Keywords

Virtue Ethics and Spirituality

Western ethical theories emphasize third-person frameworks (e.g., consequentialism and deontology) for agents to follow and apply (Zsolnai 2010). Virtue ethics differs from other normative frameworks in asking the question “who should I be?” or “what kind of life should I live?” as opposed to “what should I do?” Its focus is on being the right sort of person rather than doing the right thing (Annas 2006). Thus, virtue ethics is about developing a good moral identity by learning and practicing the virtues. Acting this way will lead to a “good life.” This does not imply pleasure-seeking, but rather a life characterized by inner development and the pursuit of moral excellence. This pursuit is not isolated from, but rather occurs interdependently with, an individual’s identity, purpose in life, and community.

Such a person strives for the virtues, which are worth realizing in themselves, and which we need to live well in community. The virtues are character traits that enable us to live good lives. As one habitually practices the virtues, one develops a virtuous character (McKinnon 1999). Character is a state of being, developed over time, whereby an individual acts consistently virtuous such that people can expect the exercise of the virtues in all circumstances (e.g., a courageous person acts courageously all the time).

The outcome of developing a virtuous character is eudaimonia or “the good life.” Achieving this end makes the practice of the virtues worthwhile (i.e., they are their own reward). Thus, virtue ethics not only tells us how to act but also provides the motivation to do so (Annas 1993). If an individual wants to practice the virtues well, they need to develop the intellectual virtue of phronesis (or practical wisdom). Phronesis helps us to know why, when, and how to be virtuous in any given situation. It helps us make good choices and to understand the impact of those choices on our moral identity (i.e., Are they making us morally excellent? Are they contributing to a good life?) (Moore 2008).

Moral identity is the point where spirituality can enter the picture. Aquino and Reed (2002) define “moral identity is one’s self-concept organized around a set of moral traits (i.e., virtues) such as compassion, fairness, generosity, and honesty” that “acts as a kind of self-regulatory mechanism that motivates moral action” (p. 1423). Because these traits are central to one’s identity (what Aquino and Reed call “internalization”), they define who one is and encourage tendencies toward consistent behavior (what Aquino and Reed call “symbolization”). Although individuals may have similar moral beliefs, they may have different understandings of how central morality is to their identity. Consequently, the stronger the moral identity, the more likely virtuous behavior will occur (Vitell et al. 2009).

Spirituality, states Spohn (1997), connects with certain virtues, which are the defining elements of character, and together, they make identity a central concern. Feasibly, individuals adopt a certain understanding of spirituality as part of their moral identity. This motivates and guides them to act in ways consistent with their spirituality. Doing this reinforces identity and its attendant behaviors such that similar outcomes are more likely in the future. As Emmons (2000) argues, such persons have the ability to be virtuous “on a consistent basis: to show forgiveness, to express gratitude, to exhibit humility, to be compassionate, and to display sacrificial love” (p. 12). While it is possible anything could be construed as “spiritual” (e.g., taking a bath), an authentic spirituality is characterized as being true to one’s values; being other-, as opposed to self-focused; and being ethical consistently (McGhee and Grant 2017b; Zsolnai 2010). Such an understanding ensures certain values are actioned more than others. For example, the literature, while extensive, stresses qualities such as compassion, justice, humility, self-control, courage, and wisdom (Gotsis and Kortezi 2008; Hackett and Wang 2012; Reave 2005) as common to a genuine spirituality.

Understanding the connection of spiritual and virtuous individuals depends upon understanding moral values. Virtuous people are guided by moral values (or virtues) – a value that contributes to the moral perfection of human beings (Mele 2005). Such values are things worth pursuing because they make us more human (Guardini 1999). An authentic spirituality has a similar telos (Williams 1997). Spiritual people are not driven by ego, but rather by the good of others (Cavanagh and Bandsuch 2002; Mitroff and Denton 1999). Thus, spirituality is also about becoming more human not less. Therefore, genuinely spiritual persons are more inclined to exercise moral values (or spiritual virtues) that contribute to both individual and communal flourishing. In their article, Guillén et al. (2015) explain the motivations behind such actions further. First, these individuals are open to and receive spiritual truth, grace, and goodness from the outside ( spiritual extrinsic motivation ). These form the basis of a particular spiritual disposition. Second, such persons acquire spiritual good through human actions ( spiritual intrinsic motivation ). Their goal is to develop a spiritual identity and achieve spiritual flourishing. Finally, they provide spiritual good to others ( spiritual transitive motivation ). This impulse moves from a self-view by enabling them “to transcend the individual domain and consider the impact their actions have on others” (p. 808).

