Journal of http://jmi.sagepub.

com/
Management Inquiry

Success and Spirituality in the New Business Paradigm

Hanna Ashar and Maureen Lane-Maher
Journal of Management Inquiry 2004 13: 249
DOI: 10.1177/1056492604268218
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jmi.sagepub.com/content/13/3/249

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Western Academy of Management

Additional services and information for Journal of Management Inquiry can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jmi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jmi.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://jmi.sagepub.com/content/13/3/249.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Aug 2, 2004

What is This?

Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com by Arjun Shrestha on October 21, 2013

SPIRITUALITY
JOURNAL
10.1177/1056492604268218
tember
Ashar,
Lane-Maher
2004OF MANAGEMENT
/ SUCCESS AND
INQUIRY / Sep

NONTRADITIONAL
RESEARCH

Success and Spirituality

in the New Business Paradigm
HANNA ASHAR
MAUREEN LANE-MAHER
NationalLouis University
The article discusses a study we conducted on the concept of success with mid- and
senior-level executives in a federal government agency. Contrary to our expectation that
the studys participants define success in materialisticmoney, positional power, and
status symbolsterms, they used terms such as being connected, balance, and wholeness to define and describe success. Indeed, the participants linked the concept of success
to spirituality and stated that to be successful one needs to embrace spirituality as well.
The article defines spirituality, discusses the study, its findings and implications, and
suggests that spirituality and the notion of success are associated. In addition, it proposes
a conceptual model of success that contains four components of both success and
spirituality.
Keywords:

business paradigm; the human spirit; success at work; balance; wholeness;

spirituality at work

here is a growing recognition in the Western world that the conventional and
reductionist scientific worldview that
dominated the Western culture since the 17th century
is about to be transformed. Signs of this transformation are abundant. They are evident in the surging
pressure to preserve the environment and enact a different international economic order; in the increased
power and influence of the womens movement; in the
shift toward greater collaboration between unlikely
business partners; in the growing interest in alternative lifestyles and holistic medicine; and in the
growing need for meaningfulness and connection to
deeper truth that we have called spirituality (C. M.
Thompson, 2000, p. 226).

In the United States, this shift is reflected in Rays

(1997) report in American Demographics, The Emerging Culture. Based on his decade-long study, Ray
suggested that the American adult population is divided into three segments, each with a different set of
values and view of the world. The first group, Traditionalists, constitutes about 29% of American adults,
and is described by Ray as supporters of small towns
and strong churches. The second group, Modernists,
about 47% of Americans, place high value on personal success, consumerism, materialism, and technological rationality (Ray, 1997, p. 29). Cultural
Creatives is the third, newest, and increasingly growing worldview. Cultural Creatives, who constitute
24% of U.S. adults, are powerfully attuned to global

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY, Vol. 13 No. 3, September 2004 249-260

DOI: 10.1177/1056492604268218
2004 Sage Publications

249

250

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / September 2004

issues and whole systems...They are altruistic and

often less concerned with success or making a lot of
money, although most live comfortably with middle
to upper middle incomes (p. 29). This trans-modernism trend inspired by Western intellectuals who
acknowledged other spiritual movements, religions,
and philosophies, gained momentum in the 1960s. To
date, according to Ray (1997), Cultural Creatives
reflect a major change that has been growing in
American culture. It is a comprehensive shift in values, worldviews, and ways of life (p. 29). Some of the
distinctive values this group espouses include ecological sustainability, globalism, womens issues, social
conscience, self-actualization, and spirituality.
In management, many scholars and practitioners
(Barrett, 1998; Bolman & Deal, 1995; Briskin, 1996;
Harman, 1992; Sanford, 1992; J. W. Thompson, 1992)
label the transformation a paradigm shift. They argued
that in the workplace the values, assumptions, beliefs,
generalizations, metaphors, and accepted solutions
indeed the very components of a paradigm (Kuhn,
1970)should be replaced; that the mechanistic
worldview, or the notion of organization as machine (Ciancutti & Steding, 2000, p. 105), no longer
fits the organization of the 21st century. Instead, they
called for the adoption of a holistic approach to managing organizations and, in particular, for the incorporation of spirituality into the workplace.
In 1999, Mitroff and Denton published the findings
of their 2-year long study that explored the views of
corporate Americas executives on values, religion,
and spirituality. Based on the data, Mitroff and Denton
(1999b) concluded
People are hungry for ways in which to practice spirituality in the workplace . . . they believe strongly that
unless organizations learn how to harness the whole
person and the immense spiritual energy that is at
the core of everyone, they will not be able to produce
world-class products and services. (pp. 83-84)

