which is described in the later section on integrity. The focus here is the
creation of this conscience.
When they are institutionalized and sustained, this moral conscience becomes part of the
organizational identity (Goodpaster, 1989 cited in Maines, 2011). Tools have been developed to
help organizations develop as a moral agent, such as the Self-Assessment and Improvement
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 192

Process (SAIP) developed by the Caux Round Table, an international network of business leaders
promoting moral capitalism.
3
Applied at periodic intervals, this tool helps organizations examine
their actions in light of “recognized standards of ethically responsible conduct” and develop
improvement plans where necessary (Maines, 2011, p. 359).
Virtuous love activities. Because the reach and potential impact of organizations differ
greatly, it is infeasible to provide a thorough list of steps and actions that they can take to
promote virtuous love. Thankfully, this is also unnecessary, because great resources are already
available. In recognition of the powerful impact that organizations, especially businesses, have
on the planet the United Nations (UN) initiated the UN Global Compact (UNGC) in 2000. The
mission of the Compact is to encourage and support businesses to take greater responsibility for
their impact and commit to seeking sustainability. The Ten Principles of the UNGC fall into four
main categories: human rights, labor, environment and anti-corruption. For each of these, they
have developed assessment tools and provide concrete steps to remediate any harm done as well
as further steps to evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of these steps.
4
The end result is that
businesses, and arguably all organizations, have a high-quality, comprehensive set of tools to
assess their impact on the world and develop plans to ensure that they are minimizing the harm
they inflict. These tools can also be used as sources of ideas for maximizing benefits to the
global system as well.

3
More information can be found at www.cauxroundtable.org.
4
www.unglobalcompact.org
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 193

A great example of this form of love, at least from outward appearances, is the Japanese
auto maker Subaru, which very explicitly states in its marketing that love is its foundational
quality with the slogan “Love. It’s what makes a Subaru a Subaru.” Per The Subaru Love
Promise, which is in the form of a written pledge that the organizational members sign, this love
is expressed in both virtue and maximizing its beneficial impact. In terms of the former, it states
that Subaru pledges “to do right by the communities in which we all live and work.” It also
seeks to minimize its impact on the environment by producing fuel-efficient vehicles in eco-
friendly plants. But beyond seeking to maintain the status quo, the pledge states that the
company believes “in making the world a better place.” To achieve this, they log extensive staff
volunteer hours and donate to a wide variety of causes, including care for pets, environmental
efforts, education, poverty reduction and health care. The company also encourages its retail
stores to proactively seek to benefit their local communities by recognizing on a monthly basis
those retailers that do.
5
While perhaps some of these actions are not atypical of large
corporations seeking the goodwill of the public, couching the steps in love and the pledge to
provide a higher degree of authenticity and integrity in the actions and perhaps a deeper and
more spiritual quality to their approach.
2. Communal Love.
“People don’t work for companies; they work for people. We don’t

5
www.subaru.com/love-promise.html
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 194

have company meetings—we have family meetings.” -Jonathan Neman,
Cofounder, Sweetgreen
6

“If you can’t create a sense of belonging—a sense of appreciation for what’s
unique about your team members—then people [won’t] feel safe. [You don’t
get] the smartest idea.” -Candice Morgan, Diversity and inclusion leader,
Pinterest
7

The quality of communal love is an organization’s intent to establish a “higher level of
relationship” marked by “superior bonding” (Cunha et al., 2016, p. 11) between its members
with the end result being that the organization is understood to be a coherent entity with a deep
sense of harmony and wholeness that operates as one unit (Marques, Dhiman, & King, 2007).
The literature provides a broad range of actions organizations can take to increase communal
love. In the most basic sense, these actions all help to convey to each employee that they are
loved and considered a vital member of the organizational community.
The actions generally fall within one of two groups. The first category of actions to
establish a sense of community is intended to create the right context for people to feel
comfortable revealing their full selves and opening themselves up to others. The ideas in this
section build upon those in the earlier section on creating a safe and open working environment,
but are more specific to creating a sense of community. Second, the organization can establish

6
Cited from FastCompany.com, Feb 2017, p. 23.
7
Cited from FastCompany.com, Feb 2017, p. 24.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 195

practices and policies that demonstrate its love for employees. Finally, specific activities
designed to build relationships are required. This section provides ideas for each of these
categories of practices.
Create the context for community development within organizations. Community
development cannot be forced. People must be made to feel comfortable and safe enough to be
vulnerable and open enough to engage others and the work with their whole selves, including
their spirits. Laloux (2014) compares the spirit to a wild animal. It wants to come out of hiding,
but is timid. It cannot be forced to emerge, but a safe space can be created to encourage it to test
the waters. This first set of actions or steps involves creating this type of environment.
Building and aesthetics. The physical aspects of organizations have an often
underestimated impact on the sense of community through the messages that it sends about
values. For instance, organizations can be intentional about bringing nature into the office (Neal,
2013), such as plants, sunlight or even water fountains. Facebook recently notably opened their
new facilities in Menlo Park, California and included a massive nine-acre park for employees to
stroll and interact on the roof.
8

Laloux (2014) encourages the elimination of all physical signs of status differentiation,
such as the big corner offices and VIP parking spots. These provide concrete reminders that
certain people are clearly valued more than others. Since they are more important to the
organization, they have a preferred status that is both closer to the organization and more secure.
This makes all others feel somewhat like outsiders, i.e. not full members of the community,

8
www.businessinsider.com/facebook-new-campus-pictures-2015-3
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 196

because they are less valued and subsequently more dispensable. These typical practices create
insecurity and inhibit a strong sense of safety and belonging.
The layout of workspaces also has an impact on the potential for community to emerge.
This may be as simple as colors, artwork, decorations, etc. In my office, we have learned the
communal impact of cubicle design. One floor has cubicles with full size walls that prevent
people from seeing in, and another has cubicles with half-sized walls that makes it possible to
see across the entire floor. The latter is inherently much more social, while the former often feels
like a library or mortuary in its quietness. Silicon Valley is truly pushing the envelope in its
efforts to create community through workplace design. For instance, Facebook’s new office is
one big room with winding staircases connecting the floors. Meeting rooms are all glass,
minimizing the sense of behind-closed-door decisions that tends to threaten trust by making
those not invited feel left out. Twitter has a variety of creative and informal communal spaces,
such as round tables and restaurant-style booths where people can work together.
9
When done
well, the thoughtfulness of the workplace design communicates to every employee that the
organization truly cares enough about the quality of their work experience to invest in it.
Invite the whole person to work. Another important way to create the right context for
communal love in an organization is to invite people to bring their whole selves into the
workplace rather than conveying that it is only acceptable for employees to bring their
professional selves to work and leave the other aspects of themselves outside. Failing to bring

9
http://www.cio.com/article/2368341/careers-staffing/148004-Silicon-Valleys-18-Coolest-
Workplaces.html
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 197

one’s whole self results in the creation of a sort of false and superficial persona, because it
requires hiding or repressing parts of oneself. Consequently, inviting the whole person to work
is also recommended as a solution to the fragmentation of modern organizations discussed in
previous chapters. By inviting the whole person, the idea is that people will be more strongly
connected to the work, the organization and other organizational members. It is much safer not
to bring our whole selves, making ourselves more vulnerable to criticism and rejection on deeper
levels. However, we all have a deep desire for wholeness (Laloux, 2014).
One way companies have found to invite more of a person into the workplace is to make
space for their children and pets. Some organizations, such as outdoor gear maker Patagonia,
have child care on site with a playground, allowing for more frequent or even planned
interactions with them, such as having children join their parents for lunch. Some workplaces
allow nursing during meetings (Laloux, 2014). Laloux (2014) expresses the impact of having
our children present in this way, “Relationships change subtly but profoundly as people see each
other not only as colleagues, but also as people capable of the profound love and care young
children inspire” (p. 146). A similar impact could likely be said about including pets, since many
people also have a great deal of love for their pets.
Neal (2013) connects the bringing of pets to the next option for inviting whole people
into the organization – by creating a fun and playful work environment, because they nurture the
human spirit, they bring the sense of being fully alive. In their efforts to attract the best talent
from the younger generations, tech firms are also known for bringing fun into the workplace.
Fun has been connected with increased creativity and joy (Neal, 2013). Many organizations,
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 198

such as Comcast and Solebrity, have game rooms with ping pong tables, foosball tables, etc.
10

Dropbox has a music room/lounge with a grand piano and LEGOs® and staff are allowed to ride
skateboards through the halls.
11
Some add alcohol to the mix to further relax social barriers. San
Francisco based tech firm Asana has a full, self-serve bar open to employees.
12
Solebrity has a
Jack Daniel’s whiskey dispenser right next to a Coca-Cola dispenser to produce their favorite
mixed drink.
13

Demonstrate organizational love. In this safer and more welcoming environment,
organizations can take steps to proactively demonstrate love for their employees through policies
and practices that further make people feel truly valued and part of a real loving and caring
community. These actions involve consideration of the entire work experience and how it
interplays with employees’ lives and with the intent to minimize harm and increase benefits to
them. This approach has been dubbed internal corporate social responsibility due to its
similarity to externally focused CSR. Internal CSR involves consideration of a wide range of
internal issues, such as working conditions, health and safety, equity, labor rights, human rights
and the development of desired skills and knowledge (Jamali & Dirani, 2013).

10
Comcast - http://www.cio.com/article/2368341/careers-staffing/148004-Silicon-Valleys-18-Coolest-
Workplaces.html. Solebrity - https://workdesign.com/2015/02/solebrity-attracts-talent-to-silicon-valley-east.
11
http://www.cio.com/article/2368341/careers-staffing/148004-Silicon-Valleys-18-Coolest-
Workplaces.html
12
Ibid.
13
https://workdesign.com/2015/02/solebrity-attracts-talent-to-silicon-valley-east/
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 199

Managers are typically the strongest conveyers of organizational values and attributes.
As such, it is essential that they are consistent in communicating that their role is to support and
encourage staff and not to judge, control or punish them (Cuhna et al., 2016). In a healthy
organization, people are encouraged to try their best without the fear of making mistakes or
failing (L. W. Fry & Nisiewicz, 2013). More on spiritually-based leadership and management is
presented in the sections on those OSM qualities below, but for our purposes here, the role of
managers in making or breaking the sense that employees have that they are loved should not be
underestimated.
An important but often overlooked way an organization shows love is through
organizational compassion when an employee undergoes a crisis or major loss, such as the death
of a loved one. Sadly, the default response in most organizations is avoidance unless the
organization creates a different social norm. In truly caring communities, people should not be
left to suffer on their own, unless expressly requested. Although many people like to keep a
distance between their professional and personal lives, research has found that most people
actually welcome expression of organizational concern in times of crisis (Delbecq, 2010).
Organizations can systematize compassionate responses to ensure that people do not fall through
the cracks. The first step is awareness. If a person becomes aware of a crisis or loss experienced
by a colleague, they should ask their permission to report it to the appropriate staff person,
depending on who the organization designates. This could be someone higher up in the
organization, an assigned person within a unit or human resources. This can trigger a number of
responses. The first would be for someone to engage the person and listen to their situation to
determine how best to support them. This conversation could be confidential at the request of
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 200

the person. Their permission can be asked to share the information with other colleagues so they
may provide more informal and emotional forms of support at a minimum (Delbecq, 2010).
Additionally, the organization can connect employees with a range of formal and
informal resources. Formal resources are supports provided by government or service providers,
such as financial assistance, counseling, etc. Informal supports may involve help making
arrangements to cover work assignments, adjusting deadlines or allowing more flexibility, such
as participating in meetings remotely. The organization can also arrange for various supports to
the families involved, such as arranging child care, loaning them a vehicle or arranging for a
much-needed getaway. A standing or ad hoc response team can be formed to develop ideas and
coordinate the response on a case-by-case basis. Of course, more traditional forms of support are
also often welcomed, such as cards, flowers and the presence of colleagues at funerals or the
hospital (Delbecq, 2010).
In addition to compassion, organizations can demonstrate love by helping to ensure a
healthy work-life balance through policies that protect staff from working long hours, which has
been shown to have adverse effects on overall health, increasing stress and the potential for
injuries. Long work hours have been demonstrated to increase conflicts between work and
personal responsibilities, which causes stress that can lead to depression, poor health and
substance abuse (Pfeffer, 2010). Organizations can help preserve a healthy work-life balance by
ensuring staff have sufficient sick and vacation time as well as sufficient and affordable health
care. Organizations can also implement a range of health and wellness programs to encourage
healthy behaviors, such as exercise, by providing workout programs or facilities onsite or
creating rewards programs.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 201

A basic activity related to love and building community that an organization can take is to
minimize layoffs, which is referred to in the literature as layoff aversion. There are at least two
good reasons for this. First, layoffs harm the sense of community. Strong communities are often
compared to families, which means that a layoff may feel to some like losing a family member.
There is pain, grief and potentially even resentment towards the organization or other staff
involved in the layoff. Second, the person laid off and their families will suffer greatly, perhaps
to the point of death. While they will definitely suffer financially from the lack of pay, research
demonstrates that layoffs result in a significant increase in violent behavior (Catalano, Novaco,
& McConnell, 2002) and increased mortality rate of 44% in the four years after the layoff
(Eliason & Storrie, 2009), most likely related to stress and suicide. Layoff aversion can take
many forms, but at its core involves a commitment by the organization to work closely with all
employees to exhaust every effort to prevent letting employees go. Clear expectations and
supports should be provided. The conflict management practices described later can also help in
instances involving problematic interpersonal behavior. This response demonstrates to the
individual and the entire community that they are truly valued, that building a sense of authentic
community is important and that they also can expect the same degree of support and grace if the
organization determines they are in need of improvement. Organizations characterized by high
turnover have a very difficult time creating a sense of safety and community.
Build relationships. The third and final requirement for developing communal love is to
intentionally build or strengthen bonds between individuals and groups across the organization.
It cannot be assumed that proximity will build relationships (Kubisch et al., 2002). This is
largely because the work is the primary focus, and not getting to know each other, which requires
setting time aside or incorporating learning about people. The goal of relationship building is not
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 202

just to learn about each other, but rather to generate care for each other, and ultimately to love
each other. People that truly care for each other look out for the interests of each other and help
them grow through encouragement and support (Houghton et al., 2015). Relationship building
also requires successfully managing conflicts that naturally arise in the course of the work and
threaten to harm relationships and therefore the sense of community.
Mirvis (1997) identified four cornerstones of true community that convey the various
types of relationships that are necessary. The first two are consciousness of the self and the
other. When we see others fully, listen to their stories and better understand their lives, we are
more conscious of them. This helps us see ourselves in them, while also recognizing differences,
thus facilitating self-awareness. The third cornerstone is group consciousness, which involves
connecting to the whole in a way that allows one simultaneously to pay attention to both the
individual and the whole. This can occur on multiple levels in large organizations in which there
may be nested groups, such as work teams, departments, divisions and the entire organization.
The connections on any of these levels can be weak or strong, and efforts can be made to
strengthen them. Since it is not possible, or perhaps practical, to develop deep relationships
between all people in a large organization, the focus of relationship development should be
dependent upon proximity from those closest to each other within the organizational structure
outward (i.e. immediate work unit, department, office, division, etc.). The fourth cornerstone is
the connection to and alignment with what William James (1902) calls the “unseen order of
things” (Mirvis, 1997, p. 195), which is equivalent to the transcendent as discussed in the
previous chapter. In other words, creating true community requires a holistic approach that fully
invites each individual to connect with each other, the organization itself and the transcendent
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 203

spirit of the organization. Recommended relationship building and conflict resolutions activities
or actions are described below.
Relationship building activities. There are many creative ways to build relationships,
and the selection of activities should start with the interests of employees. A few categories of
options are described here. Some activities can be built into the work routines, and others are
dedicated relationship-building activities. Certain efforts to create a welcoming environment can
also help build relationships. For example creating a culture of playfulness helps create strong
bonds, because it encourages creativity and spontaneity (Neal, 2013).
An important mechanism for relationship building identified in the literature is
storytelling, which involves people sharing personal stories. The rationale is that increasing
understanding increases trust and makes it easy to like the other. Storytelling can be
incorporated into meetings, but are most effective in retreats, which allow more time and energy
to focus on people (Laloux, 2014).
To create consistent development of bonds, relationship building should be integrated
into the work through workplace rituals, which create a foundational consistency in the shared
experience of the people involved. These can include common occurrences, such as when new
employees are hired or when people leave. These are significant and often emotional times in
any community and the organization can recognize and honor this through rituals. In this way, it
demonstrates that it cares about and is attuned to the impacts these events have on the sense of
community. As another example, pharmaceutical maker Pfizer has a Failed Project Celebration
to honor the hard work that went into a failed project. This ritual is intended to help dispel
potential fear of failure and celebrate the important learning that can result from it. Ice cream
maker Ben & Jerry’s has a Joy Squad to which all employees are alternately appointed. For the
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 204

month on the squad, their sole job is to bring joy to other employees (Neal, 2013). Some
organizations have Praise Meetings in which they celebrate an individual or group, while others
have a Day of Thanking with a broader focus (Laloux, 2014).
Many professionals spend much of their day in meetings, which consequently provide an
important venue for relationship building rituals. Some ideas include having brief check-ins to
see how people are feeling, short stories to thank or congratulate someone, or opening with a
quote and sharing why that is important to the reader (Laloux, 2014). Meetings of the Best Start
community change effort in downtown Los Angeles begin with an open time for people to share
any appreciations they have of others. This often results in tears and strong emotions as it opens
the door for people to share stories of experiences that profoundly affected them.
Other relationship building activities can be less ritualistic and conducted outside the
context of the workplace. The public relations consulting firm Peppercomm pays for after-hours
bonding activities for employees, such as kickball games, happy hours and Broadway shows.
They have also funded stand-up comedy classes. The marketing firm Dixon Schwabl hosts an
annual cooking contest. The law firm Alston & Bird has Coffee, Cokes or Cocktails, or “C3”
events. Athletics can also help bonding, such as softball and basketball teams or yoga classes.
The marketing firm Fluent even held a six-month boot camp led by a personal trainer, as well as
monthly celebrations that varied from Oktoberfest, to sunset sailing and bubble soccer
(Frauenheim & Peterson, 2016).
Conflict resolution. A critical requirement of a true community is the ability to resolve
conflicts. In fact, Peck (1987) argues that this is the difference between a true community and a
pseudo-community, which is the pretense of community marked by conflict avoidance and
therefore unresolved barriers between people. Having conflicts does not necessarily indicate a
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 205