If spirituality and its practices inculcate virtues, and these influence how we perceive the world – what we pay attention to and how we pay attention to it – and ultimately guide our actions, then if we wish to be more ethical, we should develop our spiritual identity with its attendant virtues (Dyck 2017; Spohn 1997; Vitell et al. 2009). Several authors, for example, contend that spirituality enhances virtues that challenge the technocratic rational thinking that permeates our lives (Bouckaert and Zsolnai 2012), as well as combating the rampart materialism and individualism so prevalent in market societies (Calás and Smircich 2003; Dyck and Weber 2006; Kasser 2011). The potency of self-interest in such reasoning incentivizes individuals to view themselves as separate from society, an entity that seeks to maximize utility at all costs. Authentic spirituality counters this by structuring value choices around what constitutes a good life and a successful community, of which organizations are an essential part (Mele and Sison 1993; Solomon 1992).

Managers should understand that a person’s spiritual identity will thrive under certain conditions. These include: opportunities to practice being spiritual, resources for doing so, a focus on ends that give meaning to identity and action, and embeddedness in a community directed toward those ends (Weaver 2016). Thus, managers have a responsibility to set up their organizations and to influence wider macrocultural settings, in ways that ensure that such development happens.

Virtue Ethics and Workplace Spirituality

The workplace spirituality (WS hereafter) literature posits that all individuals are spiritual, or have the capacity to be spiritual (Garcia-Zamar 2003; Karakas 2010; Li 2012; Steingard 2005), and thus, all individuals bring that capacity into their workplace (Fagley and Adler 2012; Sheep 2006). The same literature is replete with definitions of WS. Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2003a), for example, provide multiple definitions, while Karakas (2010) notes that 70 plus definitions of WS exist. Although there is no universally accepted definition (Ashforth and Pratt 2003), there is a growing consensus that WS consists of broad four dimensions: connection with others (including an Ultimate Other), transcendence, meaningful work, and inner awareness (or mindfulness) (McGhee and Grant 2017b; Petchsawang and Duchon 2012). Despite this complexity, WS can be described simply as “the lived experiences and expressions of one’s spirituality in the context of the work” (Sheep 2006, p. 358). There is also consensus that WS contributes to a number of organizational outcomes positively (Kutcher et al. 2010). What is less clear is how WS might contribute to better ethical outcomes in organizations. Interestingly, several authors have called for increased integration and research between spirituality and organizational ethics (Cavanagh 1999; Garcia-Zamar 2003; Giacalone and Jurkiewicz 2003b).

From a virtue ethics perspective, business and organizational activities are vital. The economic needs of humanity, which are necessary for flourishing, are best served by business (Moore 2008; Solomon 1992). Moreover, as a social practice, business shares similar goals, values, and concerns as the wider community of which it is part. Consequently, organizations should develop strategies that enable this wider goal. It is this chapter’s contention that virtue is a constructive foundation for understanding and positively enacting WS in organizations to help achieve these ends. Indeed, several authors have advocated such an approach. What follows is a summary of their views and how they might be utilized to transmute the dominant schemas of organizations, which often promote technocratic control and egocentrism, to be more spiritual and, thus, ethical (Gull and Doh 2004).

Cavanagh and Bandsuch (2002) argue that only a spirituality that stimulates and supports the development of good moral habits (i.e., virtues) is appropriate in an organization. Other types of spiritualities (e.g., that of Klu Klux Klan) fail the virtue test in that they are not directed toward the good of others. This understanding also limits management’s ability to appropriate spirituality for instrumental ends alone (Lips-Wiersma et al. 2009). Because an authentic spirituality encourages the development of spiritual virtues, ingrained habitually within a person’s identity, it is less likely that such persons will sacrifice that identity (i.e., who they are) for organizational goals that conflict with it. Based on these premises, Cavanaugh and Bandsuch’s requirement allows managers to determine what type of spirituality is beneficial in the long run for their organization and, thus, should be encouraged as part of training and developing their human resources (i.e., a spirituality that is other-oriented).

Noting the complicated, and poorly conceptualized, relationship between spirituality and ethics in literature, Gotsis and Kortezi (2008) also contend a person’s spiritual identity “will be the determinant factor in that person’s understanding and interpretation of ethical behaviour” (p. 587) in the workplace. Gull and Doh (2004) agree, noting that a transmutation of the workplace built on an authentic spirituality should inhibit the development of employees dedicated to the quest for narrow self-interest.