Considering the eagerness of these executives to

express spirituality at work, they asked, If spirituality is a fundamental, important human experience,
why has it not received serious attention and systematic treatment? (Mitroff & Denton, 1999b, p. 84).
Mitroff and Denton provided a few plausible explanations to this question, one of which is, simply, lack of
data. They argued that even the few academic studies
of spirituality in the workplace that have been conducted so far are written more from the heart than

from a stance of critical inquiry. They extol the virtues

of spirituality without the backing of evidence
(1999b, p. 85). These few academic studies do not
prove the yearning to employ spirituality at work,
they merely claim it. It is this void and the challenge
put forth by Mitroff and Denton for data on
spirituality that prompted our response.
This article discusses the old and new business paradigms, defines spirituality, and provides data that
demonstrate the eagerness of employees to embrace
spirituality at work. As these data are based on the
current study with a different population of executives, they render further significance and credibility to Mitroff and Dentons findings (1999a, 1999b). In
addition, the article suggests a link between two concepts, spirituality and success, proposes a model of
success that contains elements that fit the emerging business paradigm, and discusses the implications of the findings to management scholars and
practitioners.
THE OLD BUSINESS PARADIGM
The machine age or mechanical paradigm (Sanford,
1992; J. W. Thompson, 1992) that shaped the Western
perspective for the past 300 years is rooted in Isaac
Newtons view of the world and in the 19th-century
philosophical doctrine, positivism. According to this
doctrine, objective knowledge is based on experience
and empiricism. As such, it is accumulated only
through the scientific method, that is, through segmenting the messy world of nature into tidy little
packets that could be measured, analyzed, and categorized (Sanford, 1992, p. 200). Because, according to
Newton, all of nature could be subjected to the laws of
mathematics, the mechanical model is based on observations, measurements, manipulation, and control of
data. Knowledge systems that do not use this method,
for example metaphysics, are perceived as inadequate
and imperfect systems to ascertain the real world.
The business organization that emerged from this
paradigm is familiar. Following the machine metaphor, this organizational structure was hierarchical,
composed of individual boxes, and operated by command and control. To use Ciancutti and Stedings
(2000) metaphor, in the mechanical paradigm, organizations were perceived as locks and people as cogs
(p. 105). People working in these organizations were
expected to employ compartmentalization, that is, to

Ashar, Lane-Maher / SUCCESS AND SPIRITUALITY

251

Table 1
The Old and New Business Paradigms
Old Paradigm

New Paradigm

Philosophical orientation
Business environment
Organizational metaphor
Mission/purpose

positivism
orderly, predictable sequence of events
machine
optimal financial return to stockholders

Organizational structure and leadership

Type of knowledge
Assumptions about employees

hierarchical command and control

objective and explicit/formal and systematic
compartmentalized
outer oriented
people to fit jobs
homogeneity
rationality
materialism and consumerism
competition
individualism
exploitation of nature
efficiency

Major values

check in their feelings, emotions, discretion, curiosity,

and creativity at the offices door.
True, competing values affected the organization
constantly, pulling it in different directions. For example, return on investment or growth and industry
leadership conflicted with pressure to minimize pollution or maximize job security and career development (Anderson, 1997). Yet the principal objective of
the mechanical organization was to secure optimum
financial return to shareholders, and the means for
achieving it were competition and exploitation. Layoffs, downsizing, reengineering, and restructuring are
only a few organizational practices that illustrate this
dominant singular mission.
THE NEW BUSINESS PARADIGM
However, things are changing. The new global economic order is built on knowledge, intelligence, and
innovation and not on planning, control, and obedience. In the new economy, a companys competitive advantage resides in its human capital. It is the
qualitiesthe commitment, responsibility, creativity,
and energyof its employees that determine a company s success (J. W. Thompson, 1992). Moreover, to
foster and rejuvenate these qualities, the organization needs to nurture relationships and cultivate the
human spirit.

ontology and epistemology

uncertainty and chaos
living organism
emphasis on the human capital:
customers, employees, stockholders,
society at large
network, participatory
tacit/subjective insight and intuition
holistic
inner oriented
jobs to fit people
diversity
consciousness
spirituality and relationships
collaboration
community
sustainability, continuous learning, and
improvement

The idea that the qualities that count the most cannot be fabricated by a manipulation of behavior
through reward and punishment (J. W. Thompson,
1992, p. 217) but rather through the cultivation of the
human spirit, is slowly making inroads. Discussing
the 21st century business, Harman (1992) elaborated
on the changing values and the change of mind that
takes place within the business community. The transformation, Harman (1992) asserted, is fundamental
and global:
This change of mind is characterized by a repudiation
of the competitive, exploitive materialism and consumerism of the modern society, with an increased
emphasis on alternative values. These values include
improved quality of relationships, cooperation, caring and nurturing, oneness of humanity . . . spiritual
values. (p. 13)

The emphasis on human capital, and in particular

on relationships and the human spirit, is the core
of the new business paradigm (Barrett, 1998; Bolman
& Deal, 1995; Briskin, 1996; Conger, 1994; Dehler &
Welsh, 1994; Handy, 1997). Harman (1992) referred to
this emphasis as the shift from a material agea
worldview that emphasizes division, competition,
and self-interestto a relationship agea worldview
that values connectedness and cooperation (p. 18).
Table 1 compares the old and new business paradigms