problem, it is how the organization responds to them, or not, that can make or break a sense of
community (Laloux, 2014). True communities are adept at resolving conflict, which allows them
to reach the deeper levels of relationships.
As mentioned above, employees can be trained to be facilitators of sensitive discussions.
This training includes conflict resolution (Cleveland et al., 2015) and interpersonal skills such as
nonviolent communication (Laloux, 2014). But the approach must be broader. Cleveland et al.
(2015) argue that a key role of human resources systems in the modern organization is to “train,
educate, and model conflict management collectively among all employee levels” (p. 157). In
other words, in order to be truly effective at managing conflict, everyone must be well-versed in
the techniques involved and have it consistently modeled for them.
It is also important to create an atmosphere in which people feel comfortable raising
issues. The practices for creating a safe and open work environment are also important for this
reason. Often fear can prevent people from raising issues, resulting in work environments in
which people are over-accommodating and over-protective. People also have a tendency to try
to impress people or be liked. These factors inhibit people from being their true selves, because
they do not speak their minds (Laloux, 2014), which contributes to organizational dysfunction, in
that people learn to tolerate dysfunction and conflict rather than address and resolve it. To be
clear, the goal is not management of conflict, but resolution, which can require real, hard,
vulnerable work. The organizational leaders set the tone for the organization by how they
respond to conflict. They can rush to judgment and be quick to blame and punish, which
generates fear that erodes the desired sense of safety or being cared for by the organization.
Conversely, conflict can be considered and treated as a normal part of the work, and leaders can
refrain from overreacting. Instead, the organization should establish clear processes for routinely
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 206

identifying and resolving conflicts (Laloux, 2014) that are respectful, fair, blame averse and seek
to get to the root of and address issues for the purpose of strengthening relationships and
community.
B. Purpose for the Common Good
Building on the section on virtuous love, spiritually mature organizations not only seek to
minimize harm and have a beneficial impact, but rather their entire raison d'être or purpose is to
serve the common good. The most basic strategies in this direction involve those in Step 4
above, which includes assessing and articulating the true purpose of the organization. But that is
only the beginning, because while the organization may have a proactive purpose represented by
a particular change or improvement in the world, it should also include refraining from certain
harmful activities. Only the combination of these will result in a net increase in the common
good. If the net impact of the organization is harmful, its continued existence should be
questioned, because its dissolution would result in the greater good.
The tools developed by the United Nations mentioned earlier in the section on virtuous
love provide a great starting place for this analysis. Additionally, Cleveland et al. (2015) suggest
that organizations should take an ecological approach to assessing their impacts in order to
consider the many areas and levels of systems and society they impact. They present a
framework based on the ecological approach that includes six areas – economic, growth and
sustainability of the marketplace, individual employee success, group success within the
organization, family success of workers and contributions to the community.
Earlier in this study, it was noted that subgroups within organizations can sometimes
operate with different and even competing purposes from each other and the organization itself.
One solution to this presented in the literature is the creation of a strong superordinate
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 207

organizational identity with clear purposes that can help prevent subgroups from pursuing their
own goals, whether intentionally or not (Pittinsky, 2009). The remainder of the guidance here
addresses two important considerations when determining organizational purpose – obligations
to society and the concept of a successful, or great, organization.
1. Obligations to Society. Depending on their size, organizations have varying levels of
impact on the neighborhoods, towns and cities in which they are situated. If they are truly
seeking the common good they will recognize certain obligations they have towards promoting
the well-being of their host communities in addition to opportunities to go above and beyond
base-level obligations to help create a healthy external community for their employees and others
(D. Collins, 2010). IBM recognizes this, stating that “IBM starts from the premise that the
company will only be successful if the communities where it operates are successful as well”
(Williams, 2011, p. 325). This belief goes beyond the local community to the whole world as
reflected in the following statement “We accept our responsibilities as a corporate citizen in the
community, national, and world affairs; we serve our interests best when we serve the public
interest” (Williams, 2011, p. 356).
In its statement, IBM used the term corporate citizen, which is an important concept in in
the literature. It involves the recognition of the responsibility that organizations have to society
and the consequent need for accountability. This broad concept entails responsibilities such as
transparency, community economic development, work-family balance, environmental
sustainability, human rights protections and governance (Mirvis & Googins, 2006). In addition
to not causing harm, organizations are responsible for providing fair wages, charging reasonable
prices and accepting normal profits. If organizations have a negative impact on the environment,
they are obligated to clean it up (Case & Smith, 2013) and make whatever reparations are
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 208

required to make those impacted whole. Mirvis and Googins (2006) identified five progressive
stages of corporate citizenship and charted a course of development from one stage to the next,
identifying specific crises that, when resolved, demarcate a transition to the next higher level. At
the highest level of corporate citizenship, organizations assume visionary leadership roles in
social change efforts and are fully transparent.
There are many things that organizations can do to go beyond these basic obligations to
provide additional benefits to local or larger society. The most obvious is donating some of their
profits to any number of social causes. Donated products and services can be auctioned off to
raise funds for causes. Organizations can lend specific skill sets to support other organizations,
such as nonprofits, local businesses or government. For example, corporate marketing
professionals can donate their services to support marketing efforts of other organizations that
may not be able to afford high-quality marketing talent. They can have programs intended to
incentivize employees to volunteer in the community, by having paid volunteer days or even
arranging volunteer events for employees. Some companies have even provided community
service sabbaticals for employees, which are more extensive paid volunteer roles (Needleman,
2008). They can also provide job opportunities for nontraditional employees, such as those with
disabilities or criminal records. Employees should be involved in helping to determine company
outreach strategies rather than having it come down or imposed from organizational leadership.
It is also suggested that the outcomes of these activities be measured be shared with the broader
community (D. Collins, 2010; Mirvis & Googins, 2006).
As an interesting and potentially powerful way of putting purpose front and center, Hilton
Worldwide established a Purpose Council led by the President and CEO of the company and
comprised of leaders from all areas of the company. The Council takes a broad approach in
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 209

order to “articulate the higher purpose of why the company exists, how they make a difference in
the world, and to bring their purpose to life with employees, guests, partners, and communities”
(Great Place to Work, 2016, p. 2).
A more fundamental way to implement this OSM quality is to establish the organization
as a social business. This new form of business was developed by Nobel laureate Muhammad
Yunus who created the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, and who also received a Nobel Prize for
his pioneering work on microlending to impoverished populations. Social businesses are created
for the sole purpose of some social benefit and not to profit shareholders. They are run much the
same as other businesses, producing goods and services for profit. The main difference is that
the profits are not distributed back to investors but rather re-invested by the organization to
further increase its social benefits (Yunus, 2007; Yunus, 2010). This eliminates the inherent
tension and common trade-offs of for-profit organizations between advancing the common good
and the need to maximize profits to investors that forces them to choose between the common
good and the best interest of the company.
2. Great to Good. In his book Good to Great, one of the best-selling business books of
all time, Jim Collins lays out what it takes for a company to be great instead of merely good,
based on empirical research. Interestingly and importantly, his definition of great is based solely
on one criteria – stock prices. Great companies are those with sustained stock gains over a
fifteen-year period that greatly exceeded the market. The research team actually considered
whether to use other indicators, such as the impact of the company on society or employee
welfare, but decided against it because they claimed they could not immediately come up with
any objective measures (J. C. Collins, 2001). The problems with this definition in the context of
this study should be quite apparent. Their goal is to make organizations iconic, or worthy of
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 210

lasting admiration, which is analogous to idolatry and self-glorification. These goals are less
selfless and conscious of interconnections and therefore less spiritually mature.
Interestingly, Collins and his team acknowledge, as one of the key factors of greatness,
that organizations have core values that extend beyond making profit. However, they puzzlingly
conclude that it does not matter what these values actually are; simply having them and sticking
to them is sufficient. In fact, they specifically stated that organizations do not need to have
respect for the individual, passion for its customers, social responsibility or quality, because they
can point to “great” companies without these values (J. C. Collins, 2001).
Rather than seeking to be great as defined by Collins, organizations pursuing spiritual
maturity should instead seek to be good. Although Collins uses the term “good” to mean
mediocre, it is used here to mean virtuous and having a purpose that involves seeking a common
good. In other words, this study suggests reversing his call to greatness by challenging
organizations to be good. “Great to good” means that organizations should seek to be moral and
have a positive impact on the world over seeking profit and self-interest.
14

C. Integrity
The quality of integrity was presented in the previous chapter in four sections which
discussed the levels of integrity within organizations, and its aspects related to identity, morality
and backbone. The common thread of the concept is that integrity reflects the strength of
alignment and consistency between words and deeds, between beliefs and actions. Indicating the
interconnectivity of the OSM qualities, several of the actions for increasing OSM already

14
I credit my advisor, Dr. Peter Robertson, for this clever turn of phrase.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 211

discussed increase integrity, especially reflective practice and organizational conscience.
Additionally, integrity has been called “the prime mechanism for making community cohesion
work” (Fairholm, 2013, p. 373).
Developing integrity is difficult, because it requires the willingness to risk trusting others
(Fairholm, 2013), which is another reason a safe and open workplace is necessary. There are a
couple other important obstacles to integrity that should be noted. These are rooted in the need
for an empowering workplace to experience true integrity, because integrity requires wholeness
and systems of domination and control prevent wholeness. People who are not free to act
according to their own beliefs cannot act with integrity. Barriers to empowerment are negative
attitudes of leadership towards followers, such as the still predominant Theory X management
perspective that people are generally lazy, dislike work, cannot be trusted, do not change, and
therefore require control (Clegg, Kornberger, & Pitsis, 2011; McGregor, 2012). Top-down
hierarchical structures are disempowering and therefore decrease integrity. Also, organizational
cultures that are infused with dishonesty, justifying harmful means to achieve desired ends and
egoistic behavior are barriers to integrity (Michael, 2013).
While there is not one strategy for increasing integrity that will work for all organizations
(Paine, 1994), the literature clearly suggests the need for a comprehensive integrity management
system. It is necessary to have a consistent system rather than handle challenges piecemeal in
order to ensure that the responses themselves have integrity and are consistent (D. Collins,
2010). This system touches on all three of the forms of integrity identified as qualities of OSM
(i.e. identity, morality, backbone), but focuses primarily on integrity of morality, perhaps
reflecting the primacy of that component in the common understanding of the term in the
literature. In terms of the various levels of integrity (i.e. intrapersonal, interpersonal,
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 212

organizational, etc.), these cannot be addressed in isolation, because they need to be aligned.
This requires that the integrity management system adopt a multi-level framework (Agrawal,
2013).
1. Integrity of Identity (resolving identity dysfunctions). Integrity involves wholeness
and integration with the goal being the integration of the whole person into the workplace while
maintaining the integrity of their wholeness (Bowman, 2008). The goal is a healthy balance
between two extremes – identity confusion and fragmentation. Segmenting tactics are intended
to help establish clear boundaries while integrating tactics are used to repair unhealthy
fragmentation. Dual-function or neutral tactics help achieve or support both (Kreiner, 2007).
Segmenting tactics organizations can use to help employees establish healthy boundaries
start with a respect for the work-life balance of all organizational members. Organizations can
set limits on work time and the extent of work-to-home spillover. Organizations can help
individuals separate their work role from their identity. An exercise that can help is creating an
identity hierarchy, such as “father first, husband second, employee third, etc.” Another tactic is
flipping a figurative on-off switch, which challenges staff to completely turn off their employee
mindset after work hours so they can be fully present in their personal lives without work
spillover. Finally, another exercise is having staff acting out other roles within the organizational
context that are very different roles from their work roles, in order to practice getting out of the
work mindset (Kreiner, 2007).
Integrating tactics can be used when people do not bring their whole selves to work.
This can include merging their work role with their identity by intentionally drawing other parts
of themselves into the work (Kreiner, 2007) utilizing the practices described earlier in the section
on inviting the whole person into the workplace. On the organizational level, diversity
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 213

management programs can be used to address tensions stemming from staff diversity in order to
help the organization function well as a coherent community (Kellough & Naff, 2004).
Dual function tactics can include seeking refreshment through vacation or spending time
off of work. Other staff can help support an individual in establishing healthy boundaries. They
could also be directed to any number of spiritual resources for guidance on establishing healthy
boundaries (Kreiner, 2007).
2. Integrity of Morality. To maximize the potential that everyone is operating in
accordance with organizational values and advancing the vision and mission, an organization
needs to establish a culture of integrity. This involves integrating the organizational values and
moral standards throughout all aspects of the organization. Some behaviors are inconsistent or
even counterproductive and should be addressed. For this reason, a comprehensive and clear
integrity management system must be established that promotes proactive action to prevent
integrity gaps (Michael, 2013). But this can be complicated by fear of reporting or a lack of
clarity about how to report and whether it is actually desired or not. To be effective, the system
must provide clear guidance and be communicated effectively and leadership must be fully and
overtly committed to it. The processes and structures must reinforce the desired behaviors and
managers must have the skills and knowledge to guide its implantation on a daily basis (Paine,
1994).
Perhaps the most comprehensive approach to ensuring moral or ethical integrity is called
the Optimal Ethics Systems Model developed by Denis Collins (2010) based on best practices
for enhancing spirituality by reducing ethical risks and integrating morality throughout the
organization (see Figure 5-1). The model provides a framework to describe an effective integrity
management system. Each of the eleven elements of the model are closely interrelated and
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 214

essential. As reflected in the evaluation phase, they must also be continually assessed and
modified in the spirit of continual evolution. An underlying assumption is that everyone is
morally imperfect, even management and leadership, which is why a systematic approach is
required (D. Collins, 2010). Much has been written about many of the steps, but space precludes
delving deeply into the model. Instead, the model serves as a loose structure for this section, but
is complemented by other sources, which hone in on several critical elements. The full model is
recommended for consideration by organizations seeking to adopt a comprehensive approach.
Hiring. In Chapter 2, the individual antecedents of dark side organizational behavior
were discussed. While external antecedents play a large role as described in Chapter 2, the
reality is that some people are more predisposed than others to engage in harmful behavior. It is
therefore best to try to prevent them from entering the work environment in the first place.
Because people tend to put their best foot forward during the hiring practice and mask potential
negative attributes, it can be difficult to screen them out. However, several steps can be taken to
identify those most inclined towards dark side behaviors.
First, the best predictor of future ethical behavior is past ethical behavior. Therefore, the
submitted application documents and references should be closely reviewed to identify priorities
and values, including specific spiritual traits, such as altruism, justice, responsibility and integrity
(D. Collins, 2010; Jamali & Dirani, 2013). However, information provided on resumes can be
erroneous or misleading, especially if the person lacks integrity (D. Collins, 2010). D. Collins
(2010) argues that the best source of information is the current or most recent supervisor.
Although they may not be able to provide a great deal of information, they can be asked whether
s/he would hire the person again. If s/he says “no,” hesitates or refuses to answer, this raises at
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 215

least cause for concern and further investigation. D. Collins (2010) also suggests conducting
attitudinal surveys which can be effective in predicting ethical behavior, or a lack thereof.
During interviews, candidates should be asked about how they have handled ethical
challenges and be allowed to respond to any potential concerns in their resumes, background
checks or attitude survey (D. Collins, 2010; Jamali & Dirani, 2013). Interviewers should also
listen for whether they express desires to benefit others and/or society through their work (D.
Collins, 2010).
Figure 5-1: Optimal Ethics Systems Model
Source: D.Collins, 2010, p. 100
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 216

Orientation and training. The next proposed element of a system of integrity is
orientation to the ethical code of the organization, but before this can happen, the Code of Ethics,
Code of Conduct and ethical decision-making framework must first be developed. These guides
should set clear ethical standards and provide some guidance on how the organizational values
are to be applied through the conduct and decision making of organizational members (cf. Paine,
1994).
The Code of Ethics can serve as an organization’s conscience by providing a common
ethical reference point. It should be short enough to fit on a business card. But what should be
included in the code? It should be inspirational and convey spiritual values, such as respect,
dignity, fairness (D. Collins, 2010) and perhaps even love and grace. It should contain “guiding
values, aspirations and patterns of thought and conduct” (Paine, 1994, p. 107). Another critical
question in the literature is, what is the basis for an organization’s morality? Legal compliance is
considered to be a minimal and insufficient starting place (Paine, 1994). Beyond this,
organizations should act in accordance with external standards of morality. Finally, they should
satisfy their own internal standards of morality to ensure they are acting with integrity (Iltis,
2001).
The Code of Conduct takes the next step to provide guidance on how to apply the ethical
values, such as what it means to respect others. It should also contain more detailed information
on conflicts of interest, confidentiality, fairness, legal compliance and how and when to report
perceived violations. The purpose of the ethical decision-making framework is to guide people
to make their own moral decisions when they encounter situations not covered by the Code of
Conduct. As its name implies, it provides more detailed information on steps that ensure sound
and ethical decisions are made throughout the organization (D. Collins, 2010). The Code should
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 217

also incorporate any practices related to wisdom, such as inclusivity and ensuring that decisions
are well-informed. This is important in the individual’s spiritual development, because it
challenges them to draw upon inner guidance and conscience when acting within and on behalf
of the organization (Pruzan, 2015).
Training on these codes must be thorough, include all existing and new members as they
arrive and be reinforced at least annually through refresher trainings. For effective training, safe
and interactive learning environments must be created that invite participants to raise existing
ethics concerns and help employees authentically wrestle with and be supported in the
application of the morals and values of the organization to their role without judgement. This is
an important step in the spiritual development of both the individual (D. Collins, 2010) and the
organization as they learn to walk their talk.
Operations. The intent of operationalization is to embed the values and morals of the
organization into its daily operations while rooting out any discrepancies. There is little evidence
that ethics or conduct codes alone affect employee behavior (Sánchez-Apellániz, Charlo, &
Núñez, 2013). For them to be successful, these codes must be accompanied by more
comprehensive cultural changes (Treviño & Brown, 2004). While Figure 5-1 indicates six
elements that should be considered when creating this culture and operationalizing an integrity
system, other literature indicates that they are insufficient. This section
Reporting mechanisms. Reporting perceived ethical or integrity violations is critical
since most fraud is discovered by tips and not through audits (D. Collins, 2010). Therefore, a
core element of any successful effort to cultivate integrity is a clear and strong reporting system
that welcomes the expression of concerns and feedback from all organizational members (Porter
& Norris, 2012). They should be invited to report any perceived discrepancy between the
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 218

espoused values of the organization and the values in action (Comer, 2011). But having clear
reporting mechanisms is insufficient. According to the Ethics Resource Center, only about half
of observed ethical violations are reported. Often employees do not report if they fear losing
their jobs or some other form of retaliation (Sánchez-Apellániz et al., 2013). Therefore, the
design of the reporting mechanisms is critical for the success of the integrity system.
There must be multiple reporting options to increase the potential that an employee feels
comfortable reporting, and the mechanisms must allow for anonymous reporting of perceived
violations. The first option is reporting to one’s manager, but this may not be viable for several
reasons, including distrust and personality conflicts. Another option is a confidential Assist Line
that can receive reports and relay them as appropriate. Others recommend designated staff, such
as an Ethics Compliance Officer (D. Collins, 2010) or an ombudsman (D. Collins, 2010;
Sánchez-Apellániz et al., 2013). The difference between the two is that the ombudsman is a
legal professional, but s/he does not act as an attorney for either the organization or the reporting
employee. Both are outside the main organizational hierarchy so they may maintain objectivity
and not be influenced by pressures from leadership to respond in a particular way. Often, they
cannot relay any reports of misconduct without the permission of the reporter (Sánchez-
Apellániz et al., 2013). These individuals can also be essential in ascertaining the most
appropriate next steps in responding to violations.
Reward system. The ethics code must be reinforced in order to incentivize people to
adhere to it and disincentivize them from violating it. “Rewards and sanctions drive behavior”
(Elms & Nicholson, 2013, p. 531). This is suggested by D. Collins (2010) in Figure 5-1 in the
element that refers to work goals and appraisals. Employees pay close attention to what behavior
is rewarded and they engage in those behaviors, or at least create the appearance that they do
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 219