Realistically, all organizations are concerned with efficiency and performance. To ignore what Moore (2005) labels external goods (e.g., profit), to focus on internal goods (e.g., virtues) alone would be terminal for most organizations. However, as Gotsis and Kortezi argue, enhancing spirituality in the workplace allows “issues of instrumentality to undergo a substantial transformation” (p. 591) such that both internal and external goods become equally important – one flowing from the other. Indeed, an organization focused on external goods alone is unlikely to encourage or embrace spiritual values. Such an approach tends to view morality in utilitarian terms (i.e., maximizing individual preferences) and is mostly hedonistic, as opposed to eudaimonistic (Van Dierendonck and Mohan 2006). The emphasis is on subjective values that are good for us, not objective moral values that are good for others. Take, for example, the moral value of benevolence that promotes the happiness and prosperity of others (Jurkiewicz and Giacalone 2004). Within a utilitarian framework, such prosperity is viewed from an individual, as opposed to relational, perspective. This is because utilitarianism  stresses “impersonal economic interactions that reflect a person’s distance from others, as well as from one’s inner nature” (Gotsis and Kortezi 2008, p. 592). As such it does not meet the minimum requirements of both virtue ethics and WS. Obviously, work is not just about maximizing individual preferences; rather it is a community in which people seek self-worth, meaning, and relationships with others in ways that develop their whole self in terms of what constitutes a flourishing life. In this setting, “ethical and spiritual well-being arises in a context of interacting societal actors, who place primary emphasis on relational concerns and intrinsic motivation” (p. 593). For Gotsis and Kortezi, the key to enhancing such well-being in organizations is through character education.

An example of how WS might inform virtuous action in organizations comes from recent work by McGhee and Grant (2017b). This critical realist study interviewed 31 highly spiritual people to understand why and how spirituality influenced ethical behavior in service organizations. Participants disclosed 80 organizational stories in which they were confronted by an ethical dilemma, explained how they dealt with that dilemma, and discussed the consequences of their actions, in relationship to their spirituality. Thematic analysis of the interviews resulted in four global themes: Being Other-oriented, Being Guided, Being Authentic, and Being Well.

Reflection upon these themes found that spiritual individuals brought an inherent other-orientation to their workplace that considered the wider and long-term interests of stakeholders, including the organization itself. This other-orientation provided individuals in the study with a guiding framework on how to act ethically at work via spiritual principles (e.g., do unto others) and spiritual virtues (e.g., justice, caring, selflessness, respect). In this way, spirituality was revealed as a sense-making mechanism (Lips-Wiersma 2001; Weick 1995) used to frame and resolve ethical dilemmas. Participants were intrinsically motivated to act this way because of a desire to be true to their spiritual identity. As Howard and Welbourn (2004) put it, if we want to be authentic “we must first truly know what is most important to us, and then choose to speak this aloud and make it real in the outer world” (p. 49). Such authenticity provides a regulative function (Oakley and Cocking 2001). In organizations where authentic spirituality was enacted, participants reported heightened feelings of well-being. In organizations where they were unable to exercise their spirituality fully, participants reported negative feelings. While this process appears linear, the reality is that all of these themes (Being Other-oriented, Being Guided, Being Authentic, and Being Well) were in-play when participants tackled these dilemmas. The four facets of a lived spirituality formed an interlocking dispositional web that enabled individuals to enact their spirituality in moral ways. As they did this, they strengthened their spiritual identity such that repetitive behaviors would occur.

Unfortunately, the realities of organizational life ensured participants faced powerful counter forces to their spiritual identity. This was not unexpected since most organizations operate within a free market system that is underpinned by certain values, norms, and assumptions (Dierksmeier 2012; Ghoshal 2005; Lips-Wiersma and Nilakant 2008). These, in turn, encourage organizational structures and processes that imitate this dominant system and work for its ends (Giacalone 2004). Sadly, this can foster unethical conduct (Anand et al. 2004; Bakan 2004; Buchanan 1996; McKenna and Tsahuridu 2001). As Schwartz contends, “organisations cannot be the bastions of benign community oriented ethical reasoning we wish them to be because of the demands and requirements of the market” (cited in Gini 2011, p. 9). Such a paradigm imposes a survival of the fittest requirement that in turn ensures that to get ahead all must conform. It would not be in these participants’ interests to do otherwise.