252

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / September 2004

on several characteristics. Clearly, the two paradigms

are not dichotomous. Rather, the new business paradigm incorporates some of the old elements into a
more holistic worldview.
THE NEED FOR HARD DATA
Responding to the call to nurture the human spirit,
an increasing number of companiesToms of Maine,
Herman Miller, Ben and Jerry, Levi Strauss, and Bank
of Montreal, to mention only a fewhave already
incorporated elements of the new paradigm into their
culture. Yet organizations that claim to value the
human spirit and that incorporate spiritual elements
such as a focus on relationships, harmony, balance,
and meaningful work into their practices, do not
prove the yearning of employees to embrace spirituality at work; they assume such a yearning. Although
academicians, practitioners, and business leaders believe that it makes good business sense to employ spirituality at work, a question still remains: Do employees desire such an employment? As mentioned, in
1999, Mitroff and Denton published a study to discover what gives senior managers and executives in
corporate America the most meaning and purpose in
their work. Based on their in-depth interviews with 68
participants, they concluded that, indeed, American
executives yearn to embrace spirituality at work
(Mitroff & Denton, 1999b). To date, Mitroff and
Dentons (1999b) investigation has been the first systematic exploration to document employees spiritual
aspirations at work, and their empirical study is the
only one to provide hard data on the subject. We propose that only after data that establish such aspirations are collected from managers and executives in
different sectors, industries, and job levels, can we
suggest practical ways for incorporating it into the
workplace.
In 1995, we conducted a study on the concept of
success with mid- and senior-level executives in a federal government agency. It is important to note that
throughout the study, neither the participants nor we
ever mentioned concepts such as religion, spirituality,
and meaning. Moreover, the study provided participants ample opportunity to discuss the materialistic
money, property, positional power, and status symbolsside of life rather than the spiritual. The study
findings surprised us. Contrary to our expectation
that the studys participants embraced the material
age worldview and hold old paradigm valuesour

participants indicated in their definitions, stories, and

discussions that success is the ability to be a whole
person. They repeatedly used terms such as being connected, balance, and wholeness to define and describe
success. With no solicitation, the participants linked
the concept of success to spirituality and stated that to
be successful, one needs to embrace spirituality, as
well.
The rest of the article discusses our study, its findings, and implications. However, before that, a definition of spirituality is in order.
DEFINING SPIRITUALITY AT WORK
Schmidt-Wilk, Heaton, and Steingard (2000) suggested that in the management literature there are
three main definitions for spirituality. The first defines
spirituality in personal terms; the second focuses on
the applied aspect of spirituality; and the third looks at
the characteristics of the spiritual organization.
The first definition views spirituality as a personal
search for meaning and connectedness. Schmidt-Wilk
et al. (2000) referred to this spirituality as pure and
elaborate: Pure spirituality is a personal, inner, and
deep domain within us that we can experience as a
state of extraordinary calm and happiness, of awareness that is beyond the ordinary waking consciousness, or a state of harmony and oneness with the universe. Remen (1993) asserted that spirituality is not
morality, ethics, the psyche, or religion. Rather, it is an
essential need of human nature: The spiritual is
inclusive. It is the deepest sense of belonging and participation. We all participate in the spiritual all the
times, whether we know it or not (Remen, 1993,
p. 41). The notion of spirituality as an innate and inner
domain that searches for connectedness, meaning,
and purpose is also central to the definitions of, for
example, Ashmos and Duchon (2000), Bolman and
Deal (1995), Mitroff and Denton (1999b), C. M.
Thompson (2000), and Vaill (1996, 1998). Vaill (1996)
argued that the fundamental issue in the quest for
spirituality is, What It All Means (p. 115). He urged
managerial leaders to pay attention to the meaning
needs (Vaill, 1998, p. 178) of their employees who are
spiritually conscious and spiritually concerned people . . . (that) are going to be seeking meaning (Vaill,
1998, pp. 115-116).
Many scholars link this search for meaning to a
larger purpose and to a source beyond ourselves. Generally, they point to three principles that all spiritual

Ashar, Lane-Maher / SUCCESS AND SPIRITUALITY

traditions maintain, which are: (a) a unifying force, or

energy, exists in the nature of everything; (b) this universal power lies within each of us; and (c) we are all
capable of experiencing this power (Gunn, 2001).
Delbecq (1999) referred to this universal energy when
he defines spirituality as the individuals lived experience of the transcendent, whether that be God, the
Buddha, the Dao, or the Force (Leigh-Taylor, 2000,
p. 20). McCormick (1994) spoke of the beyond, and
Conger (1994) alluded to the transcendental quality of
spirituality more implicitly when he claimed that spirituality lifts us beyond ourselves and our narrow
self-interests . . . it is the most humane of forces. It
helps us to see our deeper connection to one another
and to the world beyond ourselves (p. 17).
Like Haughey (1989) before him, C. M. Thompson
(2000) elaborated further on the concept of spirituality
as a search for meaning that transcends beyond one s
self and differentiates between immanent and transcendent meanings. Immanent refers to personal and
ordinary concerns of our world that satisfy our ego
needs: status, income, sense of security, accomplishment, and so on. Transcendent meaning, on the other
hand, refers to motivations, principles, and workrelated interests that transcend beyond the self. When
our approach to work is broad and includes interests
beyond our own, principles beyond self-interests, and
power beyond those of the visible world, then we . . .
experience the possibility of a transcendent meaning
of our work (C. M. Thompson, 2000, pp. 32-33). It is
important to note that the transcendental quality of
spirituality does not imply it is some ethereal concept, accepted only to the saintly and pure at heart
(C. M. Thompson, 2000, p. 69). Spirituality does not
necessarily involve a belief or faith in a deity. When
one approaches work with a sense of purpose that
transcends the instrumentalities of his or her work,
one is able to express his or her spirituality through
work.
The second definition in the management literature
refers to spirituality as the relationship between the
personal inner experience and the outer behavior.
Schmidt-Wilk et al. (2000) defined applied spirituality
as the practical aspect of pure spirituality. It is the
outer domain, the practical applications, and measurable outcomes that automatically arise from an inner
experience of pure spirituality (Schmidt-Wilk et al.,
2000, p. 580). Applied spirituality, they argued, can be
manifested intellectually in discussion of moral reasoning and ethics, behaviorally in acts of respect and
care for others, and emotionally through expressions