(Pearce, Waldman, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2006). As described earlier in this study, there are many
subtle and even overt pressures and incentives to violate morals and ethics. Unless they are
acknowledged and addressed, they will continually pose threats to the integrity of the
organization (cf. Sánchez-Apellániz et al., 2013). To counteract this, the organization must make
whistle blowers feel appreciated and, where appropriate, recognized for their courage (Jamali &
Dirani, 2013). More generally, a reward system is recommended to celebrate those who
maintain ethical behavior (Lennick & Kiel, 2011; Treviño, Weaver, & Reynolds, 2006). To
clearly demonstrate the importance of integrity, organizations can include an assessment of each
organizational member’s ethical behavior in their performance evaluations, which should include
an assessment of the employee’s adherence to the values and ethical standards of the
organization.
Response system. The responses to reports are also critical for encouraging or
discouraging ethics reports. When reported, data should be collected from the reporter and the
appropriate person, such as an ombudsman, should then investigate the situation further.
Depending on the seriousness of the violation, the response could involve counseling, discipline
or firing. Appropriate responses should also be crafted for any person intentionally misreporting
an ethical violation to dissuade this from occurring (D. Collins, 2010).
It might be tempting to think that, in order to maintain a high degree of integrity, a
spiritually mature organization must act swiftly and decisively in identifying and expelling those
who compromise its integrity. However, this would be inconsistent with other spiritual values
and qualities, such as love and grace. It would not be loving to eject the person from the
organization without taking the time to engage with him/her to better understand and perhaps
remediate the behavior (Agrawal, 2013). Removing the violater could also undermine the
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 220

communal love within the organization by creating painful rifts that could harm relations
between those who remain and the organization and those individuals responsible for the
dismissal. It would prevent the person from the opportunity to grow spiritually. Additionally,
Fehr and Gelfand (2012) argue for inculcating the practice of forgiveness into the organizational
culture, where appropriate. This helps in the resolution of conflicts as well as many instances of
wrongdoing. Finally, wisdom requires acknowledgement that behaviors rarely happen in
isolation of the context. As indicated in Chapter 2, many factors affect behavior, some for which
the organization must accept responsibility. The violation could help identify these areas that the
organization needs to address and resolve (cf. D. Collins, 2010). At the same time, it would not
be loving to turn a blind eye to tolerate harmful behavior either. An open-eyed, thoughtful,
loving and balanced response is required.
3. Integrity as Backbone. A strong culture of integrity can be expected to provide a
solid foundation upon which people can stand when faced with temptations or pressures to act in
a way that violates integrity. In order for the organization itself to develop backbone in
consistently adhering to its values when facing such temptations or pressures, this strength of
integrity must be built into the organizational culture. Ultimately, the organizational culture is
established at the top through both action and inaction (Elms & Nicholson, 2013). If employees
do not believe they have the support of the organization, it will be difficult for them to stand firm
in the face of challenges to integrity. As an example of success, in the 1970s a manager in the
manufacturing company Cummins, Inc. was confronted with an ethical dilemma. He had
recently hired an African-American account manager, and a customer told him that he refused to
work with an African-American. The manager responded by saying that they would love to keep
the customer’s business, but “if you are not willing to work with an African American manager,
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 221

then you’re not going to do business with Cummins” (Malloch, 2015, p. 117). What is striking
about this response is that the mid-level manager clearly felt confident that he was fully
supported in this position by the company, which must have been based upon strong and
uncompromising messages to this effect from company leadership. If the company acts with
integrity and backbone, its representatives will be challenged and/or supported in doing so as
well. Weak integrity is no integrity.
The lesson here is that leadership must display impeccable integrity and courage in not
only adhering to but proactively promoting the values of the organization. Unfortunately, it is
unclear whether backbone can be learned or developed, or whether it is inherent. Consequently,
the most effective way for an organization to develop backbone is to elevate into leadership
positions those who demonstrate exemplary integrity, including and perhaps especially those
willing to challenge the organization to examine its own practices. This requires organizations to
overcome the common tendency to promote people based upon the extent to which they support
the status quo, are easy to work with and blend in seamlessly. In some instances, these can be
indications of a problematically underdeveloped character, or a lack of integrity or backbone.
D. Wisdom
While the OSM quality of wisdom is separate and distinct from other qualities, the
practices for increasing wisdom are highly intertwined. In fact, most or all the practices thus far
could be considered wiser than most traditional practices. To avoid redundancy, these practices
will not be reiterated. Instead, the reader is referred to the practices above for improving
wisdom. This section provides additional steps that can be taken to directly increase
organizational wisdom.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 222

1. Sound Judgment. Sound judgement involves both inclusive and informed decision
making. Inclusive decision making can be achieved primarily through the employee
empowerment practices described above. However, an additional important point must be made.
Whether or not empowering practices are adopted, in order to be inclusive, and benefit from the
best thinking of employees, organizations must welcome and not discourage divergent or
dissenting ideas. People cannot be afraid to express their ideas or speak truth to power (Comer
& Vega, 2011) or the result will be status quo thinking and passive obedience. Tourish and
Pinnington (2002) decry what they see as a trend towards corporate cohesion, which they call
“corporate cultism,” which prevents critical dissent that is “a vital ingredient of effective
decision-making” (p. 147). Organizations must therefore create an open and safe culture that
invites people to share their thoughts without fear of negative repercussions (Comer & Vega,
2011). O’Toole and Bennis (2009) even suggest rewarding those who provide alternative, or
contrarian, viewpoints.
In order to increase informed decision making as presented here, it is important that
decision-makers do not rush into decisions, but take the time to consider the broader implications
of each decision and how it relates to the values, vision and mission of the organization, as well
as the established ethical guidelines (Cunha et al., 2016). To achieve this, Benefiel (2008)
suggests developing discernment skills, which involves drawing upon the whole of oneself,
including not only the mind, but also heart and spirit. The intent is to discern illusion from truth
and value from valueless by transcending solely intellectual analysis to tapping into deeper and
more profound sources of knowledge, including feelings, gut reactions and the transcendent.
Importantly, discernment can be practiced both individually and collectively. Collective
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 223

discernment can serve as an important check on individuals’ discernment, especially as people
develop the skills.
Five elements are required for developing discernment: 1) those involved in the decision
must enter into the process with a reflective attitude; 2) patience is required to determine the
deeper nature of the issue; 3) effort must be put into gathering information; 4) once gathered,
decision makers must engage in deep introspection to discern the most beneficial response; 5)
the decision made should be considered tentative and close attention should be paid to the
outcomes to determine whether adjustments are necessary (Benefiel, 2008). This reflective,
introspective approach echoes the importance of mindfulness in decision making stressed by
Nandram and Borden (2011).
Another practice that supports a sound decision making process suggested by this author
based on experience is documentation. While perhaps a simple concept, it is not necessarily
common, and can have profound benefits. Documentation is simply the recording and sharing of
the rationale for decisions. The level of documentation should be consistent with the
significance of the decision, which could range from a few sentences to several pages. The most
immediate benefit is to record the rationale for later reference. It is often surprising how easy it
is for the rationale for decisions to be forgotten. Also, many decisions are made in and by
organizations with little or no explanation. This is the opposite of transparency and breeds
distrust. Documentation creates transparency and challenges potentially negative assumptions
about the reasons behind a decision. Of course, the extent of transparency is directly related to
the dissemination of the documentation. Documentation also demonstrates to those who
provided input that their ideas were considered, even if not used, thus acknowledging their voice
and demonstrating that it was heard. Documentation challenges the decision makers to do their
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 224

due diligence to truly consider all input and present a rationale that is defensible to all parties.
This means they must do their research, consider the issues from all angles and clearly explain
the logic behind the decision. Draft documents can also be helpful in facilitating conversations
on initial or preliminary decisions as another step in gathering input and ensuring informed and
inclusive decision making. Finally, documentation can help mitigate the power of politics to
threaten to drive decisions in directions not supported by data or input or that are inconsistent
with organizational values, vision or mission.
2. Continual Learning. In order to ensure sound decision making, the organization must
incorporate learning deeply into its culture. It must become a learning organization. Much has
been written on this topic as well since its conceptualization by Senge (1990) in his seminal book
The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. In fact, a journal called
The Learning Organization is dedicated to developing this concept. As usual, there is great
debate about the definition of the concept (Santa, 2015), but it is not necessary to delve into the
specifics. The point is that the organization must be able to rapidly absorb, analyze, disseminate
and use information that it collects from virtually any source. It must be able to constantly
increase its institutional knowledge in order to ensure that it is continually doing the best it can to
achieve its mission rather than repeating mistakes or practices known to be less-than-optimal. To
be clear, continual learning differs from continual evolution in that its focus is on the collection
and use of information rather than organizational transformation. Of course, organizational
evolution should be informed by and responsive to learning, but differs in nature.
In addition to striving to be a learning organization in a more general sense, all
organizations need to develop robust learning systems that proactively promote reflection, data
collection, compilation, analysis, dissemination and application. This should include any and all
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 225

aspects of the organization’s work. It should not be cumbersome, but rather integrated into the
daily work, such as through the reflective practices mentioned earlier, but with the addition of
people designated to receive, process and disseminate the information. For large organizations,
this may require designated staff or even entire departments to ensure this is done well.
Learning should include information obtained through reflective practice, from the
inclusion of various voices, from both successful and less-than-successful experience, from
evaluations as well as academic literature - the latter of which is often surprisingly absent in
many organizations given its availability through technology.
In order for true learning to occur, sources of input and feedback must be encouraged.
This is another reason to create a safe environment for dissention. The organization must not
only tolerate but actually celebrate divergent perspectives that challenge and perhaps expand
existing thinking. Organizations can and should be proactive in seeking input. For instance,
managers can be trained to elicit critical perspectives from employees (Tourish & Robson, 2006).
Organizations can also demonstrate that it is a priority by incorporating reflection into routines,
carving out time for staff to reflect and providing a variety of reflective spaces, such as large
group reflections, team supervision, peer coaching and even silence (Laloux, 2014). D. Collins
(2010) suggests that work units conclude each day with a reflection.
Organizations wishing to learn must also promote risk taking and experimentation.
Learning happens when something new is tried and not from doing the same things in the same
way. New actions always entail risk (Helliwell, 2009; Santa, 2015). To encourage innovation
and creativity, organizations must reframe failures by celebrating them as learning opportunities.
While this will help reduce fear of trying something new, the organization must make intentional
efforts to eradicate fear from the workplace, or it too will stifle learning (Helliwell, 2009).
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 226

Organizational learning requires leaders. Learning comes more naturally to some than
others. Those to whom it comes easy should provide support to others. These individuals should
be tasked to lead the development of the learning organization. Learning leaders can be
anywhere within the organization (James, 2003; Senge, 1990). They need to be learners,
teachers, designers (Senge, 1990) and coaches, inspiring others to learn by helping to create a
learning environment and serve as role models (Santa, 2015; Senge, 1990). Organizational
leadership and management must also support learning efforts by promoting its importance
(Farrell, 2000), encouraging everyone to take part, demonstrating openness to new ideas, a sense
of humility and seeking ever evolving awareness of personal biases (Garvin, 2000).
Finally, organizations must have strong performance management processes, which
include steps to measure progress, analyze the results and rapidly disseminate and apply the
learnings from any progress or lack thereof. Best practices as well as recommendations should
be documented as well (D. Collins, 2010). Although performance management is also an entire
field, a few notes are relevant here regarding a spiritually advanced system. Hatry (2006)
recommends that program staff select the indicators, or at least make the initial selection, rather
than evaluators. This can be done through focus groups. Unlike most performance management
systems, this should also track potentially negative impacts of the work that could be expected in
order to determine whether the organization is having unintended negative impacts (Hatry,
2006).
3. Stewardship. The steps to increase stewardship are believed to be sufficiently
addressed through a combination of practices recommended above, including reflective practice,
developing an organizational conscience, virtuous love and purpose for the common good. Only
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 227

one additional suggested practice is recommended here regarding the maximization of the
organization’s human resources.
Humans are complex and often bring a great many skills, talents and potential talents,
many of which are unknown or perhaps not yet developed. However, organizations, especially
large organizations rarely seem to put in the time and effort to discover these and tend to
pigeonhole people into narrow roles based on relative skills and the needs of the organization.
This has several problems from a spiritual vantage point. First, it contributes to fragmentation by
only acknowledging a small part of the person and failing to invite the whole person into the
work. This in turn prevents them from fully utilizing their gifts and achieving their potential.
The work of the organization and, assuming the organization is seeking the public good, the
world suffers as a result.
Therefore, it is suggested that organizations adopt an attitude towards all members that
they are full people with great value and enormous potential. The role of the organization is to
provide opportunities for leadership and the support necessary to grow and develop in the role.
This can be done through empowerment practices. They should also be given grace if they make
mistakes, which as mentioned are an inevitable and necessary part of the learning process. The
roles that result from the self-organized teams described above as well as some of the more
advanced work structures described later prevent pigeonholing by creating fluid and dynamic
work roles that allow people to use and develop different sets of knowledge and skills depending
on the changing needs of the workplace.
To prevent pigeonholing, the Brazilian manufacturing firm Semco encourages its staff to
rotate jobs every three to five years. They also adopt democratic practices in corporate decision
making order to benefit from the wisdom of all staff (Ferguson, 1993). Another approach to
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 228

maximizing human resources and avoiding pigeonholing employees is Holacracy. In this
approach, employees essentially act as free agents lending their knowledge and expertise to aid
in different initiatives in an ever-evolving response to the needs of the organization (B.
Robertson, 2015). This multi-faceted approach is described in more detail in the section on
spiritually-mature management approaches.
E. Continual Evolution
Many of the practices described above will increase the ability of organizations to
continually evolve, most notably reflective practice and continual learning. In their book
describing an analysis of successful organizations entitled Built to Last, Collins and Porras
(2002) identify the continual evolution of organizations as a key element of success and
sustainability. Recognizing that organizations are living systems, they compared their
evolutionary processes to other organisms as described by Charles Darwin. This revealed
commonalities, differences and steps that organizations can take or attributes they can develop in
order to facilitate their evolution. In many cases, these are corroborated by other scholars as
well. Some of these characteristics have already been identified as qualities of spiritually mature
organizations.
Like continual learning, embracing risk taking is perhaps the most important
characteristic of evolutionary organizations. Collins and Porras (2002) provide several examples
from the business sector describing how organizations that embrace risk taking ultimately thrive,
while those that are risk averse and overly controlling will die over time, because they are unable
to keep up with the rapidly changing modern world. This is Darwin’s natural selection applied
to organizations. For example, they tell the parallel stories of 3M and Norton. In the early
1900’s, Norton was much larger and stronger than 3M, but over time, by taking risks on new
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 229

products, 3M hit upon a string of successful inventions that allowed it to not only survive but
thrive, while Norton’s controlling and risk averse approach led to its ultimate demise.
Based on this example, they extracted five lessons for stimulating organizational
evolution. The first is to “give it a try and quick.” Next is to expect mistakes and failure. This is
unavoidable and the cost of trying new things. The only way to learn what will work is often to
learn what will not work. Third is to take small steps with minimal risks rather than massive
investments of financial and human resources on unproven strategies. Fourth is to “give people
they room they need to innovate (Collins & Porras, 2002, p. 183-4). Empowerment, a high
degree of employee autonomy and decentralized decisions are required for evolution (J. C.
Collins & Porras, 2002; Solari & Torre, 2013). Based on observations of natural systems, those
that self-organize are best able to adapt and adjust to new circumstances or in response to new
information (Collins & Porras, 2002; Robertson & Choi, 2011). The final lesson is that
conscious mechanisms must be put in place to foster evolution. Collins and Porras (2002)
learned several things that organizations do that prevent their evolution, such as Chase
Manhattan bank being overly controlled by David Rockefeller to the point that he created a fear
permeated culture in which people were focused on their survival and not upsetting Rockefeller.
This dissuaded them from innovating and risk taking. A similarly controlling and stifling
approach caused computer maker Burroughs and electronics manufacturer Texas Instruments to
struggle.
Since adopting an evolutionary approach such a long time ago, 3M has developed a large
number of specific mechanisms that other organizations could consider when seeking to be
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 230

evolutionary.
15
Only a few are described here. They focus on stimulating innovation and
experimentation. They provide an award for the most successful innovation idea of the year. An
internal honor society was established to honor individuals for outstanding and original
contributions. The company created a dual ladder career track that allows those with technical
expertise to advance in the company without taking on management roles, which would take
them away from using their expertise. 3M also established a 15 percent rule in which people are
encouraged to spend that proportion of their time pursuing their own innovative projects. Pink
(2009) suggests initiating this practice with “training wheels,” such as only 10 percent time and
commit to it for six months. This can provide enough information to determine whether the
practice makes sense for the organization and has greater benefits than costs. Finally, they give
an award for the unit that was most successful in sharing their innovation across the agency
(Collins & Porras, 2002).
Continual evolution also requires that organizations operate as open rather than closed
systems. Open systems have strong and free-flowing, multi-directional communication with
external entities, while closed systems are insular, and therefore cannot evolve, because they lack
the information necessary to be responsive and adaptive. Closed organizations tend to stay the
same while the outside world changes. Furthermore, they see themselves as independent rather
than interdependent (Barrett, 1998), and are thus inherently spiritually immature.