Remarkably, the majority of participants transcended these limitations in order to be true to their spirituality. Similar to managers in Rozuel and Kakabadse’s (2010) study, they behaved with “greater awareness of the other’s humanity while enacting their values and principles” (p. 426). Being spiritual meant resisting social conformity and taking personal responsibility for their actions. Such individuals did not allow themselves to become compartmentalized; they understood what being virtuous meant and the impact of their actions on themselves and others. As Emmons (1999) writes, participants had “a way of being and experiencing…that is characterized by certain identifiable [moral] values in regard to self, others and nature” (p. 165). Consequently, they were able to revise and reprioritize situations in a manner reflective of this spiritual disposition and its telos.

What might be the benefits of such persons for an organization? In this study, there were two significant advantages. The first involved participants going beyond hedonistic goals toward more eudaimonistic ends (Paloutzian et al. 2003; Van Dierendonck and Mohan 2006). Their spirituality provided a reason for working and helped them understand the necessity of their actions and the positive difference they made in the world. This ensured more holistic thought processes, a deeper appreciation of stakeholders, and, ultimately, enhanced decision-making ability. Such a shift contributes positively to organizational culture since “spirituality is experienced by employees as a personal connection to the content and process of work, and to the stakeholders impacted by it, in a manner which extends beyond the limitations of self-interest” (Jurkiewicz and Giacalone 2004, p. 129).

As discussed earlier, spiritual persons are other-oriented. As such, they strive to connect with others and build positive relationships. A consequence of this, is the freedom to speak into another person’s life either by word or by deed. In this study, participants saw themselves as spiritual role models setting standards, providing examples, and influencing others (Bandura 2003). There is a long history of role modelling in virtue ethics (Annas 2006), and there is evidence that role models influence the ethical behavior of others. For example, Weaver et al. (2005) found that ethical role models practice constant moral action, have high moral expectations of the self, and articulate ethical standards to those around them on a consistent basis. There were obvious resemblances to the participants in the McGhee and Grant (2017b) study. They built relationships and demonstrated selflessness, compassion, and fairness throughout their stories while holding themselves to higher values in their desire to be spiritual. Most importantly, they articulated high ethical standards, which they sourced in their spirituality, to others. They were good moral exemplars often putting their spirituality above “personal or company interests” and taking “a long-term, bigger picture multiple stakeholders approach” (Weaver et al. 2005, p. 316).

Implications for Organizations

From a decision-making perspective, it seems self-evident that individuals motivated by spiritual virtues such as compassion, selflessness, and fairness will act differently than individuals who are motivated by control, achievement, or pleasure (Crossan et al. 2013; Fernando and Jackson 2006). Such actions are likely to improve the overall ethicality of the organization as they influence others around them (Jurkiewicz and Giacalone 2004). The nature of spirituality ensures virtues are practiced such that they become habitual (Cavanagh and Bandsuch 2002; Gotsis and Kortezi 2008; Spohn 1997) and, therefore, consistently “unfolded” or integrated into work life. While issues of instrumentality will always exist in organizational contexts, substantial transformation can occur if individuals consciously enact their spiritual virtues. Indeed, given the inherent relationality of spirituality and virtue ethics, one could argue that workplaces as social practices with shared goals, and in which individuals spend most of their time, are essential for executing and reinforcing these.

The literature also suggests that enacting one’s spiritual virtues can lead to improved quality of work life and higher levels of well-being (Lee et al. 2003; Van Dierendonck and Mohan 2006) even in adverse situations such as job dissatisfaction, stress, and workplace bullying (Arnetz et al. 2013; Tejeda 2015). Again, this is not unexpected given the telos of both spirituality and virtue ethics is human flourishing. The more individuals enact their spiritual virtues in the workplace, the more likely they will contribute to their own eudemonia and to the common good of others (Arjoon et al. 2015; Fave et al. 2013). The key question for organizations is how can they encourage spirituality at work.

Morley (2007) contends that individuals are attracted to organizations on the basis of perceived organizational values fit , that is, people want to work where there are similar characteristics and values to their own. Achieving a good person-organization fit correlates with positive work outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors (Hoffman and Woehr 2006; Kristof-Brown et al. 2005). To attract spiritual individuals, and enhance spiritual outcomes, organizations must enable spirituality. This can be achieved if they organize themselves around spiritual values and goals (Vallabh and Singhal 2014). For example, they could aim at, and prioritize, higher goods such as human well-being, the communal good, and sustainability, as well as material ends. These goals could be communicated via value statements, codes of behavior, organizational histories, marketing promotions, and more. Such ends align well with the telos of spirituality and are more attractive to those who practice spiritual virtues. This is vital since, as Sheep (2006) notes, any attitudinal and behavioral changes brought about in the workplace are more likely to be a reflection of individual spiritual preferences as opposed to managerial design. This clearly resonates with the unfolding notion discussed above. Vallabh and Singhal (2014) concur, suggesting organizations that align their policies and procedures with spiritual values and goals are more likely “to attract employees who seek spiritual growth through work but also to develop their inner spiritual potential” (p. 200).