253

of love and humility. In an interview a few years ago,

Rutte (cited in Rosner, 2001) referred to spirituality as
an ongoing life inquiry and notes that this question
could lead to a conversation about ethics, integrity,
how to better feed peoples spirits, the state of the relationships between people, and so on (p. 82). In a 2000
article, Ashmos and Duchon reported their empirically derived measures of spirituality at work. Based
on their review of the literature, Ashmos and Duchon
(2000) suggested that the constructs three dimensions are inner life, meaningful work, and conditions
for communitydimensions that can be measured
mainly by behaviorally oriented questions. Mitroff
and Dentons executives also referred, unwittingly, to
its applied aspect. A typical response stated, spirituality is the feeling of this interconnectedness . . . is giving expression to ones feeling . . . (it) is inextricably
connected with caring, hope, kindness, love, and optimism (Mitroff & Denton, 1999b, p. 89).
The concept of work as vocation or so-called
callingwhich is clearly distinguished from the notion of work as careerillustrates well the applied
characteristic of spirituality. When one approaches
work as a means to satisfy his or her priorities and
needsregardless of how noble and constructive they
might beone perceives work as career and derives
immanent meaning from it. When, on the other hand,
work is oriented beyond ones sense of self and is not
centered on self-serving principles, one views work as
vocation and experiences transcendent meaning
through work (C. M. Thompson, 2000, pp. 39-42).
The third definition in the management literature
does not treat questions of inner domain and connectedness or of the applied nature of spirituality. It views
spirituality as principled behavior. When virtues, ethics, values, emotions, and intuition are part of the organizations behavior and policies, the organization is
spiritually oriented.
We find a common element among the three definitions and base our own definition on all of them: Spirituality is an innate and universal search for transcendent meaning in ones life. In addition, although it can
be expressed in various ways, we submit that spirituality at work involves some common behavioral components. Above all, it involves a desire to do purposeful work that serves others and to be part of a
principled community. It involves a yearning for connectedness and wholeness that can only be manifested
when one is allowed to integrate his or her inner life
with ones professional role in the service of a greater
good.

254

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / September 2004

THE SUCCESS STUDY

In 1995, a large, federal government, law enforcement agency arranged to send its mid- to top-level
executives to a customized management program
designed by our college. The managers were to
acquire knowledge, improve their skills, and enhance
the agencys performance.
During the 1990s, the federal government, similar
to businesses in general, was undergoing major
changes. Different terms were used to describe these
changes: downsizing, rightsizing, reinventing, reengineering, and restructuring. Yet all these management initiatives had the same practical consequences:
budgets were cut, positions were eliminated, and the
workforce was drastically reduced. Uncertainty
marked the times.
In numerous discussions in and out of class, the
management training participants expressed frustration, criticism, and cynicism. They consistently
voiced a concern regarding their ability to carry on
their duties. Explicitly, they worried about the work
itself and how it would be done. Implicitly, the deeper
issue was their own sense of success. The association
with a downsizing organization damaged their feeling of pride, a feeling they had enjoyed for a long time.
However, what was success to this group of mature
managers? How did they define it, and to what extent
was it work and career related? To what extent were
nonwork factors such as family and social life part of
success?
Our participants, 49 mid- and senior-level, law
enforcement executives, spent the past 20 to 25 years
committed to enforcing the immigration and drug
laws of the nation. Most of the participants worked
their way up in the organization and reached their
current positions after spending long and risky periods literally on the street. Because of the nature of their
work, they had experienced the good and dark sides
of life. Thus, even though our executives were public
servants committed to contributing to the common
good and as such we could expect their perceptions of
success to reflect the relationship age, we entertained
another plausible hypothesis. Given the nature of
their work experience and based on their in- and outof-class comments, we presumed our participants
were cynical, realistic, and pragmatic and expected
their definitions of success to reflect a material-age
worldview. This expectation was grounded not only
in the nature of their work experience and the result-

ing cynicism but also in the studys topic. As mentioned, the study provided the participants ample
opportunity to discuss the materialistic, not the
spiritual, side of life.
We used the focus group methodology to explore
and collect data on the concept of success. Focus
groups are regularly used to determine the perceptions, feelings, and manner of thinking (Kruger,
1988, p. 29) of participants on an issue of interest.
According to Byers and Wilcox (1991), focus groups
are especially well suited to explore a new territory in
which little is known beforehand or to gain unique
insight into existing beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes
(p. 71). We studied perceptions of success with a group
of managers that has never been studied before
senior, federal government executives (Ashar & LaneMaher, 1998). As this was a new territory, we needed
rich, descriptive, qualitative data that only focusgroup interviews could have provided. Indeed, to
allow the participants to discuss, clarify, and illustrate
success in their own language, stories, and metaphors,
we had to use the focus-group interviews as the datacollection tool.
Four all-male (31 men) and three all-female (18
women) focus groups participated in the study (we
expected the caregivers role of women and the providers role of men to affect the way men and women
define and perceive success. This was the reason for
the single-gender grouping. For a more detailed discussion of the relationships between gender and perceptions of success, see Ashar and Lane-Maher, 1998).
As mentioned, the participants were attending a 2week management program designed by our college
and had volunteered to spend one lunch break in our
conference room. There was no reason to assume differences between the 49 volunteers and the rest of the
trainees. In fact, the 49 volunteers constituted about
90% of the trainees who attended classes at the time of
the study. We purposefully did not inform the participants of the studys topic, however rather, invited
them to discuss a management-related topic with us.
Each group was asked the same route of questions.
Additional probing questions were asked to expand
on issues and ideas that were raised. Each session
lasted about 1 hours and was audiotaped. After each
session, and after consulting the tapes and the notes
each of us took, we entered the data into the computer.
We then discussed, summarized, and evaluated the
data, incorporating our impressions and preliminary
analysis into a detailed report.