15
Collins and Porras (2002) list 14 specific techniques that 3M alone used, although some apply more to
for-profit organizations than other types.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 231

Based on natural systems, collective assessments of cells in the organization are
suggested, whether individuals or work units (teams, departments, divisions, etc.) (cf. Antonioni,
1996). This greatly advances the learning of the cells, improvement in performance and
ultimately the coevolution of the cells and the system, or organization itself. Some organizations
have developed processes to help facilitate their continual evolution. Perhaps the most
recognized and replicated is the Kaizen approach developed by Toyota, which engages front-line
workers to continually improve the organization by empowering them and tapping into their
knowledge and experience. The intent is to increase efficiency and reduce waste by ceasing
activities that do not add value to the work (Malloch, 2015). This approach demonstrates how
continual evolution can contribute to other OSM qualities. In this case, it is advancing values of
stewardship and spiritually-mature management.
F. Spiritually-mature Leadership and Management Approaches
This is perhaps the most difficult OSM quality for which to provide development
practices due to the extensiveness of the literature on leadership and management. One thing
that can be said about it is that the individuals in leadership roles and the management processes
must support the continual spiritual development of the organization. In other words, they must
reflect or support all the spiritual qualities described in this study, or they will compromise or
hinder its development. In other words, they promote integrity to the values, ethics, vision and
mission of the organization by modeling and reinforcing them throughout the organization, and
by identifying and addressing any perceived gaps. They also encourage and model learning and
promote continual evolution. More generally, they help advance spiritual development on the
individual and organizational levels (M. Fairholm & Gronau, 2015).
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 232

This requires that leadership and the management approaches are rooted in love, which
means putting the well-being of people ahead of the organization (Delbecq, 2008). This is
because all of the OSM qualities are rooted in love and by enacting love, leaders and managers
model and inspire the same in others (Barsade and Gibson 2007; Chartrand and Lakin 2013;
Menges and Kilduff, 2015). Also, a leader centered in love never loses sight of the ultimate
purpose of leadership, which is to benefit others (Delbecq, 2008). In fact, the founder of
Michelin tires reportedly told all his managers that “Your number one task is to love the
employees for whom you are responsible” (Malloch, 2015, p. 27).
1. Spiritually Mature Leadership. While leadership theories and models abound, the
most applicable for our purposes is the spiritual leader. Based on this study, spiritual leaders
invite the whole person into the workplace, helping them grow and develop to their greatest
potential in service to the common good. In fact, Mary Parker Follett argues that the role of
leaders is to help make their followers into leaders (Kellerman, 2010). Spiritually advanced
leaders help build community and wholeness for individuals and the organization (Bowman,
2008) rather than creating division whether intentionally or not (cf. Pittinsky, 2009).
Fry and Kriger (2009) proposed eleven values of spiritual leadership: trust,
forgiveness/acceptance, integrity, honesty, courage, humility, kindness, compassion, patience,
excellence and happiness. Most of these have been addressed in this study or require little
explanation. Values of particular interest to scholars are humility and integrity. Humility is a
required attribute of spiritually mature leaders, because anyone in a leadership role is tempted by
hubris (Delbecq, 2008), which can lead them to place greater value on their own perspectives
than those of people with lesser authority or status. Hubris also challenges the trust that is
necessary for spiritual leaders to allow followers to self-organize and make decisions. Hubris
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 233

can impair self-awareness and individual and organizational learning (Bindlish, Dutt, &
Pardasani, 2012). For these reasons, leader hubris and lack of humility greatly harm the mission
of the unit and entire organization.
Integrity has been called the core of leadership (DePersis & Lewis, 2013). Leaders either
build integrity or tear it down through their actions (Fairholm, 2013). One survey indicates that a
lack of integrity is one of the top reasons managers fail (Longenecker, Neubert, & Fink, 2007),
because it is difficult for someone to take instruction from someone they perceive as dishonest or
unethical (D. Collins, 2010). Another critical trait in leadership is wisdom. Leaders can create
stability in a workplace by not being reactionary or rushing to make a decision, but rather taking
the time to communicate with staff, seek truth and understand the broader implications of the
decision (Cunha et al., 2016). This further supports the general sound decision-making practices
described above.
Because these traits cannot be known with any certainty upon hiring, if not
democratically elected, promotions into leadership roles should be based on the degree to which
people display these characteristics (Barrett, 2006). In other words, to increase the spiritual
maturity of leadership, the first step is to promote or place people into those roles that already
have the desired characteristics rather than seek to develop them in existing leaders. This is
consistent with the practices of China-based Guangzhou EverSunny Trading Company, which
adheres to the Confucian belief that “virtue, not wealth or power, should decide who governs”
(Malloch, 2015, p. 188).
The literature does however indicate that spiritually mature leadership can be developed.
This can be done by encouraging leaders to engage in personal spiritual development centered
around gaining higher levels of consciousness and connection with the transcendent. This does
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 234

not need to be religious in nature, but can be. Non-religious suggestions include meditation,
contemplation (Fry & Kriner, 2007), study, personal retreats, etc. This study points to many
great sources of information on spiritual topics, especially as they relate to organizations and
their leadership role.
The spiritual development of leaders can also benefit greatly from support mechanisms,
such as peer discussion groups and coaches. These supports can help these individuals wrestle
with difficult situations in order to determine a spiritually mature response. In the process, their
leadership and spiritual qualities are developed and the organizational spirit is further evolved by
the collective reflection and learning of its leaders.
2. Spiritually Mature Management. The earlier section on employee empowerment
provides a strong starting place for spiritually mature management. One reason for this is that
the top-down hierarchical structures were “created in and for simpler times” but are largely
failing, because they lack the capacity for rapid response, adaptation and evolution required in
the current information age (Lekanne Deprez, 2016; P. J. Robertson & Choi, 2010). Rather than
coordinate and control, the requisite management approach focuses on coaching, mentoring,
developing (Orth, Wilkinson, & Benfari, 1987), and supporting subordinates to carry out their
work more effectively (Robertson & Choi, 2010).
Due to the failures of the outdated bureaucratic approach, scholars and practitioners are
challenging their assumptions about what is necessary to manage well and completely rethinking
management. In fact, Lekanne Deprez and Tissen (2002) recommend starting at what they call
zero space, which is a complete lack of management altogether. Rather than simply restructuring
organizations, they advocate completely redesigning them (Lekanne Deprez & Tissen, 2011)
This is appropriate and necessary given the many problems with existing organizational structure
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 235

described in Chapter 2. This approach opens the door to new and potentially exciting
organizational and managerial models, many of which combine advances in the physical
sciences, psychology and social psychology with those in modern technology and philosophy.
One example is spatial organization theory, which promotes the consideration of multiple
dimensions, or spaces (e.g. physical, virtual, mental) when configuring organizations in order to
maximize the value of work effort. Because these concepts of space allow greater openness and
freedom, it promotes ever increasing fluidity and flexibility in organizational design than
previous thought. This can result in novel structures, such as the cellular arrangements
mentioned earlier, as well as modular arrangements. Modular arrangements have the following
basic principles. They involve separating the work into largely stand-alone modules, developing
technology interfaces that allow interaction between, outsourcing knowledge tasks that external
contractors can more efficiently accomplish which allows the organization to focus on
connecting and re-combining the separate modules. The main idea is to allow the work to move
forward as rapidly as possible while minimizing the amount of knowledge transfer required
between units (Lekanne Deprez & Tissen, 2011; Lekanne Deprez, 2016).
A final management approach that seeks to incorporate many of OSM values is
Holacracy. this approach was mentioned briefly in the empowerment section as a form of self-
managed teams as well as the section on stewardship. This concept was developed and
trademarked by Brian Robertson and is described in detail in his 2015 book Holacracy: The New
Management System for a Rapidly Changing World. The book is mentioned for two reasons.
First, it is clearly a great source of additional information on the unique approach. Second, it
helps clarify the purpose of the approach, which is to promote continual evolution of the
organization. It also seeks to incorporate other OSM qualities, such as wisdom (through well-
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 236

informed decision making, continual learning and effective stewardship of human resources) and
even strives to represent the quantum leap that is needed in organizational functioning (B. J.
Robertson, 2007)
As with cellular forms of organizing, it is also based on principles found in nature. Due
to its fluid, ever-changing nature, Robertson (2015) admits that it is difficult to describe the
approach in writing and much easier to comprehend by experiencing it first hand. In fact, he
states that it is not a model or structure, but rather a practice. At the risk of oversimplifying, the
approach involves autonomous and self-organizing at every level of the organization- teams,
departments, divisions, etc. Teams define roles with associated authorities and accountabilities
are clearly defined. However, individuals are not assigned to these roles but rather act as free
agents able to accept roles anywhere in the organization. As an example at the online shoe store
Zappos, which utilizes this approach, one employee with expertise in social media participated
on many teams in which he contributed his social media knowledge to enhance their work in
different ways, thereby increasing the effectiveness of communication both internally and
externally. He compares Holacracy to effective sports teams. All members are clear about roles
and the rules of the game and as such are able to work within them to fluidly work together to
achieve their goals in direct response to the every changing dynamics of the game (B. Robertson,
2015).
III. Conclusion
The conceptualization of organizational spiritual maturity has now been fully clarified.
In the previous chapter, it was defined and the qualities were described. In this chapter, OSM
was further clarified by presenting how those qualities manifest in concrete practices. This sets
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 237

the stage for the next and final chapter which presents more complete guidance on the processes
for developing OSM.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 238

Chapter 6: Increasing Organizational Spiritual Maturity (OSM)
This manuscript concludes by providing some practical guidance on how organizations
increase their spiritual maturity. While the previous chapter presented specific practices,
organizations can adopt to be more spiritually mature, this chapter focuses on the processes they
can take. Guidance for developing OSM is the second innovation to practice of this study, with
the first being the concept of OSM itself. It is informed by and brings together all of the
previous information for the purposes of application. Two paths for developing OSM are
provided. Since spirits are the deepest essence of organizations, the spiritual maturation process
likely requires profound transformation. For this reason, the holistic path described here is
highly recommended. However, in recognition that many organizations may not be ready for or
in a place in which they are able to take this ideal path, a more abbreviated targeted path is also
provided. It is worth noting though, that in general, the process for organizations becoming more
spiritual is still in its early stages (Howard, 2002). Several tables are presented that summarize
and synthesize information presented in previous chapters for easy use in this process. The
chapter concludes with limitations of the study, suggestions for further research, and some
closing reflections.
I. Process for Developing OSM
A. Process Overview
The definition of organizational spirituality developed in this study involves the
recognition, or consciousness, of deep interconnectivity and interrelatedness in the world. This
naturally evokes a strong valuing of and respect for the other, whether it be people, society,
communities or the physical planet. Increasing or developing organizational spiritual maturity
must therefore involve increasing this consciousness, sense of connectedness and valuing of the
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 239

other. How does this happen? The processes and activities presented in this manuscript reflect a
fairly holistic approach that seeks to develop OSM both directly and indirectly. It is developed
directly through deep introspection and honest reflection upon the true essence, or spirit of the
organization and indirectly through activities that, when enacted, help to deepen the
understanding of connectedness by experiencing it first-hand. In other words, spiritual change
can occur either before or after spiritually mature actions, either as a cause or result of it, or
perhaps both in a cyclical or spiral manner.
The assertion that spiritual change can happen because of action is based on personal
experiences in the social services and philanthropy as well as experiences in volunteering and
missions work. It is believed that engaging in spiritually mature activities, such as loving and
showing compassion, typically has a profound effect on the people involved. By being in a
position of caring, people recognize that they care and often feel much more connected to the
people they serve than anticipated. It warms and expands their hearts and spirits, often leading to
additional actions of caring, perhaps ones that are even more beneficial, further increasing a
sense of connectivity and unity. In other words, the end result is that the spirit matures as it
ascends to ever higher levels of selflessness and love. Likewise, if organizational consciousness
increases and the organization adopts many of the spiritually advanced practices described here,
they can help develop both the spirit of the organization as well as the spirits of the individuals
involved.
This behavior also has an effect on those who observe the positive behavior, especially
when exhibited by leaders, and they are often inspired to replicate it through normative practices
(Barsade & O’Neill, 2014), behavioral mimicry (Chartrand & Lakin, 2013) and social and
emotional group contagion (Menges & Kilduff, 2015). Because they inspire people to reach for
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 240

ever higher levels of virtuousness, these dynamics of increasing care, love, compassion and
service are self-perpetuating and can create a virtuous cycle within the organization (Acemoglu
& Robinson, 2012). One aim of this study is to influence the creation of these virtuous cycles
within organizations in order to continually develop and mature the collective and co-created
organizational spirit.
Before presenting some proposed steps, it is necessary to provide some general
statements regarding the process of developing organizational spiritual maturity. First, there is
no one right process. Each organization is unique and must determine its own path (Neal, 2013).
For this reason, the steps below should be considered suggestions based on successful
experiences in other organizations and recommendations from experts in the field. Each step is
inherently flexible, allowing for customization. Second, it should be considered an ongoing
rather than one-time process. The entire process should be implemented every few years,
especially when a significant change has occurred, such as a new strategic plan or executive
leadership. Third, if it is not continually monitored, there is the potential of regression.
Maintenance steps are presented to ensure continual progress and prevent regression. Many
organizations go through natural changes that may make them less spiritual. For example, it has
been noted that when small organizations grow, they tend to move from predominantly more
spiritual, person-centered values to less spiritual, organization-centered and controlling policies
(Biberman, 2009). The overall intent is for organizations to continually evolve in their spiritual
development, in recognition that spiritual development is never truly completed because
perfection can never be attained.
The final point is that organizational spiritual development often looks and feels much
like personal transformation (Barrett, 1998). In other words, it is often simultaneously
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 241

challenging, uncomfortable, anxiety-inducing and perhaps even frightening. Biberman (2009)
argues that organizations traverse similar stages as individuals in their spiritual development.
However, the process of organizational spiritual development is still largely theoretical and not
empirically verified. The point is that the process will likely not feel good at times, which will
require that leaders help all members maintain a focus on the big picture and ultimate goals and
benefits of the process in order to see the process through.
B. Determining the Right Path
In recognition that, due to a variety of factors, organizations will be in different places in
terms of their interest and readiness to develop their spiritual maturity, two paths are provided
here. The holistic path is a complete process focused upon organizational transformation. The
targeted path homes in on a singular or small number of spiritual qualities. The holistic path is
highly recommended for all organizations that are ready. However, in many cases a taste of
success achieved on a smaller scale through the targeted path may be necessary to create the
readiness for holistic change. Another benefit of the targeted path is that it does not require
involvement of the entire organization, which allows any group within the organization to adopt
and experiment with spiritually mature practices regardless of whether the organization is ready.
The targeted approach is especially valuable in large organizations, such as public agencies and
multi-national corporations in which holistic change would require a massive undertaking.
However, the spiritual development of subsections of organizations should be considered a
temporary solution as it is likely unsustainable in the long term. Without holistic transformation,
organizational norms and culture can be expected to create tensions that threaten to restrict the
growth and development of subsections. In rare circumstances in which organizations have a
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 242

degree of openness, there is a potential that the organization will be inspired to evolve as a result
of the subsection, but this should not be assumed.
C. The Holistic Path for Developing Organizational Spiritual Maturity (OSM)
The holistic path describes the process recommended for the deeply transformative
development of organizational spiritual maturity. Because real quantum-jump transformation is
often needed to develop OSM, rather than minor iterative improvements to an immature
organizational spirit, the term “organizational transformation” is used here to refer to the goal of
the process with the understanding that the OSM qualities represent the desired ends of this
transformation. The steps for the path presented in this section are adapted from two sources.
The first is Barrett (1998) who proposed twelve steps for building a visionary organization,
which were grouped chronologically into preparation, implementation and maintenance. He
conceptualizes visionary organizations as living entities that are driven by altruistic values, have
high levels of consciousness, seek to serve the common good, and promote creativity, trust,
community and employee ownership of the work. The second source is Neal (2013) who
suggests 13 steps for creating spiritually-advanced, enlightened organizations, which are
described in Chapter 3.
1. Preparation
Step 1: Assess readiness for holistic change. A critical need for organizational
transformation is readiness (Barrett, 1998) or intentionality for authentic growth (cf. Agrawal,
2013; Hendricks & Hendricks, 2003) as reflected in the understanding and support of the board
and the top executive (Laloux, 2014). Without these, a holistic process is likely doomed. If the
top executive is not fully supportive, it will likely be a waste of time. But if the executive is
supportive and the board is not, they will likely clash. The recommendation in these cases is to
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 243

Figure 6-1: The Holistic Path for Organizational Spiritual Maturity (OSM) Development
seek board support individually or wait for unsupportive board members to term out with the
hopes of being replaced by more supportive ones (Laloux, 2014). Barrett (1998) argues that the
keys to readiness are the openness of leadership and the organizational culture to transformation.
To determine this, he developed a Values Audit Instrument that assesses the presence of the
values of trust, integrity, openness, and transparency, which he associates with this type of
openness.
1

Whether the processes described in this chapter are implemented under the auspices of
spiritual development may not matter. What is most important is the motivation for

1
More information can be found at: https://www.valuescentre.com.
Preparation
• Step 1: Assess readiness for holistic change
• Step 2: Determine who will lead transformation process
Implementation
• Step 3: Determine organizational identity and purpose
• Step 4: Institutionalize identity and purpose
• Step 5: Develop OSM qualities
Maintenance
• Step 6: Assess progress
• Step 7: Monitor internal and external environments
• Step 8: Share lessons learned
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 244

implementing them. If the intent is self-interest of the organization, such as increased
productivity or profit, then spiritual development is considered a means to an end rather than a
genuine desire to be a better organization. These instrumental motivations can interfere with or
even inhibit spiritual development, because they can prevent the depth of introspection and level
of commitment to improvement required for true change, some of which may require risks or
sacrifices to achieve the greater good. True change also requires vulnerability, humility (on
individual and organizational levels), grace and willingness to change. It requires time to work
through difficult and uncomfortable issues and a level of openness to feedback that is uncommon
in most organizations, which in turn requires the creation of a safe space that invites people to
share their most uncomfortable or challenging perceptions of the organization. In short, the
process will not work unless there is full commitment to do it right and see it through. If this
does not exist, it will most likely fail or have severely limited benefits. This is analogous to
going to therapy or church. The extent that a person will benefit from those experiences is
directly related to their openness to listening and to changing themselves. It is therefore
suggested that the process not move forward if this prerequisite commitment does not exist and
instead redirect efforts to generate it. Alternatively, the targeted path described below can be
adopted to demonstrate the benefits of pursuing organizational spiritual maturity.
The readiness of other employees who are not in leadership roles can also be an
important consideration. This is certainly true if there have been previous failed or aborted
attempts at organizational transformation. For instance, at my current workplace, we have had
many retreats over the years at which we discussed challenges and made agreements about how
to work differently. However, the new approaches only lasted a few weeks or months after
which we fall back into the same problematic routines. Over time, it has become increasingly
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 245

difficult for employees to trust in the process and in the willingness or ability of the organization
to change. This can create a sense of cynicism and/or despondency that can prevent the
necessary buy-in to the OSM development process. It is therefore recommended that staff be
surveyed regarding their support of and belief in proposed efforts to increase spiritual maturity
and directly address any concerns prior to launching a holistic approach. If a strong resistance or
other negative attitudes are identified, a smaller scale targeted approach addressing a relatively
easy change is recommended in order to give the organization or team a taste of success and
sense of optimism that change can occur and that leadership can and will see the process through
to completion.
Step 2: Determine who will lead transformation process. A team is recommended to
lead the project comprised of champions and supporters of the organizational development (Neal,
2013). This team should also have any spiritual leaders that have organically emerged in the
organization. Recall from the previous two chapters that these spiritual leaders can be at any
level of the organization. Their inclusion has two purposes – in addition to tapping into the
existing spiritual maturity in the organization, it maximizes the credibility of the process.
Conversely, failure to include these individuals risks undermining the perceived validity of the
process and poses a potential barrier to buy-in. Consider how it might feel if a person thought to
be a spiritual authority or leader is left out of the process, which is instead driven by those
considered to be less advanced. Even if they have legitimate hierarchical authority, the
credibility of the process is compromised from the outset.
2. Implementation
Step 3: Determine organizational identity and purpose. One of the most important
activities in the spiritual development of organizations involves deep introspection and
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 246

reflection. The organization’s identity includes its beliefs and values, and its purpose includes its
vision and mission. Some call this step orienting, because it involves the critical examination of
and collective decisions regarding the core elements of what is important to the organization,
what it stands for and/or against and its role in the world (Goodpaster, Maines, & Weimerskirch,
2004). This is essentially an examination and proactive steering of the organizational spirit along
a more spiritually mature path.
Barrett (1998) suggests that this step involves a detailed culture assessment. The
assessment needs to determine the prevailing values of the organization, as well as its level of
consciousness and the alignment between personal values of its members and organizational
values and also between the organizational values and ideal values. His Values Audit Instrument
can be used for this purpose, which also seeks to identify any discrepancies between the
espoused culture and the actual culture of the organization. Neal (2013) also recommends
assessing what she calls “baseline factors” including organizational commitment, trust, turnover,
stress, productivity, quality of work, spiritual values and the spiritual well-being of employees.
Much has been written about the importance of identifying and clarifying organizational
values, in general and to inform the organizational change process. However, many
organizations either have not clarified their values or only poorly articulate them (Ferguson &
Milliman, 2008). Barrett (1998) defines values as “rules for living” and says that “they are
deeply held beliefs that a certain way of being or a certain outcome is preferable to another” (p.
19) In a later publication, he further adds that values are “deeply held principles, ideals, or
beliefs that people hold or adhere to when making decisions” (Barrett, 2009, p. 145). In addition
to guiding decisions, values provide moral guidance and inspire employees by helping them
connect with the organizational vision and purpose. Of course, this assumes that the values are
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 247

well implemented. When they are poorly implemented, this can have a negative impact on
employees and the organization (Ferguson & Milliman, 2008). While individuals express their
values through their behavior, organizations express them through their cultures (Barrett, 2009).
The real values of an organization naturally and inevitably shapes the culture and therefore
cannot be hidden and tend to be quite clear to those within the culture. This is why it is crucial to
conduct a culture assessment to root out any undesirable and often unspoken values. True
spiritual development also requires that spiritually mature values become pervasive and fully
integrated throughout organizations and their cultures (cf. Barrett, 1998). Therefore, hypocrisy
can be viewed as a sign of spiritual immaturity.
Deep reflection requires focus, so it is recommended that a multi-day retreat be held that
includes all of the people who are responsible for and affected by the mission, including the
board, leadership and all employees (Laloux, 2014; Wheatley, 2006). However, this is an ideal
that may not be feasible for every organization, especially those that are very large. In that case,
a phased approach is recommended in which representatives from the various stakeholder groups
develop draft versions that are then presented to all employees for feedback. People are much
more likely to support and buy into purposes that they help craft and may be resistant if handed
to them without an opportunity to provide input.
Broekstra and de Blot (2011) recommend wrestling with the following questions when
determining an organization’s identity and purpose:
 “Why do we exist? What is our reason for being?
 What do we really stand for (rather than what do we purport to stand for)?
 How strong is our organizational spirit?
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 248