The other-orientation of an authentic spirituality , ensures people are treated as ends worthy of dignity and unconditional respect, not simply as a means to bolster the bottom line. Organizations should develop cultures that reflect and encourage this. For example, “job enrichment, intrapreneurship, profit sharing, decentralisation, and employee participation are some means toward the end of making the being of workers count in what is best understood as a community of persons” (Grassl 2017, p. 904). Moreover, organizations that allow people to express their spirituality openly and freely, and where positive feedback is provided, should inspire actions that positively reinforce treating others as ends (Karakas 2010; Lee et al. 2014). Matching this with structures that are more democratic, where change comes from the bottom up as opposed to the top down, will contribute to this process (Vallabh and Singhal 2014).

The assumption that all people can be spiritual means training and development programs targeting growth can be implemented. For example, Emmons (1999) has suggested that learning to see work within a higher meaning, using spiritual resources like prayer and meditation to solve work problems, and developing spiritual sense-making tools to enhance decision-making are all valid approaches to enhance WS. When it comes to enhancing the spiritual virtues specifically, Dyck and Wong (2010) have developed a framework that uses “spiritual resources to assist in the responsible enabling of virtues and virtuous behaviors in organizational settings” (p. 8). To do this, they draw on spiritual disciplines and “demonstrate how they may complement and advance efforts at understanding and developing virtuous organisations” (p. 9). They note that the spiritual disciplines influence two areas identified by theorists as essential for developing the spiritual virtues, “the excellence of the community (or organization) one is part of” and “the habitual actions that reinforce the character of the agent” (p. 9).

Spiritual disciplines are “practices that sensitize and habituate the virtues of community members towards good ends” (p. 11). They are a “method” that develops character and helps individuals break free from ingrained vices. Dyck and Wong note the negative connotations associated with the words “spiritual discipline” but argue that they contribute to eudaimonia and should be understood as a form of training. Drawing on the work of Foster (1978), Dyck and Wong characterize four corporate spiritual disciplines: confession, worship, guidance, and celebration. The order in which these disciplines are presented is important. Confession encourages worship, which ensures guidance and, ultimately, effects celebration. Together, Dyck and Wong argue that such ordered disciplines constitute a “virtuous cycle” that develops organizational virtuousness over time.

The first discipline, confession , is about exhibiting humility and mutual acceptance. At its core, confession understands “our own shortcomings, which in turn results in us not looking down on other’s failures” and “delivers us from conveying an attitude of superiority” (Dyck and Wong 2010, p. 15). It also includes recognizing injustices in the organization that we may help to sustain. In short, confession focusses on the other. Such discipline is necessary for building healthy organizational communities.

The second discipline, worship , involves recognizing the goodness in others and facilitating shared listening. It is about seeing people as ends in themselves rather than objects for organizational use. Indeed, a central idea in worship is to see God’s image in others. Such thinking avoids depersonalization, which is a common source of corrupt behavior in organizations (Anand et al. 2004), while promoting respect and dignity for all (Bloesch 2007).

The third discipline, guidance , is all about “discerning ideas in community” (Dyck and Wong 2010, p. 17). This involves “including subordinates by seeking their counsel and knowledge to understand existing systems” and “understanding how new ideas would fit with, or be included in existing structures and systems” (p. 18). The second of these means dealing with and overcoming resistance to new ideas that are often muffled by how things are done around here (Schein 1992). There is some parallel with Nonaka and Toyama’s (2007) use of phronesis in their work on knowledge creation. Similar to guidance, phronesis is about making choices regarding human flourishing and how organizations can encourage this. This helps “create the shared space of knowledge” (p. 379) that enables individuals to transcend their limited perspectives and identify with others.

The final discipline, celebration , occurs when structures and systems change for the better – it “involves playing with new ideas in our workplace that will help make the world a better place” (Dyck and Wong 2010, p. 19). This fourth discipline positively reinforces the first, “where we have past success to celebrate as we identify and confess new problems” (p. 19).