Ashar, Lane-Maher / SUCCESS AND SPIRITUALITY

Table 2
Frequency Distributions of the Four Components of Success
Female
Component of Success

Sense of accomplishment
Balance
Contribution to society
Contribution to colleagues

5
5
3
3

Total

31.25 12
31.25 4
18.75 4
18.75 4

16 100.0

Entire
Sample

Male

24

50.00
16.64
16.64
16.64

17
9
7
7

42.50
22.50
17.50
17.50

100.00

40

100.00

RESULTS
One of the more important questions in the question route waswhat is success? Each group was
asked to define it. The 49 participants generated 40
definitions of success. A careful analysis revealed that
the 40 definitions referred to four main components of
success, and thus we grouped the definitions into four
categories: a sense of accomplishment, balance, contribution to society, and contribution to coworkers.
Before elaborating on the four categories, a note
seems in place concerning the 40 definitions. When
asked to define success, the 49 participants generated
more then 40 statements. In congruence with the idea
of the focus-group methodology, many statements
were an elaboration of previously mentioned statements. Ideas stimulated ideas, and repetitions were
unavoidable. In constructing the four categories, we
used the 10% rule as the cutting point. We recorded
and transcribed all the statements that were generated
in the four male and three female focus groups. This
resulted in two lists of definitionsa mens list and a
womens list. Only those ideas that were mentioned at
least 10% of the time on each list were included to compose a category. Other definitions were excluded. For
example, one of the participants stated: Success is
being in a position to command respect. Even though
the idea of respect was elaborated by the next speaker,
You earn respect from the right peoplethats success, it did not develop any further, was dropped
from the discussion shortly after, and did not become a
category.
Definitions of Success
Sense of accomplishment. A sense of accomplishment
and self-realization was the strongest theme in the discussion. In the female and male groups, a sense of
accomplishment was the most frequently mentioned

255

component of success (50% of the mens definitions

and 31% of the womens definitions referred to a sense
of accomplishment, see Table 2). The message
received from our participants was clear: Success is a
personal feeling that is determined subjectively. It is
not how one is perceived by others but ratherhow
one feels about himself or herself. It is a sense that
comes, and is sustained, from within. To use the participants terminology:
There are many measures of success. At the end of the
day, are you happy with yourself and with what you
have accomplished? If you are satisfied and happy
with yourself, you are pretty much successful.
The feeling has to be self serving; what makes me, not
the organization, feel good.
To me, success means self satisfaction . . . making the
most of your potential.
Success is in the eye of the beholder . . . is achieving a
goal that you set for yourself. . . . I really dont look at
other people and what they define as success.
There are two segments to success. One is what you feel
about yourself. Second, how others perceive you. To
me, its what you feel about yourself.

The participants rejected external and materialistic

criteria of success such as income, position, and status
symbols. As one of them said explicitly: 90% of the
people define success in terms of career . . . the societal norms and influences . . . this is how you measure
success . . . but we didnt skew it in this group. Instead
of external criteria, they used an internal yardsticka
sense of accomplishment and self-realizationto
define success.
Balance of work and family. The second most frequently mentioned component of success was balance.
To be successful, one needs to balance work and family. For the female participants, a sense of accomplishment and balance were equally important indicators
of success (31% of the definitions referred to each component). The mens definitions were more centered on
the self: To feel successful, one needs, first of all, to
reach self-fulfillment (only 17% of their definitions
referred to balance of work and family).
If work is balanced with other things in my life . . . I
would not call myself successful if I only had material
success.
Success is a balance of life and work.
Family and work are as important to success.
I can mention celebrities like Audrey Hepburn, etc., but
also ordinary women who balance family, work, and
religion and community service responsibilities. For

256

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / September 2004

Table 3
The Stories Synopsis (Male Participants)
Story Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Synopsis
150 people came to the retirement party of the successful person
Manager presented an idea to a hostile group and convinced the group
Manager received disturbing, personal news during a meeting but kept his emotions under control
Manager who consistently shows concern for employees
CEO of a big corporation who makes an impact on society
Entrepreneur, just started his company, makes an impact
A messenger, working in the agency, who is active in the community
Manager who disciplined a problem employee by talking from the heart
Neighbor, an attorney, keeps a balance between work and family
Senior executive who balances career and family
My wife who balances career and family
My father who had a balanced life
My daughter who developed a career and is getting married
My brother who is focused, is not turned off

me, success is a combination of being able to contribute in all areas.