 What is our meaning to society?” (Broekstra, 2009 cited in Broekstra & de Blot, 2011, p.
296-7).
They go on to say that while these questions are clearly fundamental in nature, they tend
to be avoided in board rooms, because they may lead to the realization that the true identity and
purpose of the organization are “abysmally out of sync” with those intended by the board
(Broekstra & de Blot, 2011, p. 297). Of course, this is precisely the intent. Recall from the
previous chapter that true purpose cannot be discerned by reading vision or mission statements,
but only through empirical observation of the actions and decisions of an organization. Deep and
honest reflection on these questions ultimately reveals the true essence of the organization and
are therefore “intrinsically spiritual in nature” (Broekstra & de Blot, 2011, p. 297).
The purpose(s) discerned through answering the proposed questions is then used to craft
or refine the vision and mission statements. Johnson (2009) identified the development of these
statements as necessary steps in promoting collective spiritual development with the caveat that
the vision and mission statements must transcend the bottom line and reflect the core values of
the group. If successful, these statements will tap into intrinsic motivations of employees by
inspiring them and bringing more meaning to their work (Ferguson & Milliman, 2008; Johnson,
2009). Because the values, and vision and mission statements are highly definitional in nature,
some organizations may consider these sacrosanct and be hesitant to revise them. However, in
order to maintain the integrity of the organization, these statements must be continually and
honestly revisited to ensure they continue to be accurate. The quality of continual evolution
demands that the organization be continually open to transforming itself in response to the
rapidly developing modern world in which it is situated. Continual deep reflection and self-
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 249

awareness on the organizational level helps to ensure integrity between the true values, intentions
and purposes of the organization and that which it espouses to its employees and society.
Step 4: Institutionalize identity and purpose. Once the values, vision and mission have
been clarified, they need to be integrated into all aspects of the organization (Porter & Norris,
2013), a process called institutionalization. This is the most difficult step, because it requires a
deep understanding of current practices and the changes necessary to align with the values,
vision and mission and must also include ways to measure these changes (Goodpaster et al.,
2004). It would be helpful at this point to develop an implementation plan, which would help
ascertain leadership support of the specific changes sought (Neal, 2013), while also ensuring that
all involved were on the same page. The plan should include goals, objectives, roles, a timeline
and measures that can be monitored to assess progress.
Several additional actions have been recommended to facilitate institutionalization.
Barrett (1998) suggests creating a team, such as a Culture Committee, to specifically focus on
incorporating the identity and purpose into the fabric of the organization. Training programs
need to be created to support the new culture by ensuring that all existing and new employees are
operating from the same understanding (Barrett, 1998). Neal (2013) also suggests identifying a
specific cultural change approach, such as appreciative inquiry
2
or Open Space Technology
3
that

2
Appreciative inquiry focuses on identifying and addressing key issues, finding what works well, why it
works well, and how to learn from and apply the success throughout the organization” (Fry, Vitucci, & Cedillo,
2005).
3
Open Space Technology is a group processing and decision making approach. Owen (2008) provides a
full description of the approach in the form of a User’s Guide.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 250

best fits the organization’s needs and desired culture. In addition to structures, practices and
processes, supporting the development of a new culture requires that spiritual leaders serve as
role models and that everyone is challenged to reflect on their own beliefs and values, especially
whether they support or undermine the desired new culture (Laloux, 2014).
Step 5: Develop OSM qualities. Within this context of holistic organizational
transformation, practices should be adopted to adopt specific OSM qualities. This is the point in
the process at which the targeted path is embedded in the holistic path, because the intent of the
targeted path is to help organizations develop specific OSM qualities. The reader is therefore
referred to the following section for the substeps involved in this process. However, although it
is possible, the development of OSM qualities should not be conducted in a manner that is
isolated or siloed, but rather as a direct outflow of the larger holistic transformation. The
practices can, however, be adopted on a variety of levels, such as work units, and need not be
implemented consistently across the entire agency. In fact, in some cases it may be beneficial to
experiment in adopting some practices, while for others it may be necessary to make a long-term
commitment and have broader-scale implementation in order to be truly effective, such as
establishing integrity.
3. Maintenance.
Organizational change should not be expected right away, but will require time, patience,
persistence and continual engagement (Laloux, 2014; Neal, 2013). As Biberman (2009) says
“Even the most spiritual organization faces challenges to remain on the spiritual path” (p. 117).
Organizational spiritual development requires maintenance (Barrett, 1998) or sustaining
(Goodpaster et al., 2004). Several steps are recommended for this purpose.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 251

Step 6: Assess progress. Perhaps the most apparent action is the monitoring of progress
in accordance with the measures of success and/or implementation plan (Barrett, 1998; Neal,
2013). Ideally, objective measures are available to indicate progress, but in many cases it may
only be possible to obtain subjective measures. The progress, or lack thereof, may indicate mid-
course corrections that need to be made in implementation (Barrett, 1998). The organization also
needs to be open to and may even seek challenges and criticisms from various source internally
or externally, as these may reveal previously unidentified issues that need to be addressed and/or
barriers to progress. As the institutionalization process proceeds, it may be necessary to revisit
the purpose, values, vision or mission to make adjustments or clarifications. Periodic retreats are
suggested as an effective way to take a step back and assess (Biberman, 2009). It is also
important to celebrate any and all progress that is made (Biberman, 2009; Neal, 2013). This
helps generate enthusiasm, hope and momentum to continue to drive the process and keep
everyone in the loop, so to speak. Additionally, organizations can appoint people or units to
provide ongoing feedback on how to support spiritual development and address any challenges
that surface (Biberman, 2009).
Step 7: Monitor internal and external environments. In the rapidly changing modern
world, there may be changes in the internal or external environments that will impact the
espoused values, vision and mission of an organization. For this reason, the organization should
designate people to monitor these environments (Barrett, 1998), ideally the same people who
planned and monitor the organizational transformation, or a subset thereof. The impact of major
events and occurrences should be considered, whether positive or negative. Internally, this may
involve such events as landing a major contract or grant or launching a major program. Negative
occurrences may involve the loss of major sources of funding or sunsetting of major initiatives.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 252

The factors may also be of a more personal nature, such as the death of an employee or other
traumatic event. External factors may include political, economic or societal issues, such as the
economic recession of 2008-09 and the recent Executive Order from President Trump restricting
travel into the country. For instance, that incident may prompt some organizations to take a
stance on the issue, perhaps by revising the list of values or initiating a response to address the
situation in some way. Another area to consider monitoring is the field of organizational spiritual
development. Neal (2013) suggests that organizations join with other organizations either in
formal or informal collaborations to share lessons learned and stay abreast of real-time
developments. Goodpaster et al. (2004) suggest that an important step in sustaining these efforts
is to be intentional about passing on the effort to future leaders as well as larger society. This
creates a mutually reinforcing situation.
Step 8: Share lessons learned. Sharing lessons learned can help solidify the learning.
Otherwise, they may not be clarified for all involved and therefore not actually learned allowing
mistakes to be repeated and successes to go unheeded and unreplicated. This can have other
great benefits, such as informing other units in the organization and ideally helping to inform the
field to increase awareness of OSM and ways in which to successfully develop it. Lessons can
be shared in many ways, but written and disseminated documentation in the form of reports or
articles promises to have the greatest impact as it allows a greater number of people to access the
fullness of the lessons learned and has much greater longevity. This can allow organizations, and
perhaps the larger field of organizational development to build upon the lessons.
D. The Targeted Path for Developing Organizational Spiritual Maturity (OSM)
The process described in this section is intended for the development of specific OSM
qualities. It can be implemented on any scale within the organization, from a work unit, team,
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 253

department, section or division to the entire organization. It is possible for entire organizations
to adopt these steps to develop a smaller set of spiritual qualities either within the context of
holistic change or as a stand-alone endeavor. The targeted path is depicted in Figure 6-2 as a
circular process as it can be enacted repeatedly to address different qualities.
Step 1: Assess the State of Organizational Spiritual Maturity (OSM). The first step
in selecting which OSM qualities to target is to determine the extent to which an organization, or
the targeted subcomponent of the organization, exhibits the OSM qualities. Table 6-1 contains a
matrix, which is designed to be an easy-to-use tool developed for this purpose. It is based
primarily upon indicators of the OSM qualities as described in Chapter 4 rather than the
existence of specific practices in Chapter 5, because the practices adopted can vary greatly.

Figure 6-2: Targeted Path for Development of Organizational Spiritual Maturity (OSM)
Step 1: Assess the State of
Organizational Spiritual
Maturity (OSM)
Step 2: Prioritize
OSM Qualities to
Target
Step 3: Select or
Develop Practices
Step 4: Develop a
Plan
Step 5: Implement,
Monitor, Reflect and
Adjust
Step 6: Share Lessons
Learned
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 254

Table 6-1
OSM Quality Assessment Matrix
Description of OSM qualities exhibited at different levels
OSM Quality Low Medium High
Love
Love is largely
nonexistent in the
organization. The
organization is largely
exploitative and self-
serving.

Love is one factor of
many driving the
actions of the
organization, but is
often superseded by
more self-serving
factors. Some sense of
trust and community
exists.
The organization
consistently exhibits
love through its
actions. A high degree
of trust and strong
sense of community
pervade the
organization.
Purpose for
the Common
Good
The purpose of the
organization is
generally self-serving
as reflected in its
actions, regardless of
its stated purpose.
Organizational actions
demonstrate some
desire for serving the
common good, but it is
not a primary purpose
or is not consistently
the primary drive.
Practices consistently
reflect that serving the
common good is the
primary purpose of the
organization’s
existence.
Integrity
The organization
exhibits poor
alignment between
stated and
demonstrated identity,
values and purpose;
tolerates or even
incentivizes poor
ethics and does not
promote healthy
employee-organization
boundaries.
The organization
exhibits some
alignment between
stated and
demonstrated identity,
values and purpose,
and sends mixed
messages regarding
ethics and takes some
steps to promote
healthy employee-
organization
boundaries.
Organizational actions
strongly align to its
professed identity,
values and purpose. A
strong integrity
management system
exists to support this
alignment and
adherence to high
ethical standards.
Healthy employee-
organization
boundaries are
maintained.

ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 255

Wisdom
The bases for
organizational
decisions are generally
weak – failing to
consider available data
and input from key
stakeholders. Little or
no organizational
learning occurs, and
the organization is
exploitative in its
approach to the natural
world and employees.
The bases for decisions
are moderate –
considering some input
beyond the best
interest of the
organization, but
typically fails to get
input from those
affected and/or
consider data available.
Some learning occurs
and the organization
shows some degree of
concern for its impact
on the natural world
and employees.
The bases for decisions
are strong –
considering the full
impact on the decision
on employees, the
organizational purpose
and larger society.
Strong learning
mechanisms allow for
continual
improvements.
Continual
Evolution
The organization is
strongly resistant to
change.
The organization
exhibits some
flexibility and
responsiveness to
feedback, learned
lessons and the
changing environment.
The organization is
flexible, fluid and able
to quickly respond to
feedback, learned
lessons and the
changing environment.
Spiritually
Mature
leadership
and
management
Organizational leaders
and managers seek to
control information and
restrict the actions of
employees.
Organizational leaders
and managers are
inconsistent in sharing
information, supporting
staff and encouraging
autonomy.
Organizational leaders
and managers create an
open, transparent,
supportive and
empowering
environment.

Although this simple assessment is not intended to be scientifically rigorous, the process
for conducting it is important. It is recommended that an anonymous survey of all organizational
staff be conducted in which they indicate the presence of OSM qualities using the descriptions in
the matrix. For each quality, they can select whether the organization exhibits it at low, medium
or high levels. A simple tally of the scores provides a strong indication of the spiritual state of an
organization. It is also recommended that each organizational member indicate their general role
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 256

in the organization (i.e. executive, manager, professional staff, administrative support, etc.). The
indicators on the matrix are acknowledged to be subjective, but this can provide important
information. The extent of agreement across the various levels of the organization is highly
relevant. Who agrees and disagrees is also important. For example, consider a situation in
which all members indicate there is a high degree of organizational, except the administrative
support staff, who all indicate a low level. This would indicate that there is some reason that
group does not feel loved, which could lead to the revelation of underlying issues that could be
preventing OSM development. The importance of identifying the role of staff is especially
important when assessing leadership and management approaches. It is not uncommon for
managers and subordinates have very different perspectives on the approaches taken.
Step 2: Prioritize OSM Qualities to Target. Two options are available to inform the
decision on which OSM qualities to target. The assessment conducted in step 1 is the first and
perhaps most natural option. A second involves situations in which specific dark side
organizational behaviors (DSOBs) and/or the factors that lead to them have been identified and
the desire is to address them directly. Table 6-2 can help in this determination by indicating the
specific OSM qualities that are related to each of the DSOB factors. The extent to which
organizations exhibit the designated OSM qualities is believed to inversely relate to the
corresponding DSOB factors – i.e. a strong OSM quality helps mitigate or counteract the DSOB
factor. Of course, these are not necessarily one-to-one relations, as spiritual maturity is a
complex concept that simply manifests in the qualities described. Chapter 2 of this manuscript
provides definitions and more information on the DSOB factors.
Although there is no wrong place to start, it is highly recommended that the decision on
which qualities to target is participatory and involves as many people involved in the
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 257

implementation of the solutions as possible. This will increase the potential of having the buy-in
and clarity of purpose necessary for successful implementation.
Table 6-2
Correlation of Organizational Spiritual Maturity (OSM) Quality to Dark Side Organizational
Behavior (DSOB) Factors
DSOB Antecedent/ Factor Organizational Spiritual Maturity Quality that
Addresses DSOB Antecedent/ Factor
Antecedents of Dark Side Organizational Behavior (DSOB)
Organization level antecedents
Organizational narcissism Virtuous love
Purpose for the common good
Wisdom - Stewardship
Growth & profit maximization Virtuous love
Communal love
Purpose for the common good
Wisdom
Dysfunctional organizational culture
Diffusion & fragmentation Integrity of identity
Moral and ethical disengagement Moral integrity
Identity dysfunctions Integrity of identity
Dark side leadership and management
Destructive leadership traits Spiritually mature leadership
Harmful management approach Spiritually mature management approach
Individual level antecedents
Narcissism, impulsivity, hostility Integrity of identity
Need for organizational identity Integrity of identity
Root causes of DSOBs
Instrumentality - DSOB as means to ends Virtuous love
Communal love
Purpose for the common good
Wisdom

ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 258

Threatened egotism Virtuous love
Communal love
Purpose for the common good
Wisdom
Idealism – harm has benefits Virtuous love
Wisdom
Sadism Love
Facilitating Factors of DSOBs
Need for social approvals of DSOBs Communal love
Identity integrity
Compliance/ obedience Identity integrity
Moral inversion – harmful acts are good Moral integrity
Moral disengagement Moral integrity
Diffusion of responsibility and anonymity Moral integrity
Perpetuating Factors of DSOBs
Successive ratification Integrity as morality
Integrity as backbone
Wisdom- informed decision making
Continual evolution
Normalization Wisdom
Continual evolution
Inaction Love
Integrity as backbone

Step 3: Select or Develop Practices. After determining the OSM quality(-ies) to target,
the specific way to develop them must be determined. The previous chapter provided a great
many options of practices that could be adopted, which are summarized in Table 6-3.
Additionally, organizations are encouraged to innovate and build upon these practices in order to
further advance knowledge of how to increase OSM qualities. Once again, readers should refer
to Chapter 5 for more information on these practices.

ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 259

Table 6-3
Possible Actions or Steps to Increase Organizational Spiritual Maturity (OSM)
OSM Quality Possible Actions or Steps to Increase OSM
Overall Spiritual
Maturity
 Establish reflective practice
 Employee empowerment
o Participatory decision making
o Self-organized teams
o Democratic organizations
 Create a safe and open work environment
o Ground rules for a safe environment
o Codes of conduct
Organizational love
Virtuous love  Develop an organizational conscience
o Code of ethics
o Self-Assessment and Improvement Process (SAIP)
 Virtuous love activities
o Minimize harm
 Assess impact on the following areas using the United Nations
Global Compact:
 Human rights
 Labor
 Environment
 Anti-corruption
 Seek to reduce carbon footprint
o Increase benefits
 Contribute to causes
 Encourage volunteering
 Recognize those exhibiting virtuous love
Communal love

 Create the context for community development within organizations
o Buildings and aesthetics
 Decrease the physical signs of status differentiation
 Nature in the workplace
o Invite the whole person to work
 Allow pets in the workplace
 Children on site
 Culture of playfulness
 Demonstrate organizational love
o Internal corporate social responsibility
o Organizational compassion
o Layoff aversion

 Activities to build relationships
o Storytelling
o Workplace rituals – beginnings, endings and celebrations
 Welcoming rituals
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 260

 Layoff rituals
 The Joy Squad
 Failed project celebrations
 Praise meetings
 Morning check-ins
 Day of thanking with story afterwards
 Art salon
 Pajama day
 Silence rituals
o After-hours bonding activities
 Happy hours
 Team sports
 Cooking contests
o Meeting practices
 Moment of silence
 Quick check-ins
 Short reading
 Appreciations (Best Start Metro)
 Story of thanks or congratulations
 Open meetings
 Opening joke
 Ground rule/ ego monitor
 External facilitators
 Formal decision-making processes
 Conflict resolution
o Train all staff in conflict resolution and interpersonal communication
skills (e.g. nonviolent communication)
o Instill processes for routinely identifying and addressing conflicts
o Create a well-developed conflict resolution process
o Create a safe and open space for addressing conflict (see above)
Purpose for the greater
good
 Establish a consistent focus on the company’s purpose- create a culture of
purpose
 Identify organization-specific obligations to society
 Donations (financial and in-kind)
 Employee-led giving board
 Provide job opportunities for nontraditional employees (e.g. those with
disabilities or criminal records)
 Establish organization as a social business
Integrity
General integrity  Institute reflective practice
 Develop an integrity management system
Integrity of identity  Segmenting tactics – to address identity confusion
o Limit work time
o Role clarity exercises
 Integrating tactics – to address over-fragmentation
o [see tactics to invite the whole person into the workplace]
 Dual-function or neutral tactics – to support either of the previous
o Time off work; vacation
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 261

o Support from other staff members
o Spiritual resources to help establish healthy boundaries
Integrity of morality Incorporate ethics into the organizational culture through:
 Code of ethics
 Orientation and ethics training program
 Reporting system
 Reward system
 Human resources practices – recruiting, selection, performance
management
 Response system
Integrity of backbone  Hire those with backbone
 Promote people based on willingness to challenge authority on the basis
of integrity rather than those who are “easy to work with”
 Reward or acknowledge those willing to speak out when they perceive an
integrity conflict
Wisdom
Sound judgment  Encourage, or even reward, divergent thinking
 Create an open and safe culture
 Self-managed teams
 Holacracy
 Methodical decision making
 Develop discernment skills on individual and collective levels, which
requires:
o Reflective attitude
o Patience to understand issue
o Effort placed into collecting data
o Deep introspection and consideration of data
o Tentative decision-making to allow influence of additional
information
 Documentation of decision making process

Continual learning  Seek to become a learning organization by integrating learning into daily
work routines
o Carve out reflection time
o Train managers to elicit critical feedback
o Provide reflective spaces
 Large group reflections
 Team supervision
 Peer coaching
 Silence
 Daily reflection
 Promote risk taking and experimentation
 Performance management systems to track progress and learning
o Allow staff and/or stakeholders directly affected by work to select
performance measures
 Holacracy

ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 262

Stewardship [See practices for virtuous love and purpose for the common good.]
 Provide opportunities for leadership for all staff to show and develop
their potential
 Give staff grace when mistakes are made.
Continual evolution  [See practices for continual learning.]
 Decentralized decision-making
 High degrees of employee autonomy
 Kaizen approach
 Holacracy
Spiritually mature leadership and management
Both leadership and
management
 Rooted in love
 Support the spiritual development of the organization and individuals –
either implicitly or explicitly
 Encourage continual learning
 Promote continual evolution
Spiritually mature
leadership
 Seek individuals for leadership positions with the following traits:
o Trust
o Forgiveness/acceptance
o Integrity
o Honesty
o Kindness
o Compassion
o Patience
o Wisdom
o Excellence
o Happiness
 Encourage continued spiritual development of leaders
o Non-religious activities include:
 Meditation
 Contemplation
 Study
 Personal retreats
 Peer discussions
 Spiritual coaching
Spiritually mature
management
 [See activities for employee empowerment.]
 Develop leaders of all subordinates through:
o Coaching
o Mentoring
 Fluid self-managing structures, such as:
o Cellular structures
o Modular arrangements
o Holacracy

ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 263

Step 4: Develop a Plan. A plan should be developed for implementing each practice
that maximizes its potential for success. At a minimum, the plan should include roles, a timeline
and indicators of success. The matrix in Table 6-1 can serve as a basic way to assess progress,
but other indicators more specific to the practices would also likely be beneficial.
Step 5: Implement, Monitor, Reflect and Adjust. Spiritual development is rarely easy,
as it often and intentionally involves unearthing and challenging deeply-rooted beliefs and
characteristics. This should be anticipated. If efforts to increase OSM run into resistance or
barriers, they should and addressed quickly. The indicators will reveal whether the desired
progress is being made. The reasons for the lack of progress may be obvious or hidden, which is
often the case if employees are resistant. Therefore, reflection in the form of discussions can be
helpful to work through them. Simply identifying the barriers may suffice in resolving them,
but other adjustments or augmentations may be necessary as well to overcome the challenges. It
is necessary to continually monitor the solutions to determine whether they are effective as well.
Step 6: Share Lessons Learned. Sharing lessons learned is equally as important on the
targeted path as it is with the holistic path. Compiling lessons learned from multiple targeted
cycles is also recommended. This can help reveal enlightening commonalities, such as
consistent barriers or important elements for achieving success in the particular organizational
context.
II. Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research
A. Limitations of the Study
This study has a few inherent limitations. No new data were collected for this study and
therefore all of the data used is second generation and not originally collected for the purposes
related to this study. Importantly, this includes the recommended practices. While many were
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 264

intended to increase the spirituality within organizations, few were intended to address the
organizational spirit itself. A second limitation of this study stems from the intangible nature of
organizational spirits. Because they cannot be directly observed, their existence and qualities
cannot be objectively verified. However, this is not expected to in any way diminish the
potential value of considering the role of organizational spirits, which I believe will only
continue to be confirmed and clarified through further investigation. Finally, through the
research process, sources that were strongly rooted in a particular religion were generally
avoided in order to maintain a conceptualization of spirituality that is not tied to any one belief
system, but rather transcends religion. The risk of this approach is that important data and
insights were not considered that might have more generalizable implications beyond adherents
to the source religion.
B. Recommendations for Further Research
This study represents one of the earliest and most extensive writings on the concept of the
organizational spirit. As such, much more needs to be learned and empirically verified about the
nature, dynamics and effects of organizational spirits in order to better understand the role they
play and how to promote their development. While this study involved the compilation of
promising practices for developing OSM, they ultimately need to be tested empirically for their
impact on organizational spirits. This also raises the need for a valid and empirically verified
measurement tool to assess organizational spiritual maturity. It is anticipated that, like individual
humans, at some point it will be possible to describe the basic process of organizational spiritual
development, such as the specific stages that could be expected. It would be interesting to learn
how this process on the organizational level differs and is like that of individuals.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 265

Perhaps the concept of a collective spirit has even broader implications than the
organization and exists in other collections of people, such as faith communities, entire religions
or denominations, ethnic groups, geographic groups of people (neighborhood, town, city, state,
country, etc.), or macro-cultures as suggested by the discussions in Chapter 2 on the maturity of
the dominant Western culture. Further consideration in that direction could lead to verification
and better understanding the nature of these other potential collective spirits as well.
III. Conclusion
The world is one large, living system within which we are all connected and
interdependent in ways we are only starting to understand (cf. Barber, 1996; Capra, 1996).
Organizations are critically important living systems within the system of the whole. The
profound and pervasive impacts of organizations on the larger system and its members have for
the most part been insufficiently considered and often underestimated. The well-being of our
society is closely linked to that of organizations. If we have strong organizations, our society
will be strong, and vice versa (Bell, 2011). Organizations also serve as somewhat of a mirror to
society, reflecting its values. The more self-serving our society is, the more self-serving,
exploitative and harmful our organizations will be. It is therefore unhelpful and unproductive to
demonize organizations as a malicious “other,” but rather as members of society, we should all
recognize the part we play in incentivizing and tolerating any destruction they cause.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 266

The current ways of humanity are socially, environmentally and economically
unsustainable
4
(Brown, 2009; Chestney, 2012; Elgin, 2000; Hartmann, 2004; Hubbard, 2015;
Kendall, 2000; Korten, 2006; Laloux, 2014; Lépineux & Rosé, 2011). Because of their critical
role in facilitating this harm, this study proposes that organizations are perhaps the most effective
intervention targets in which to effectuate societal transformation. Through an evolutionary,
iterative and somewhat cyclical process as described in this study and through its employees and
interactions with external entities, it is believed that organizations and society can establish a
virtuous cycle in which they continually challenge each other to ever higher levels of spiritual
maturity. This is the desire and hope of this study.

4
A sustainable society is “one that satisfies its needs without diminishing the prospects of future
generations” (Capra, 1996, p. 4).
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 267

Re f e r e n c e s
Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and
poverty. New York: Crown Business.
Achbar, M. (Producer), & Achbar, M. and Abbott, J. (Directors). (2003). The corporation.
[Video/DVD] Big Picture Media Corporation.
Ackoff, R. L. (1994). The democratic corporation: A radical prescription for recreating
corporate America and rediscovering success. New York: Oxford University Press.
Adams, G. B., & Balfour, D. L. (2012). The dynamics of administrative evil in organizations. In
C. L. Jurkiewicz (Ed.), Foundations of organizational evil (pp. 16-30). Armonk, NY:
M.E. Sharpe.
Adams, G. B., & Balfour, D. L. (2015). Unmasking administrative evil (4th ed.). Armonk, NY:
M.E. Sharpe.
Agrawal, R. K. (2013). Spiritual integrity: Building blocks for ethics and humanism. In W.
Amann, & A. Stachowicz-Stanusch (Eds.), Integrity in organizations: Building the
foundations for humanistic management (pp. 289-306). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ajmal, M., & Lodhi, S. A. (2015). Exploring organizational consciousness: A critical approach
towards organizational behavior. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences,
9(1), 202-217.
Amann, W., & Stachowicz-Stanusch, A. (2013). Introduction: Why the business world needs
more integrity. In W. Amann, & A. Stachowicz-Stanusch (Eds.), Integrity in
organizations: Building the foundations for humanistic management (pp. 1-16). New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 268

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders: DSM-IVTR (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Amin Mohamed, A., Wisnieski, J., Askar, M., & Syed, I. (2004). Towards a theory of spirituality
in the workplace. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 14(1/2),
102-107.
Anand, V ., Ashforth, B. E., & Joshi, M. (2004). Business as usual: The acceptance and
perpetuation of corruption in organizations. The Academy of Management Executives,
18(2), 39-53.
Antonioni, D. (1996). Designing an effective 360-degree appraisal feedback process.
Organizational Dynamics, 25(2), 24-38.
Argandoña, A. (2011). Beyond contracts: Love in firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(1), 77-
85.
Argandoña, A. (2015). A framework for the analysis of spirituality at work. IESE Business
School Working Paper.
Armstrong, T. D. (1994). Exploring spirituality: The development of the Armstrong measure of
spirituality (AMOS). (Unpublished Masters of Arts). The University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 35(4), 216-224.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14(1), 20-39.
Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V . (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 25, 1-52.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 269

Ashmos, D., & Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(2),
134-145.
Badrinarayanan, V ., & Madhavaram, S. (2008). Workplace spirituality and the selling
organization: A conceptual framework and research propositions. Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 28(4), 421-434.
Baird, K., & Wang, H. (2010). Employee empowerment: Extent of adoption and influential
factors. Personnel Review, 39(5), 574-599.
Bakan, J. (2004). The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. New York: Free
Press.
Balthazard, P. A., Cooke, R. A., & Potter, R. E. (2006). Dysfunctional culture, dysfunctional
organization: Capturing the behavioral norms that form organizational culture and drive
performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(8), 709-732.
Barber, B. (1996). Jihad vs. McWorld. New York: Ballantine Books.
Barrett, R. (2003). Culture and consciousness: Measuring spirituality in the workplace by
mapping values. In R. A. Giacalone, & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace
spirituality & organizational performance (1st ed., pp. 345-366). Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe.
Barrett, R. (1998). Liberating the corporate soul: Building a visionary organization. Boston:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Barrett, R. (2006). Building a values-driven organization: A whole system approach to cultural
transformation. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
Barrett, R. (2009). Liberating the corporate soul: Building a high-performance, values-driven
organization. In J. Marques, S. Dhiman & R. King (Eds.), The workplace and spirituality:
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 270

New perspectives on research and practice (pp. 143-156). Woodstock, VT: Skylight
Paths.
Barsade, S. G., & O’Neill, O. A. (2014). What’s love got to do with it? A longitudinal study of
the culture of companionate love and employee and client outcomes in a long-term care
setting. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(4), 551-598.
Bartunek, J. M., Gordon, J. R., & Weathersby, R. P. (1983). Developing “complicated”
understanding in administrators. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 273-284.
Baumeister, R. F., & V ohs, K. D. (2004). Four roots of evil. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social
psychology of good and evil (pp. 85-101). New York: The Guilford Press.
Behn, R. D. (2001). Rethinking democratic accountability. Washington, D.C.: Brookings
Institution Press.
Bell, M. (2011). Teaching of the elders. In L. Bouckaert, & L. Zsolnai (Eds.), The Palgrave
handbook on spirituality and business (pp. 187-194). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Benefiel, M. (2008). Using discernment to make better business decisions. In G. Flynn (Ed.),
Leadership and business ethics (pp. 31-38). Dublin: Springer.
Biberman, J. (2009). What makes an organization spiritual? applied spirituality in organizational
structure, design, processes, and practices. In J. Marques, S. Dhiman & R. King (Eds.),
The workplace and spirituality: New perspectives on research and practice (pp. 111-118).
Woodstock, VT: Skylight Paths.
Bigelow, G. (2005, Let there be markets: The evangelical roots of economics. Harper's
Magazine, 310, 33-38.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 271

Bindlish, P., Dutt, P., & Pardasani, R. (2012). From growing convergence of spirituality and
leadership towards a unified leadership theory. Spirituality, Leadership and Management,
6(1), 3-22.
Blythe, J. (2014). The philosophy of ethics and the corporate conscience. Social Business, 4(3),
245-253.
Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bouckaert, L., & Zsolnai, L. (2011). Spirituality and business. In L. Bouckaert, & L. Zsolnai
(Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of spirituality and business (pp. 3-10). New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Bowman, T. J. (2008). An ideal type of spiritually informed organizations: A sociological model.
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 5(3), 293-320.
Briskin, A., Erickson, S., Ott, J., & Callanan, T. (2009). The power of collective wisdom: And the
trap of collective folly. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Broekstra, G., & de Blot, P. (2011). Deep leadership and spirit-driven business organizations. In
L. Bouckaert, & L. Zsolnai (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of spirituality and business
(pp. 295-304). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brown, A. D. (1997). Narcissism, identity, and legitimacy. Academy of Management Review,
22(3), 643-686.
Brown, G., & Robinson, S. L. (2007). The dysfunction of territoriality in organizations. In J.
Langan-Fox, C. L. Cooper & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Research companion to the
dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms (pp. 252-267).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 272

Brown, L. (2009). Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to save civilization. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company.
Brown, O., Elkonin, D., & Naicker, S. (2013). The use of religion and spirituality in
psychotherapy: Enablers and barriers. Journal of Religion and Health, 52(4), 1131-1146.
Brown, R. B. (2003). Organizational spirituality: The sceptic's version. Organization, 10(2), 393-
400.
Bryson, J. M., Quick, K., Slotterback Schively, C., & Crosby, B. C. (2013). Designing public
participation processes. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 22-34.
Burke, R. J., & McAteer, T. (2007). Work hours and work addiction: Work now, pay later. In J.
Langan-Fox, C. L. Cooper & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Research companion to the
dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms (pp. 152-167).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and well-being: A conflicting values
perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 348-370.
Bygrave, C., & MacMillan, S. (2008). Spirituality in the workplace: A wake up call from the
American dream. Journal of Workplace Rights, 13(1), 93-112.
Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York:
Anchor Books.
Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The systems view of life: A unifying vision. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Cardador, M. T., & Pratt, M. G. (2006). Identification management and its bases: Bridging
management and marketing perspectives through a focus on affiliation dimensions.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 174-184.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 273

Case, S. S., & Smith, J. G. (2013). The genesis of integrity: Values and virtues illuminated in
judaism, christianity, and islam for workplace behavior. In W. Amann, & A. Stachowicz-
Stanusch (Eds.), Integrity in organizations: Building the foundations for humanistic
management (pp. 307-344). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Catalano, R., Novaco, R. W., & McConnell, W. (2002). Layoffs and violence revisited.
Aggressive Behavior, 28(3), 233-247.
Chartrand, T. L., & Lakin, J. L. (2013). The antecedents and consequences of human behavioral
mimicry. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 285-308.
Chaston, J., & Lips-Wiersma, M. (2015). When spirituality meets hierarchy: Leader spirituality
as a double-edged sword. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 12(2), 111-
128.
Chestney, N. (2012, September 26). 100 million to die by 2030 if world fails to act on climate.
Reuters.
Clegg, S., Kornberger, M., & Pitsis, T. (2011). Managing & organizations: An introduction to
theory & practice (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Cleveland, J. N., Byrne, Z. S., & Cavanagh, T. M. (2015). The future of HR is RH: Respect for
humanity at work. Human Resource Management Review, 25, 146-161.
Cochrane, K. (2004). Learning and spirituality. In L. Zsolnai (Ed.), Spirituality and ethics in
management (1st ed., pp. 107-119). Dordrecht: Springer.
Cohen, A. (2011). Evolutionary enlightenment: A new path to spiritual awakening. New York:
SelectBooks.
Colligan, T. W., & Higgins, E. M. (2006). Workplace stress: Etiology and consequences. Journal
of Workplace Behavioral Health, 21(2), 89-97.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 274

Collins, D. (2010). Designing ethical organizations for spiritual growth and superior
performance: An organization systems approach. Journal of Management, Spirituality
and Religion, 7(2), 95-117.
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (2002). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New
York: HarperCollins.
Collins, M. (2010). Spiritual intelligence: Evolving transpersonal potential toward ecological
actualization for a sustainable future. World Futures, 66(5), 320-334.
Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap...and others don't. New
York: HarperCollins.
Comer, D. R., & Vega, G. (2011). The relationship between the personal ethical threshold and
workplace spirituality. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 8(1), 23-40.
Conger, J. A. (1994). Spirit at work: Discovering the spirituality in leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Cooper, T. L. (2012). The responsible administrator: An approach to ethics for the
administrative role (6th ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Cooper, T. L. (1991). An ethic of citizenship for public administration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Cox, H. (1999, March). The market as god: Living in the new dispensation. The Atlantic
Monthly, 283, 18-23.
Creighton, J. L. (2005). The public participation handbook: Making better decisions through
citizen involvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 275

Crossan, M., Mazutis, D., & Seijts, G. (2013). In search of virtue: The role of virtues, values and
character strengths in ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(4), 567-
581.
Cunha, M. P. E., Rego, A., & D'Oliveira, T. (2006). Organizational spiritualities an ideology-
based typology. Business & Society, 45(2), 211-234.
Cunha, M. P. E., Clegg, S. R., Costa, C., Leite, A. P., Rego, A., Simpson, A. V ., de Sousa, M. O.,
& Sousa, M. (2016). Gemeinschaft in the midst of gesellschaft? Love as an
organizational virtue. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 1-19.
Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of
responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377-383.
de Jager Meezenbroek, E., Garssen, B., van den Berg, M., Van Dierendonck, D., Visser, A., &
Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). Measuring spirituality as a universal human experience: A
review of spirituality questionnaires. Journal of Religion and Health, 51(2), 336-354.
Delaney, C. (2005). The spirituality scale: Development and psychometric testing of a holistic
instrument to assess the human spiritual dimension. Journal of Holistic Nursing: Official
Journal of the American Holistic Nurses' Association, 23(2), 145-67; discussion 168-71.
Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V . (2015). The new public service: Service rather than steering
(4th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Dent, E. B., Higgins, M. E., & Wharff, D. M. (2005). Spirituality and leadership: An empirical
review of definitions, distinctions, and embedded assumptions. The Leadership
Quarterly, 16(5), 625-653.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 276