These four spiritual disciplines form a developmental model reflective of similar approaches found in virtue ethics (Koehn 1995) and virtuous organizations (Cameron 2003) and resemble McGhee and Grant’s (2017b) work discussed earlier. While it is individuals who enact the spiritual virtues, and it is individuals who practice these spiritual disciplines, the active bond between the individual and the collective augments overall virtuousness such that it becomes more than the sum of its parts (Bright et al. 2014). This transpires because acting spiritually virtuous (1) results in positive emotions in others which encourages goodness and elevates positive well-being (Frederickson 2003), (2) fosters social capital which builds high-quality relationships among organizational members (Cameron et al. 2011), and (3) encourages pro-social behavior that is replicated by others (McGhee and Grant 2017b).

How might these spiritual disciplines apply? Dyck and Wong (2010) take the four basic management functions (controlling, leading, planning, organizing) and compare them with each discipline noting similarities and differences. Both controlling and confession are about identifying unacceptable behavior to be corrected. However, control enforces correct behavior, whereas confession focuses on universal principles of justice and is enacted from humility. Instead of focusing on judgement and blame, confession emphasizes forgiveness as well as sensitivity to limitations in organizational structures and systems that produce negative outcomes.

According to Dyck and Wong, both leading and worship relate to others based on expectations of them. However, leading is motivating others to achieve organizational goals, while worship seeks to draw out the inherent goodness in subordinates and move beyond narrow materialistic ends toward higher goods (e.g., community, justice, meaningfulness, the common good, and sustainability). McGhee and Grant (2017a) argue that such leadership distributes decision-making from the center to the edges or from the top to the bottom. It is adaptive to the complex interactions and interdependencies found in organizations – it is not set in bureaucratic hierarchies built on orthodox power. Moreover, a worship approach to leading is not about heroes; rather the focus is on hosting leadership (McKergow 2009). Hosting involves nurturing the conditions for group processes and providing the resources for people to have leaderful groups, to generate leadership activity, and to be leadership actors. In this manner, hosting views others as ends; it encourages autonomy and shares leadership roles.

Planning and guidance are also similar; both are concerned with making decisions (Dyck and Wong 2010). However, guidance facilitates participative decision-making – a natural outcome of seeing others as ends not means, and of hosting leadership as opposed to lording over subordinates. Relationship building is central to this type of leadership; consequently, cultivating interpersonal and group facilitation competencies is a necessity. Modern organizations are complex systems with numerous challenges caused by the interaction of, and effecting, multiple agents. Such competences are especially important when it comes to the various stakeholder negotiations and collaborations required to bring about lasting positive change.

Finally, Dyck and Wong note that “organizing and celebration both seek to improve structures and systems” (p. 26). However, while organizing is about efficiency and constraint, celebration’s focus is on social systems and liberating people from oppression. Celebration encourages thinking about organizing in ways that meet the:

Needs of the most disadvantaged, where we promote practices that teat others with dignity, and where we strive to invite organizational members to implement changes that will facilitate social justice and ecological sustainability. (p. 26)

In this way, organizing connects with notions of ultimate goodness and our striving to realize an appropriate telos.

Conclusion

What then is the role of the spirituality in the firm? As Goodpaster (1994) wrote some time ago, spirituality is the cure for a disease plaguing modern organizations. This sickness ensures a fixation on narrow short-term goals pursued thoughtessly, combined with rationalizing such that immoral actions are justified by appeal to the bottom line, and a detachment that is a “kind of callousness, what some observers have called a separation of head from heart” (p. 53). Spirituality is a cure for this illness. However, if this spirituality is not built on a proper foundation, that of a spiritual identity that practices the spiritual virtues, then it is unlikely to be successful.

Homo Spiritualis is not characterized by maximizing profit but by an awareness of others and a focus on human flourishing. This understanding is what gives life meaning and purpose, as opposed to materialistic goals alone (Bouckaert 2011). Spiritual persons want to maximize their welfare, but this involves more than economic well-being; it entails “transcending self-interest, cultivating meaning in what we do, and having a deep respect and reverence for others” (Lips-Wiersma and Nilakant 2008, p. 59). The bottom line is important but not at the expense of the society and the common good. Spirituality brings another dimension to organizations, a dimension that focuses on human flourishing, that develops character and virtues over culture and values, and that encourages choices that transcend organizational self-interest to ensure the long-term flourishing of all.