Contributions. The testimony regarding contributions was compelling: 35% of all the statements (14 of
the 40) mentioned contribution to the community and
colleagues as a success indicator. The message that
came from the respondents was consistent across the
gender groups and clear: A sense of accomplishment
and caring for ones family is not enough. To enhance
a sense of meaning and purpose, one needs to be other
oriented and generous. One needs to go out and participate in the life of the community outside his or her
own immediate family. Some of the statements regarding a general contribution generated by our sample were
Success is not power or glory. Success is measured by
contribution.
Work is only one part of success. Success is what you
contribute to society.
Gives more than he takes . . . does for others . . . doesnt
want to be thanked . . . The truly successful takes less
and gives more.
Success is independence. It gives you the capability to
help people you want to help and live the life you
want to live.
Two people come to mind: Mary Jackson, the first black
astronaut. She is a shining star and a role model . . .
Oprah Winfrey . . . She struggled and overcame many
barriers. She reinvests in the community.
Success is being able to contribute to society.

Other statements referred not to a general contribution, but to helping colleagues:

Success is this professional satisfaction. Its the ability to

get things done for your employees . . . almost
paternalistic.
Success is getting to the top of the heap and getting others there, too.
Success is having an impact. By impact I mean, affecting
policies and procedures, helping other women and
minorities.
Success is when you start influencing others. . . . Control
gives you the ability to give to others, to give back.

STORIES OF SUCCESS
In addition to definitions, we asked the participants
to share stories that illustrated success (either personal or other peoples stories). In the four all-male
focus groups (31 participants), 14 stories were told,
recorded, and transcribed. Each storys synopsis is
listed in Table 3. The stories are not listed in the order
they were told. We reordered them, to ease the discussion that follows.
Aclose look at the stories told by the male managers
and executives revealed that the first eight illustrations had two common elements: Success was work
related and involved interaction with others. People
were considered successful based on their public interaction with other people at work. Moreover, the interactions implied, some more explicitly than others,
care for and contribution to others, or at least a positive impact on others. In Stories 9 to 13, success is illustrated through balance. Ordinary people, neighbors,
wives, who lived a balanced life, were successful.
The 18 female participants generated seven success
stories. Table 4 lists each storys synopsis. Again, the

Ashar, Lane-Maher / SUCCESS AND SPIRITUALITY

257

Table 4
The Stories Synopsis (Female Participants)
Story Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Synopsis
Friend, an unhappy teacher, retreated, self-reflected, gained self-knowledge and courage, became an artist
Colleague, systems analyst, knows who she is
My mom, at 50, fulfilled her dream, went back to school, became a nurse, retired at 78
Neighbor, a secretary, she aspires to be the best at what she does
Myself: I look at the agents I trained and see them do a good job
Myself: I received my graduate degree and was invited to enroll in the SES prestigious training
Myself: my retiring mentor finally complemented me

stories were reordered. In the seven stories, success

was illustrated by a sense of accomplishment. Successful people were those who knew themselves
their capabilities, potential, and dreamsand who
pursued and achieved them. Thus, they must have
had a sense of accomplishment and self- realization.
The men managers success stories illustrated the
components of balance and contribution, while their
definitions of success emphasized a sense of accomplishment. The womens case was the reverse. Their
success stories illustrated a sense of accomplishment
as an indicator of success, while their definitions
stressed a sense of accomplishment and balance.
Across the gender groups, the four components of successa sense of accomplishment, balance, and contributions to society and to colleagueswere reinforced
through definitions, stories, and discussions.
DISCUSSION
The results surprised us. Our study participants
were public-sector executives whose views of success,
we believed, were anchored in the old-business paradigm. Yes, we assumed our sample was committed to
the common good, the pursuit of noble goals, and the
search for meaningful work. Yet because of their pragmatism and cynicism, we expected the executives to
view success as career success and use immanent
terms to denote it. Specifically, we expected their definitions of success to be narrow and self-centered and
pertain to success as the fulfillment of ego needs.
Instead, what emerged from the data is a concept of
success that is, first, multidimensional and, second,
closely associated with the notion of work as vocation.
The four components lend themselves to a twodimension model of success: (a) the focus of success
self or others and (b) the context in which success

occurswork or nonwork. The first dimension

describes the four components in reference to either
the self or others. The second dimension describes the
four components in reference to the setting, work or
nonwork, in which success is experienced. In this model,
a sense of accomplishment refers to intrinsic rewards
received from work. Obviously, this is a limited view
because a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction
can be derived from many sources. However, for
senior-level managers and executives in a large organization, work is a major source of self-fulfillment.
Model of Success
Focus of Success
Self
Context of
success

Work
Nonwork

Sense of accomplishment
Balance

Others
Contribution to
colleagues
Contribution to
society

Our executives depicted a clear image of success.