DePersis, D., & Lewis, A. (2013). Integrity and leadership. In W. Amann, & A. Stachowicz-
Stanusch (Eds.), Integrity in organizations: Building the foundations for humanistic
management (pp. 347-357). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dorr, D. (2008). Alternative business ethics: A challenge for leadership. In G. Flynn (Ed.),
Leadership and business ethics. issues in business ethics. (pp. 211-227). London:
Springer.
Dubbink, W., & Smith, J. (2011). A political account of corporate moral responsibility. Ethical
Theory and Moral Practice, 14(2), 223-246.
Dubnick, M. J. (2000). Spirited dialogue: The case for administrative evil: A critique. Public
Administration Review, 60(5), 464-482.
Duchon, D., & Drake, B. (2009). Organizational narcissism and virtuous behavior. Journal of
Business Ethics, 85(3), 301-308.
Duska, R., & Ragatz, J. A. (2008). How losing soul leads to ethical corruption in business. In G.
Flynn (Ed.), Leadership and business ethics (pp. 151-163). Dublin: Springer.
Edwards, M., Biloslavo, R., Kwaymullina, B., & Kwaymullina, A. (2012). Big picture wisdom:
Metatheorising ancient, scientific and indigenous wisdom perspectives for global
environmental leadership. Spirituality, Leadership and Management, 6(1), 13-32.
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A
definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 207-216.
Elgin, D. (2000). Promise ahead: A vision of hope and action for humanity's future. New York:
Quill.
Eliason, M., & Storrie, D. (2009). Does job loss shorten life? Journal of Human Resources,
44(2), 277-302.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 277

Elkins, D. N., Hedstrom, L. J., Hughes, L. L., Leaf, J. A., & Saunders, C. (1988). Toward a
humanistic-phenomenological spirituality: Definition, description, and measurement.
Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 28(4), 5-18.
Elms, N., & Nicholson, G. (2013). The role of the board of directors in ensuring a culture of
integrity. In W. Amann, & A. Stachowicz-Stanusch (Eds.), Integrity in organizations:
Building the foundations for humanistic management (pp. 526-540). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Ent, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). The four roots of organizational evil. In C. L. Jurkiewicz
(Ed.), Foundations of organizational evil (pp. 203-222). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Fairholm, G. (2013). Leading with integrity. In W. Amann, & A. Stachowicz-Stanusch (Eds.),
Integrity in organizations: Building the foundations for humanistic management (pp. 358-
379). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Farrell, M. A. (2000). Developing a market ‐oriented learning organisation. Australian Journal
of Management, 25(2), 201-222.
Fehr, R., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). The forgiving organization: A multilevel model of forgiveness
at work. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 664-688.
Ferguson, J., & Milliman, J. (2008). Creating effective core organizational values: A spiritual
leadership approach. International Journal of Public Administration, 31(4), 439-459.
Ferguson, M. (1993). The transformation of values and vocation. In M. Ray, & A. Rinzler (Eds.),
The new paradigm in business: Emerging strategies for leadership and organizational
change (pp. 28-35). New York: Perigree.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 278

Ferguson, L. (2009). Working spiritually: Aligning gifts, purpose, and passion. In J. Marques, S.
Dhiman & R. King (Eds.), The workplace and spirituality: New perspectives on research
and practice (pp. 23-33). Woodstock, VT: Skylight Paths.
Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2010). Empowering public sector employees to improve
performance: Does it work? The American Review of Public Administration.
Fock, H., Hui, M. K., Au, K., & Bond, M. H. (2013). Moderation effects of power distance on
the relationship between types of empowerment and employee satisfaction. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(2), 281-298.
Fradette, M., & Michaud, S. (1998). The power of corporate kinetics: Create the self-adapting,
self-renewing, instant-action enterprise. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Frauenheim, E., & Peterson, K. (2016). Here's the secret to how the best employers inspire
workers. Retrieved 2/15/17 from https://www.greatplacetowork.com/articles/630-here-s-
the-secret-to-how-the-best-employers-inspire-workers.
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 693-
727.
Fry, L. W., & Nisiewicz, M. S. (2013). Maximizing the triple bottom line through spiritual
leadership. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Business Books.
Fry, L. W., Vitucci, S., & Cedillo, M. (2005). Spiritual leadership and army transformation:
Theory, measurement, and establishing a baseline. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 835-
862.
Fry, L., & Kriger, M. (2009). Towards a theory of being-centered leadership: Multiple levels of
being as context for effective leadership. Human Relations, 62(11), 1667-1696.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 279

Gaddis, B. H., & Foster, J. L. (2015). Meta-Analysis of dark side personality characteristics and
critical work behaviors among leaders across the globe: Findings and implications for
leadership development and executive coaching. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 64(1), 25-54.
Garsten, C., & Nyqvist, A. (Eds.). (2013). Organisational anthropology: Doing ethnography in
and among complex organisations. London: Pluto Press.
Garvin, D. A. (2000). Learning in action: A guide to putting the learning organization to work.
Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003). Toward a science of workplace spirituality. In R.
A. Giacalone, & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and
organizational performance (pp. 3-28). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Gioia, D. A., & Patvardhan, S. (2012). Identity as process and flow. In M. Schultz, S. Maguire,
A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Constructing identity in and around organizations (pp.
50-62). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Glynn, M. A. (1998). Individuals' need for organizational identification (nOID): Speculations on
individual differences in the propensity to identify. In D. A. Whetten, & P. C. Godfrey
(Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 238-244).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Godwyn, M., & Gittell, J. H. (2012). Organizational culture. In M. Godwyn, & J. H. Gittell
(Eds.), Sociology of organizations: Structures and relationships (pp. 303-310). Los
Angeles: SAGE.
Goldman, A. (2009). Destructive leaders and dysfunctional organizations: A therapeutic
approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 280

Goldsmith, E. (1996). The last word: Family, community, democracy. In J. Mander, & E.
Goldsmith (Eds.), The case against the global economy: And for a turn toward the local
(pp. 501-518). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Goodpaster, K. E., Maines, T. D., & Weimerskirch, A. M. (2004). A Baldrige process for ethics?
Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(2), 243-258.
Goodpaster, K. E. (2011). Corporate conscience. In L. Bouckaert, & L. Zsolnai (Eds.), The
Palgrave handbook of spirituality and business (pp. 342-348). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Grant, S. (2007). Motives and traits as a driver of adaptive and maladaptive managerial styles. In
J. Langan-Fox, C. L. Cooper & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Research companion to the
dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms (pp. 356-379).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Great Place to Work. (2016). Connecting people and purpose: 7 ways high-trust organizations
retain talent. Findings from the 2016 fortune 100 best companies to work for. San
Francisco: Great Place to Work.
Griffin, R. W., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. (2004). An introduction to the dark side. In R. D. Pritchard,
R. W. Griffin & A. O'Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. 1-
19). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Groen, J. (2001). How leaders cultivate spirituality in the workplace: What the research shows.
Adult Learning, 12(3), 20-21.
Grouzet, F. M. E., Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., Dols, J. M. F., Kim, Y ., Lau, Ryan, R.M., Saunders, S.,
Schmuck, P., Sheldon, K. M. (2005). The structure of goal contents across 15 cultures.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 800-816.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 281

Guerreiro Ramos, A. (1981). The new science of organizations: A reconceptualization of the
wealth of nations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Hammond, D. (2002). Exploring the genealogy of systems thinking. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, 19(5), 429.
Harder, J., Robertson, P. J., & Woodward, H. (2004). The spirit of the new workplace: Breathing
life into organizations. Organization Development Journal, 22(2), 79-103.
Harris, M. M. (2004). Alcohol and drug use in the workplace. In R. D. Pritchard, R. W. Griffin &
A. O'Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. 341-372). San
Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Hartmann, T. (2004). The last days of ancient sunlight: The fate of the world and what we can do
before it's too late. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Hatch, M. J. (2011). Organizations: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Hatry, H. P. (2006). Performance measurement: Getting results (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: The
Urban Institute Press.
Hawken, P. (2007). Blessed unrest: How the largest movement in the world came into being and
why no one saw it coming. New York: Penguin.
Hawkins, D. R. (2002). Power vs. force (Revised ed.). Carlsbad, CA: Hay House.
Healey, P. (2006). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies (2nd ed.).
Vancouver, BC: Palgrave Macmillan.
Helliwell, T. (2009). Overcoming fear and building trust: Creating healthy organizations. In J.
Marques, S. Dhiman & R. King (Eds.), The workplace and spirituality: New perspectives
on research and practice (pp. 129-142). Woodstock, VT: SkyLight Paths.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 282

Hendricks, K. T., & Hendricks, C. G. (2003). Operational integrity: The gateway to workplace
harmony and velocity. In R. A. Giacalone, & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of
workplace spirituality & organizational performance (1st ed., pp. 429-446). Armonk,
NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Hoevel, C. (2011). Spiritual meaning of the economic crisis. In L. Bouckaert, & L. Zsolnai
(Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of spirituality and business (pp. 197-203). New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General
Psychology, 9(2), 169-180.
Holthaus, G. (2008). Learning native wisdom: What traditional cultures teach us about
subsistence, sustainability, and spirituality. Lexington, KY: The University Press of
Kentucky.
Hood, R. W.,Jr. (1975). The construction and preliminary validation of a measure of reported
mystical experience. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 17(1), 29-41.
Hossay, P. (2006). Unsustainable: A primer for global environmental and social justice. London:
Zed Books.
Houghton, J. D., Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C., Courtright, S., & Stewart, G. L. (2015). Sharing is
caring: Toward a model of proactive caring through shared leadership. Human Resource
Management Review, 25(3), 313-327.
Howard, S. (2002). A spiritual perspective on learning in the workplace. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 17(3), 230-242.
Hubbard, B. M. (2015). Conscious evolution-revised edition: Awakening the power of our social
potential (Revised ed.). Novato, CA: New World Library.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 283

Hupe, P., & Edwards, A. (2012). The accountability of power: Democracy and governance in
modern times. European Political Science Review, 4(2), 177-194.
Hyland, M. E., Wheeler, P., Kamble, S., & Masters, K. S. (2010). A sense of 'special connection',
self-transcendent values and a common factor for religious and non-religious spirituality.
Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 32(3), 293.
IAP2 (2007). IAP2 spectrum of public participation. Thornton, CO: International Association
for Public Participation.
Ibrahim, S., & Alkire, S. (2007). Agency and empowerment: A proposal for internationally
comparable indicators. Oxford Development Studies, 379-403.
Iltis, A. S. (2001). Organizational ethics and institutional integrity. HEC Forum, 13(4), 317-328.
Integrity. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. Retrieved 2/15/17 from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity.
Jaffee, D. T., & Scott, C. D. (1993). Building a committed workplace: An empowered
organization as a competitive advantage. In M. Ray, & A. Rinzler (Eds.), The new
paradigm in business: Emerging strategies for leadership and organizational change (pp.
139-146). New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons.
Jagd, S. (2009). Empowerment. In C. Wankel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of business in today’s world
(pp. 592). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Jamali, D., & Dirani, A. M. E. (2013). CSR and HRM for workplace integrity: Advancing the
business ethics agenda. In W. Amann, & A. Stachowicz-Stanusch (Eds.), Integrity in
organizations: Building the foundations for humanistic management (pp. 439-453). New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
James, C. R. (2003). Designing learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 32(1), 46-61.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 284

Johnson, C. E. (2009). Spirituality and ethical leadership: Moral persons and moral managers. In
J. Marques, S. Dhiman & R. King (Eds.), The workplace and spirituality: New
perspectives on research and practice (pp. 75-86). Woodstock, VT: Skylight Paths.
Joshi, M., Anand, V ., & Henderson, K. (2007). The role of organizational practices and routines
in facilitating normalized corruption. In J. Langan-Fox, C. L. Cooper & R. J. Klimoski
(Eds.), Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and
symptoms (pp. 235-267). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Judge, T. A., & Lepine, J. A. (2007). The bright and dark sides of personality: Implications for
personnel selection in individual and team contexts. In J. Langan-Fox, C. L. Cooper & R.
J. Klimoski (Eds.), Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace: Management
challenges and symptoms (pp. 332-355). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Jurkiewicz, C. L. (Ed.). (2012). The foundations of organizational evil. Armonk,NY: M.E.
Sharpe.
Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Grossman, D. (2012). Evil at work. In C. L. Jurkiewicz (Ed.), The
foundations of organizational evil (pp. 3-15). Armonk,NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Kaner, S. (2014). Facilitator's guide to participatory decision-making (3rd ed.). San Francisco:
John Wiley & Sons.
Kantor, J., & Streitfeld, D. (2015, Aug 15). Inside Amazon: Wrestling big ideas in a bruising
workplace. The New York Times.
Karakas, F. (2006, Fall). Towards a universal set of values bridging east and west: Global
positive spirituality for world peace. Journal of Globalization for the Common Good, 1-
12.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 285

Kasser, T. (2011). Materialistic value orientation. In L. Bouckaert, & L. Zsolnai (Eds.), The
Palgrave handbook of spirituality and business (pp. 204-211). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Kellerman, B. (2010). Leadership: Essential selections on power, authority, and influence
McGraw Hill Professional.
Kellough, J. E., & Naff, K. C. (2004). Responding to a wake-up call: An examination of federal
agency diversity management programs. Administration & Society, 36(1), 62-90.
Kelly, M. (2014). Guest essay: Living enterprise as the foundation of a generative economy. In F.
Capra, & P. Luisi Luigi (Eds.), The systems view of life: A unifying vision (pp. 402-404).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kendall, H. W. (2000). A distant light: Scientists and public policy. New York: Springer.
Khasawneh, S., Alrjoub, S., & Al Zawahreh, A. (2010). Exploratory and confirmatory factor
analyses of the spirituality in the workplace questionnaire (SWQ): A tool for workforce
development. Journal of Institutional Research South East Asia, 8(1), 70.
Kim, S. (2005). Balancing competing accountability requirements: Challenges in performance
improvement of the nonprofit human services agency. Public Performance &
Management Review, 29(2), 145-163.
Kinjerski, V . (2013). The spirit at work scale: Developing and validating a measure of individual
spirituality at work. In J. Neal (Ed.), Handbook of faith and spirituality in the workplace:
Emerging research and practice (pp. 383-402). New York: Springer.
Koehn, D. (2005). Integrity as a business asset. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 125-136.
Kohlberg, L., & Hersh, R. H. (1977). Moral development: A review of the theory. Theory into
Practice, 16(2), 53-59.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 286

Kolodinsky, R. W., Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2008). Workplace values and
outcomes: Exploring personal, organizational, and interactive workplace spirituality.
Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 465-480.
Korten, D. C. (2010). Agenda for a new economy: From phantom wealth to real wealth (2nd
ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Korten, D. C. (2001). When corporations rule the world (2nd ed.). Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian
Press.
Korten, D. C. (2006). The great turning: From empire to earth community. San Francisco:
Berrett Koehler.
Krasikova, D. V ., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Destructive leadership a theoretical
review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1308-
1338.
Kreiner, G. E. (2007). The struggle of the self: Identity dysfunctions in the contemporary
workplace. In J. Langan-Fox, C. L. Cooper & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Research companion
to the dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms (pp. 75-89).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Krishna, A. (2007). For reducing poverty faster: Target reasons before people. World
Development, 35(11), 1947-1960.
Kubisch, A. C., Auspos, P., Brown, P., Chaskin, R., Fulbright-Anderson, K., & Hamilton, R.
(2002). Voices from the field II: Reflections on comprehensive community change.
Washington DC: The Aspen Institute.
Kyrios, M., Nedeljkovic, M., Moulding, R., & Doron, G. (2004). Problems of employees with
personality disorders: The exemplar of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 287

(OCPD). In M. J. Hatch, & M. Schultz (Eds.), Organizational identity: A reader (pp. 40-
57). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Laloux, F. (2014). Reinventing organizations: A guide to creating organizations inspired by the
next stage of human consciousness. Brussels, Belgium: Nelson Parker.
Langan-Fox, J., Cooper, C. L., & Klimoski, R. J. (2007). Research companion to the
dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms. Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Langan-Fox, J., & Sankey, M. (2007). Tyrants and workplace bullying. In J. Langan-Fox, C. L.
Cooper & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace:
Management challenges and symptoms (pp. 58-74). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Lázár, I. (2011). Spirituality and human ecosystems. In L. Zsolnai (Ed.), Spirituality and ethics in
management (Second ed., pp. 95-105). Dordrecht: Springer.
Lee, S., Lovelace, K. J., & Manz, C. C. (2014). Serving with spirit: An integrative model of
workplace spirituality within service organizations. Journal of Management, Spirituality
& Religion, 11(1), 45-64.
Lekanne Deprez, F. R. (2016). Towards a spatial theory of organizations. (Unpublished PhD).
Nyenrode Business Universiteit, Breukelen, the Netherlands.
Lekanne Deprez, F. R., & Tissen, R. J. (2011). Developing spatial organizations: A design based
research approach (part I). (Nyenrode Research Paper Series No. 11-01). The
Netherlands: Nyenrode Business Universiteit.
Lekanne Deprez, F. R., & Tissen, R. L. (2002). Zero space: Moving beyond organizational limits.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 288

Lennick, D., & Kiel, F. (2011). Moral intelligence 2.0: Enhancing business performance and
leadership success in turbulent times. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Lépineux, F., & Rosé, J. (2011). Multinational companies and the common good. In L.
Bouckaert, & L. Zsolnai (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of spirituality and business (pp.
334-341). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Leukefeld, C. G., & Leukefeld, S. (1999). Primary socialization theory and a
bio/psycho/social/spiritual practice model for substance use. Substance use & misuse,
34(7), 983-991.
Lewicki, R. J., Greenberger, D., & Coyne, E. (2007). 'Dysfunctional' subcultures in
organizations: Threat or a key to enhancing change? In J. Langan-Fox, C. L. Cooper & R.
J. Klimoski (Eds.), Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace: Management
challenges and symptoms (pp. 441-459). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Lindberg, S. I. (2013). Mapping accountability: Core concept and subtypes. International Review
of Administrative Sciences, 79(2), 202-226.
Linstead, S., Maréchal, G., & Griffin, R. W. (2014). Theorizing and researching the dark side of
organization. Organization Studies, 35(2), 165-188.
Lips-Wiersma, M. (2011). Baha'i perspective on business and organization. In L. Bouckaert, &
L. Zsolnai (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of spirituality and business (pp. 179-186).
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Liu, C. H., & Robertson, P. J. (2011). Spirituality in the workplace: Theory and measurement.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 35-50.
Longenecker, C. O., Neubert, M. J., & Fink, L. S. (2007). Causes and consequences of
managerial failure in rapidly changing organizations. Business Horizons, 50(2), 145-155.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 289

Lozano, J. M., & Ribera, R. (2004). A new chance for management—A new challenge for
spirituality. In L. Zsolnai (Ed.), Spirituality and ethics in management (1st ed., pp. 175-
185). Dordrecht: Springer.
Lukensmeyer, C. J., & Torres, L. H. (2006). Public deliberation: A manager's guide to citizen
engagement. IBM Center for the Business of Government.
Maak, T. (2008). Undivided corporate responsibility: Towards a theory of corporate integrity.
Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 353-368.
MacDonald, D. A. (2011). Studying spirituality scientifically: Reflections, considerations,
recommendations. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 8(3), 195-210.
MacKenzie, C. (2014). Uncloaking the dark side of organizational behaviour: Exploring
organizational dysfunction in financial institutions in Ireland, the UK and the US.
(Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland. Retrieved
12/15/17 from http://hdl.handle.net/10344/4248.
MacKenzie, C., Garavan, T. N., & Carbery, R. (2011). Understanding and preventing
dysfunctional behavior in organizations conceptualizing the contribution of human
resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 10(4), 346-380.
Maines, T. D. (2011). Self-assessment and improvement process for organizations. In L.
Bouckaert, & L. Zsolnai (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of spirituality and business (pp.
359-368). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Malloch, T. R. (2015). Practical wisdom in management: Business across spiritual traditions.
Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 290

Mandel, D. R. (2012). On the psychology of evil in interpersonal and corporate contexts. In C. L.
Jurkiewicz (Ed.), Foundations of organizational evil (pp. 87-102). Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe.
Mankiw, N. G. (2009). Essentials of economics (5th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage
Learning.
Marques, J., Dhiman, S., & King, R. (2007). Spirituality in the workplace: What it is, why it
matters, how to make it work for you. Fawnskin, CA: Personhood Press.
Marques, J., Dhiman, S., & King, R. (2009). The S-word revisited: New horizons in workplace
spirituality. In J. Marques, S. Dhiman & R. King (Eds.), The workplace and spirituality:
New perspectives on research and practice (pp. 99-110). Woodstock, VT: Skylight Paths.
Martinez, A. D., Ferris, G. R., Moeller, M., & Harvey, M. (2012). Power in organizations: Good
vs. evil. In C. L. Jurkiewicz (Ed.), Foundations of organizational evil (pp. 105-123).
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Maxwell, T. P. (2003). Integral spirituality, deep science, and ecological awareness. Zygon®,
38(2), 257-276.
Maynard, M. T., Gilson, L. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2012). Empowerment—fad or fab? A multilevel
review of the past two decades of research. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1231-1281.
McAdams, D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2),
100-122.
McCabe, D. (2014). Light in the darkness? managers in the back office of a kafkaesque bank.
Organization Studies, 35(2), 255-278.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 291

McGregor, D. (2012). Theory Y: The integration of individual and organizational goals. In M.
Godwyn, & J. H. Gittell (Eds.), Sociology of organizations: Structures and relationships
(pp. 248-253). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.
McMichael, J. F. (2009). Beyond the bottom line: Spiritual principles for successful
performance. In J. Marques, S. Dhiman & R. King (Eds.), The workplace and
spirituality: New perspectives on research and practice (pp. 157-175). Woodstock, VT:
Skylight Paths.
Meadows, D. H. (2008). In Wright D. (Ed.), Thinking in systems: A primer. White River
Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.
Meadows, D. H., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. (2004). Limits to growth: The 30-year update.
White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Melé, D. (2011). Catholic social teaching. In L. Bouckaert, & L. Zsolnai (Eds.), The Palgrave
handbook of spirituality and business (pp. 118-128) Palgrave Macmillan.
Menges, J. I., & Kilduff, M. (2015). Group emotions: Cutting the gordian knots concerning
terms, levels of analysis, and processes. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 845-928.
Michael, A. E. (2013). Pursuing organizational integrity to create humanistic organizations. In W.
Amann, & A. Stachowicz-Stanusch (Eds.), Integrity in organizations: Building the
foundations for humanistic management (pp. 19-39). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Michaelis, L. (2011). Climate change and spirituality. In L. Bouckaert, & L. Zsolnai (Eds.), The
Palgrave handbook of spirituality and business (pp. 236-244). London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 292

Miles, R. E., Snow, C. S., Mathews, J. A., Miles, G., & Coleman, H. J. (1997). Organizing in the
knowledge age: Anticipating the cellular form. The Academy of Management Executive,
11(4), 7-20.
Milgram, S. (1975). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: HarperCollins.
Miller, J. (2009). Heart at work: Signs of hope. In J. Marques, S. Dhiman & R. King (Eds.), The
workplace and spirituality: New perspectives on research and practice (pp. 189-200).
Woodstock, VT: SkyLight Paths.
Miller, J. G. (1978). Living systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
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 Management, 12(3), 221-233.
Mingers, J. (1997). Systems typologies in the light of autopoiesis: A reconceptualization of
Boulding's hierarchy, and a typology of self-referential systems. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, 14(5), 303-313.
Mirvis, P. H. (1997). Crossroads-“Soul work” in organizations. Organization Science, 8(2), 193-
206.
Mirvis, P., & Googins, B. (2006). Stages of corporate citizenship. California Management
Review, 48(2), 104-126.
Mitroff, I. I., & Denton, E. A. (1999). A spiritual audit of corporate America: A hard look at
spirituality, religion, and values in the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moreno-Riano, G. (2012). Unconsciousness and organizational evil. In C. L. Jurkiewicz (Ed.),
Foundations of organizational evil (pp. 188-202). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 293

Nabatchi, T., & Leighninger, M. (2015). Public participation for 21st century democracy.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Nabatchi, T. (2012). A manager's guide to evaluating citizen participation. Washington DC: IBM
Center for The Business of Government.
Nandram, S., & Borden, M. E. (2011). Mindfulness in business. In L. Bouckaert, & L. Zsolnai
(Eds.), The Palgrave handbook on spirituality and business (pp. 315-323). New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Neal, J. (2013). Creating enlightened organizations: Four gateways to spirit at work. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Neal, J., & Vallejo, M. C. (2008). Family firms as incubators for spirituality in the workplace:
Factors that nurture spiritual businesses. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion,
5(2), 115-159.
Needleman, S. E. (2008, 29 April). The latest office perk: Getting paid to volunteer. The Wall
Street Journal.
Neuman, J. H. (2004). Injustice, stress and aggression in organizations. In R. D. Pritchard, R. W.
Griffin & A. O'Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. 62-
102). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Norberg-Hodge, H. (1996). Shifting direction: From global dependence to local interdependence.
In J. Mander, & E. Goldsmith (Eds.), The case against the global economy: And for a
turn toward the local (pp. 391-406). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
O’Toole, J., & Bennis, W. (2009). What's needed next?: A culture of candor. Harvard Business
Review, 87(6), 54-61.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 294

Oakley, B. (2012). Machiavellians and organizational evil. In C. L. Jurkiewicz (Ed.),
Foundations of organizational evil (pp. 31-76). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Orth, C. D., Wilkinson, H. E., & Benfari, R. C. (1987). The manager's role as coach and mentor.
Organizational Dynamics, 15(4), 66-74.
Oswick, C. (2009). Burgeoning workplace spirituality? A textual analysis of momentum and
directions. Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, 6(1), 15-25.
Owen, H. (2008). Open space technology: A user's guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders,
susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3),
176-194.
Paine, L. S. (1994). Managing for organizational integrity. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 106-
117.
Palmer, P. J. (1994). Leading from within: Out of the shadow, into the light. In J. A. Conger
(Ed.), Spirit at work: Discovering the spirituality in leadership (pp. 19-40). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pavlovich, K., & Doyle Corner, P. (2009). Spiritual organizations and connectedness: The living
nature experience. Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, 6(3), 209-229.
Pearce, C. L., Waldman, D. A., & Csikszentmihaly, M. (2006). Virtuous leadership: A theoretical
model and research agenda. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 3(1-2), 60-
77.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 295

Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace
incivility: No time for “nice”? think again. The Academy of Management Executive,
19(1), 7-18.
Peck, M. S. (1987). The different drum: Community making and peace. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Perrow, C. (1997). Organizing for environmental destruction. Organization & Environment,
10(1), 66-72.
Perryman, A. A., Sikora, D., & Ferris, G. R. (2010). One bad apple: The role of destructive
executives in organizations. In L. L. Neider, & C. A. Schreisheim (Eds.), The "dark" side
of management (pp. 27-48). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Pfeffer, J. (2010). Building sustainable organizations: The human factor. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 24(1), 34-45.
Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York: Penguin.
Pittinsky, T. L. (2009). Crossing the divide: Intergroup leadership in a world of difference.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Porter, T. H., & Norris, S. E. (2013). Workplace spirituality: A best practice toward
organizational integrity. In W. Amann, & A. Stachowicz-Stanusch (Eds.), Integrity in
organizations: Building the foundations for humanistic management (pp. 429-438). New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pratt, M. G. (2012). Rethinking identity construction processes in organizations: Three questions
to consider. In M. Schultz, S. Maguire, A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Constructing
identity in and around organizations (pp. 21-49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 296

Pruzan, P. (2001). The question of organizational consciousness: Can organizations have values,
virtues and visions? Journal of Business Ethics, 29(3), 271-284.
Pruzan, P. (2015). The source of ethical competency: Eastern perspectives provided by a
westerner. In K. J. Ims, & L. J. T. Pedersen (Eds.), Business and the greater good:
Rethinking ethics in an age of crisis (pp. 117-148). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Rate, C. R., & Sternberg, R. J. (2007). When good people do nothing: A failure of courage. In J.
Langan-Fox, C. L. Cooper & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Research companion to the
dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms (pp. 3-21). Cheltenham,
UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Robertson, B. J. (2007). Organization at the leading edge: Introducing holacracy™. Integral
Leadership Review, 7(3), 1-13.
Robertson, B. J. (2015). Holacracy: The new management system for a rapidly changing world.
New York: Henry Holt & Company.
Robertson, P. J., & Choi, T. (2010). Ecological governance: Organizing principles for an
emerging era. Public Administration Review, S89-S99.
Roddick, A. (1991). Body and soul: Profits with principles - the amazing success story of Anita
Roddick and the Body Shop. New York: Crown.
Rose-Ackerman, S., & Palifka, B. J. (2016). Corruption and government: Causes, consequences,
and reform (Second ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rozuel, C. (2014). Calling to the anima mundi: On restoring soul within organizations. Journal
of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 11(2), 123-142.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 297

Sachs, J. (2005). The end of poverty: Economic possibilities for our time (1st ed.). New York,
NY: Penguin Books.
Sánchez-Apellániz, M., Charlo, M. J., & Núñez, M. (2013). Integrity as a core value in
organizations: The development and implementation of a strong ethical culture. In W.
Amann, & A. Stachowicz-Stanusch (Eds.), Integrity in organizations: Building the
foundations for humanistic management (pp. 251-271). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Santa, M. (2015). Learning organisation review – a “good” theory perspective. The Learning
Organization, 22(5), 242-270.
Schabracq, M. J., & Smit, I. E. (2007). Leadership and ethics: The darker side of management. In
J. Langan-Fox, C. L. Cooper & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Research companion to the
dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms (pp. 110-124).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Schwartz, H. S. (2004). Anti-social actions of committed organizational participants: An
existential psychoanalytic perspective. In M. J. Hatch, & M. Schultz (Eds.),
Organizational identity: A reader (pp. 119-133). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures taking a similarities
perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(3), 268-290.
Secretan, L. (2009). Love and truth: The golden rules of leadership. In J. Marques, S. Dhiman &
R. King (Eds.), The workplace and spirituality: New perspectives on research and
practice (pp. 3-7). Woodstock, VT: Skylight Paths.
Selman, V ., Selman, R. C., Selman, J., & Selman, E. (2005). Spiritual intelligence quotient.
College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal, 1(3), 23-30.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 298

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. London:
Random House.
Seybold-Clegg, J. (2007). Toward a theology of work: Spirituality in the corporate world. South
Bend, IN: The Victoria Press.
Shafranske, E. P., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1984). Factors associated with the perception of spirituality
in psychotherapy. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 16(2), 231-241.
Shapiro, D. L., & V on Glinow, M. A. (2007). Why bad leaders stay in good places. In J. Langan-
Fox, C. L. Cooper & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Research companion to the dysfunctional
workplace: Management challenges and symptoms (pp. 90-109). Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Sheep, M. L. (2006). Nurturing the whole person: The ethics of workplace spirituality in a
society of organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(4), 357-375.
Shermer, M. (2008). Don't be evil. Scientific American Mind, 19(1), 58-65.
Sims, D. E., & Salas, E. (2007). When teams fail in organizations: What creates teamwork
breakdowns? In J. Langan-Fox, C. L. Cooper & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Research
companion to the dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms (pp.
302-318). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Skyttner, L. (2005). General systems theory: Problems, perspectives, practice (2nd ed.).
Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.
Solari, L., & Torre, E. D. (2013). From practices to processes: High performance work systems
and integrity. In W. Amann, & A. Stachowicz-Stanusch (Eds.), Integrity in organizations:
Building the foundations for humanistic management (pp. 146-173). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 299

Sosin, L. S. (2008). The cell keys are turning: Spiritual integration in the treatment of Christian
women with anorexia nervosa (Ph.D.). Retrieved 2/15/17 from
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1082&context=doctoral
Schindler's list. Spielberg, S. (Director). (1993).[Motion Picture] Universal Pictures.
Spiller, C., Pio, E., Erakovic, L., & Henare, M. (2011). Wise up: Creating organizational wisdom
through an ethic of kaitiakitanga. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2), 223-235.
Sridhar, B. S., & Camburn, A. (1993). Stages of moral development of corporations. Journal of
Business Ethics, 12(9), 727-739.
Stein, M. (2003). Unbounded irrationality: Risk and organizational narcissism at long term
capital management. Human Relations, 56(5), 523-540.
Stout, L. A. (2012). The shareholder value myth: How putting shareholders first harms investors,
corporations, and the public. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Stout, M. (2005). The sociopath next door: The ruthless versus the rest of us. New York:
Broadway Books.
Sulmasy, D. P. (2002). A biopsychosocial-spiritual model for the care of patients at the end of
life. The Gerontologist, 42(suppl 3), 24-33.
The Worldwatch Institute. (2014). State of the world 2014: Governing for sustainability.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Thompson, M. J. (2011). Spirituality as faith in relation to management. In L. Zsolnai (Ed.),
Spirituality and ethics in management (2nd ed., pp. 163-170). Dordrecht: Springer.
Tourish, D., & Robson, P. (2006). Sensemaking and the distortion of critical upward
communication in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 711-730.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 300

Tourish, D., & Pinnington, A. (2002). Transformational leadership, corporate cultism and the
spirituality paradigm: An unholy trinity in the workplace? Human Relations, 55(2), 147-
172.
Tracy, L. (1989). The living organization: Systems of behavior. New York: Praeger.
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A
review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951-990.
Treviño, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2004). Managing to be ethical: Debunking five business ethics
myths. The Academy of Management Executives, 18(2), 69-81.
Turner, B. S. (1990). Theories of modernity and postmodernity. London: Sage.
Vaill, P. B. (1998). Spirited leading and learning: Process wisdom for a new age. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Vasconcelos, A. F. (2011). Pursuing organizational spirituality: Some lessons from a financial
services corporation. Management & Marketing, 6(3), 365-392.
Vaughan, D. (1999). The dark side of organizations: Mistake, misconduct, and disaster. Annual
Review of Sociology, 25, 271-305.
Vigoda, E. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens and the next
generation of public administration. Public Administration Review, 62, 527-540.
Vince, R., & Mazen, A. (2014). Violent innocence: A contradiction at the heart of leadership.
Organization Studies, 35(2), 189-207.
Werhane, P. H. (2008). Corporate social responsibility, corporate moral responsibility, and
systems thinking: Is there a difference and the difference it makes. In G. Flynn (Ed.),
Leadership and business ethics (pp. 269-289). Dublin: Springer.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 301

Wheatley, M. J. (2005). Finding our way: Leadership for an uncertain time. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.
Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
White, R. D. (1999). Organizational design and ethics: The effects of rigid hierarchy on moral
reasoning. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 2, 431-456.
White, R. D.,Jr. (2003). Drawing the line: Religion and spirituality in the workplace. In R. A.
Giacalone, & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and
organizational performance (pp. 244-256). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Wilber, K. (1998). The marriage of sense and soul: Integrating science and religion. New York:
Random House.
Wilber, K. (2000). A theory of everything: An integral vision for business, politics, science and
spirituality. Boston: Shambhala.
Williams, O. F. (2011). The new role of business in society. In L. Bouckaert, & L. Zsolnai (Eds.),
The Palgrave handbook of spirituality and business (pp. 351-358). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Wilson, I. (2004). The agenda for redefining corporate purpose: Five key executive actions.
Strategy & Leadership, 32(1), 21-26.
Worrall, L., Cooper, C. L., & Mather, K. (2007). Organizational change and its dysfunctional
effect on managers in large organizations. In J. Langan-Fox, C. L. Cooper & R. J.
Klimoski (Eds.), Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace: Management
challenges and symptoms (pp. 402-421). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPIRITUAL MATURITY 302

Yunus, M. (2007). Creating a world without poverty: Social business and the future of
capitalism. New York: Public Affairs.
Yunus, M. (2010). Building social business: The new kind of capitalism that serves humanity's
most pressing needs. New York: Public Affairs.
Zhang, Y ., & Begley, T. M. (2011). Power distance and its moderating impact on empowerment
and team participation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
22(17), 3601-3617.
Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York:
Random House.
Zsolnai, L. (2011). Issues in business ethics: Spirituality and ethics in management (2nd ed.).
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Zwikael, O., & Smyrk, J. (2015). Project governance: Balancing control and trust in dealing with
risk. International Journal of Project Management, 33(4), 852-862.

Asset Metadata

Creator Freer, Adam S. (author)

Core Title Organizational spiritual maturity (OSM)

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development

Degree Program Policy, Planning, and Development

Publication Date 05/30/2017

Defense Date 03/17/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag corporate social responsibility,corporate sustainability,ethics,Integrity,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational analysis,organizational behavior,organizational consciousness,organizational development,organizational spiritual maturity,organizational spirituality,spirit at work

Language English

Advisor Robertson, Peter J. (committee chair), Andrews-Bush, Antoinette A. (committee member), Reyes-Robbins, Ann (committee member)

Creator Email adamfreer@yahoo.com,afreer@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-376369

Unique identifier UC11257669

Identifier etd-FreerAdamS-5340.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-376369 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-FreerAdamS-5340.pdf

Dmrecord 376369

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Freer, Adam S.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Organizations, in the form of government, business, philanthropy, faith-based organizations and nonprofits, are the foundational institutions of modern society. As such, they have profound and pervasive impacts on individuals, communities, societies and the entire world. However, this impact is not always positive. Many efforts have been made to mitigate the harms organizations inflict, but these have been and will continue to largely fail, because they do not address the root of the problem but only symptoms. The true problem is the spiritual immaturity of organizations, which causes organizations to do great harm by exploiting resources and people and destroying life support systems and larger society. A spiritual problem requires a spiritual solution. This study seeks to address the problem by promoting the development of organizational spiritual maturity (OSM). Building upon existing literature, the study first provides a clear definition the concept and identifies six main qualities of OSM: love, purpose for the common good, wisdom, integrity, continual evolution and spiritually mature leadership and management approach. The study concludes with guidance on how organizations can improve their spiritual maturity, including processes and specific practices that can be adopted.