The message that emerged from the seven focus
groups was loudsuccess is the ability to go beyond
ones narrow interests. It involves contribution to and
participation in something more purposeful and
greater than ones ego. The successful person is a common, functional individual who aspires a sense of
accomplishment and who cherishes relationships,
care, and connectedness. It is an individual who tends
to the inner self and to his or her family. As important,
it is one who serves others in his or her professional
and social community. Discussing spiritual leadership, Wheatley (2002) noted: We cant talk about
vocation or calling without acknowledging that there
is something going on beyond our narrow sense of

258

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / September 2004

self (p. 5). Our executives implied just thatto be

successful at work, one needs to have a sense of being
part of and serving a greater good. Indeed, one needs
to experience work as vocation.
As mentioned, in 1999, Mitroff and Denton
explored how senior managers and executives view
spirituality, religion, and values. Unlike our publicsector participants, their 68 interviewees came from
for-profit organizations and were chosen for the study
because they worked in business alliances or associations that promoted spirituality in the workplace or
because of their sensitivity to the broader and deeper
needs of employees. Yet similar to our executives who
included contribution and service in their definition of
success, Mitroff and Dentons executives saw serving
humankind, future generations, and the immediate
community as an integral part of spirituality (1999b,
p. 85.) The fact that our government-sector executives
defined success similarly to the way Mitroff and
Dentons private-sector executives defined spirituality suggests that the two concepts are linked and that,
assuming that people want to be successful at work,
their yearning to express their spirituality is ardent.
The link between success and spirituality raises an
important question: Is the link sample specific or is it
general? Or, does the link between success and spirituality relate to the life-cycle stage of our participants or
can it be generalized to other samples? Objectively,
the current studys participants were successful
experienced senior managers who have already
achieved a high level of income and status. Thus, following Maslow (1964), and more recently Handy
1997), one might argue that, at this stage in her or his
life, he or she is experiencing an age-related seeking
and that defining success in spiritual terms merely
reflects a personal need for self-actualization. Simply,
one might argue that the link between the two
concepts is sample specific.
We put forward another argument. Similar to
Conger (1994), Remen (1988), Schmidt-Wilk et al.
(2000), Vaill (1996), and others, we, too, argue that
spirituality is not a luxury that follows material success but rather an essential, personal, and universal
need of human nature. We propose that because the
need for spirituality is essential and universal, any
discussion that explores serious issues such as success
in ones work will pertain to it regardless of the industry, sector, socioeconomic status, or the life-cycle
stage of the sample discussing it. Moreover, we argue
that Mitroff and Dentons (1999a, 1999b) findings, that

came from a different population of executives, support our claim that the search for success and
spirituality is universal, illustrate how basic the need
for spirituality is, and render significance, generalizability, and credibility to our findings (Ashar & LaneMaher, 2002).
To further advance the argument that the need for
spirituality and success is universal and not sample
specific and to offset the skeptics question, Whats
new here and how is the search for spirituality and
success different from the desire for personal fulfillment found in motivation research, we submit that
the distinction between the need for success and spirituality, on one hand, and the need for self-realization,
on the other, be made clear. Our point is although the
aspirations for success and spirituality are basic and
universal and revolve around the search for meaningful existence and connectedness, the aspirations for
self-realization are exclusive, selfnot other
oriented, and revolve around the attainment of high
personal goals. Indeed, we suggest that the question,
How are we all part of the same river? is different
from the question, What makes one swim hard and
fast in the river?
Implications for Managing
in the Relationship-Age Paradigm
The study focused on a traditional topic, that is,
definitions and perceptions of success, and used a traditional research approach, focus groups, as its methodology. Yet the study findings and implications are
provocative and far-reaching. Indeed, they raise questions for management scholars and practitioners.
Generally, the link between success and spirituality
calls into question the well-accepted notion of cognitive organizational behavior. Specifically, it raises
questions regarding concepts such as motivation, job
design, employee satisfaction and commitment,
morale, and so forth.
Given that employees want to succeed at work and
that they perceive spirituality as part of success, the
apparent conclusion is that employees want to reveal
their spirituality at work. When employees discussing
either success or spirituality express the same desire
to find transcendent meaning through work, they
indicate that they long to behave in a manner that is
not only calculated and goal directed. Indeed, they
reject the notion of the merely cognitive, rational
employee who, above all, is seeking to maximize the

Ashar, Lane-Maher / SUCCESS AND SPIRITUALITY

instrumentalities of his or her work. Instead, they suggest that employees desire to accommodate work
behavior that engages the heart and soul.
In light of these findings, some of our traditional
notions of motivation, job design, morale, and so on
need to be revisited. True, today management scholars
and practitioners recognize the importance of challenging jobs, participative decision making, recognition, feedback, cohesive work teams, and other nonmonetary rewards as significant contributors to
employees well being. However, these motivators
focus only on work and thus are narrow in scope.
Although they clearly appeal to the psychological
needs of employees, they do not address employees deep desire for a sense of connectedness and
wholeness.
To respond to the spiritual needs of employees and
allow them to feel successful, leaders and managers
must embrace the principles of the new business paradigm. They could operate under the assumptions and
values of consciousness, collaboration, inner orientation and the like, and could profess their integrity. To
use Palmers terminology, they could lead from the
heart, that is, from the place where will and intellect
and values and feeling and intuition and vision all
converge (cited in Rittenhouse, 2001, p. 27.) To create
a sense of connectedness, they ought to work to promote collaboration between and within organizations, denounce workaholic behavior, and model balanced life. They could encourage the establishment of
cohesive and learning communities within their organizations, and as important, could put in place mechanisms to help employees contribute something of
value to the larger community.
To create and promote personal quests for meaning, wholeness, and integration, organizations need to
create a climate conducive to self-examination and
growth. It is through the inner journey that we learn
who we are, what our true purpose and meaning is,
and how we are interconnected. Thus along with goaloriented behavior, leaders need to demonstrate selfreflection, make the self-reflection process (not the
content) public, and create it as a valued organizational practice. As at times the inner journey encounters pain and suffering, provisions could be made
available to help with the process. Simply stated, the
organization could encourage the employees through
the exuberant and the dark parts of the journey so each
can become a whole person able to manifest mind,
heart, and spirit at work.

259

REFERENCES
Anderson, C. (1997). Values-based management. Academy of
Management Executive, 11(4), 25-46.
Ashar, H., & Lane-Maher, M. (1998, May 3-5). Success: A view
by seasoned managers. Paper presented 35th Annual Eastern Academy of Management Conference, Hartford, CT.
Ashar, H., & Lane-Maher, M. (2002, May). Spirituality in the
workplace: Ameasure of success? Journal of Behavioral and
Applied Management, 3(3), 91-102.
Ashmos, D. P., & Duchon, D. (2000, June). Spirituality at
work: A conceptualization and measure. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(2), 134-145.
Barrett, R. (1998). Liberating the corporate soul. Boston:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1995). Leading with soul: An
uncommon journey of spirit. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Briskin, A. (1996). The stirring of the soul in the workplace. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Byers, P. Y., & Wilcox, J. R. (1991). Focus groups: Aqualitative
opportunity for researchers. Journal of Business Communication, 28(1), 63-78.
Ciancutti, A., & Steding, T. (2000, June 13). Trust fund. Business 2.0, 105-116.
Conger, A. J., (1994). Spirit at work: Discovering the spirituality
in leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dehler, G. E., & Welsh, M. A. (1994). Spirituality and organizational transformation: Implications for the new management paradigm. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 9(6),
17-26.
Delbecq, A. L. (1999). Christian spirituality and contemporary business leadership. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 12(4), 345-349.
Goulding, C. (1998). Grounded theory: The missing methodology on the interpretivist agenda. Qualitative Market
Research, 1(1), 50-57.
Gunn, B. (2001, September). A leaders path. Strategic
Finance, 83(3), 13-15.
Handy, C. (1997, Summer). The Search for Meaning: A Conversation with Charles Handy. Leader to Leader, 5, 14-20.
Harman, W. (1992). 21st century business: A background for
dialogue. In J. Renesch (Ed.), New tradition in business:
Spirit and leadership in the 21st century (pp. 11-24). San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Haughey, J. C. (1989). Converting nine to five: A spirituality of
daily work. New York: Crossroad.
Kruger, R. A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied
research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolution (2nd ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leigh-Taylor, C. (2000, April/May). Business leadership as a
spiritual discipline. Physician Executive, 26(2), 20-26.
Maslow, A. H. (1964). Motivation and personality. New York:
Harper & Row.
McCormick, D. W. (1994). Spirituality and management.
Journal of Management Psychology, 9(6), 5-8.
Mitroff, I. I., & Denton, E. A. (1999a). A spiritual audit of corporate America. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

260

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / September 2004

Mitroff, I. I., & Denton, E. A. (1999b, Summer). A study of

spirituality in the workplace. Sloan Management Review,
40(4), 83-92.
Ray, P. H. (1997). The emerging culture. American Demographics, 19(2), 29-34.
Remen, R. N. (1993, Autumn). On defining spirit. Noetic Sciences Review, 27.
Rittenhouse, L. J. (2001, Fall). Leadership and the inner journey: An interview with Parker Palmer. Leader to Leader, 6,
26-33.
Rosner, R. (2001, February). Is there room for the soul at
work? An interview with Martin Rutte. Workforce, 80(2),
82-84.
Sanford, C. (1992). A self-organizing leadership view of paradigms. In J. Renesch (Ed.), New tradition in business: Spirit
and leadership in the 21st century (pp. 193-208). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Schmidt-Wilk, J., Heaton, D. P., & Steingard, D. (2000).
Higher education for higher consciousness: Maharishi
University of management as a model for spirituality.
Journal of Management Education, 24(5), 580-612.
Thompson, C. M. (2000). The congruent life: Following the
inward path of fulfilling work and inspired leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Thompson, J. W. (1992). Corporate leadership in the 21st
century. In J. Renesch (Ed.), New tradition in business: Spirit

and leadership in the 21st century (pp. 209-224). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Vaill, P. B. (1996). Learning as a way of being. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Vaill, P. B. (1998). Spirited leading and learning. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Wheatley, M. J. (2002, September). Spiritual leadership.
Executive Excellence, 19(9), 5-6.
HANNA ASHAR, Ph.D., professor, College of Management and Business, NationalLouis University, earned her doctorate in policy, governance, and administration from the University of Washington in Seattle.
Her areas of research interests include organizational performance, women
in management, and spirituality in the workplace, and her work has been
published in the Administrative Science Quarterly, The Journal of
Higher Education, Library Administration and Management, and
the Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management.
MAUREEN LANE-MAHER, Ed.D., professor, College of Management
and Business, NationalLouis University, earned her doctorate from the
University of Virginia and held marketing management positions at several corporations. Her teaching and research interests include marketing
management, women in management, spirituality in the workplace, and
online education. Her work has been published in the Journal of Behavior
and Applied Management, Educause Quarterly, and The Journal of
Marketing for Higher Education.