Article

Just What was Jesus Saying? Two Interpretations

of the Parable of the Shrewd Manager*
Bruno Dyck, Frederick A. Starke, and Calvin Dueck — University of Manitoba

*Thanks to the following for the encouragement and comments on an earlier draft: Dan
Epp-Tiessen, Harold Harder, David Schroeder, Richard Martinez, John Meyer, Janet
Morrill, Mitchell Neubert, Ross Stewart, Janis Thiessen, Elden Wiebe, and Kenman Wong.

Abstract the first decade of the Journal of

Many Bible passages have been Biblical Integration in Business
applied to the practice of manage- (JBIB). Of these, the five most
ment. One particular passage — frequently cited passages (Genesis
the parable of the shrewd manager 1: 27-28; Matthew 5: 13-16;
(Luke 16: 1-15) — is conspicuous by Romans 12: 1-2; I. Corinthians 13:
its absence. Why is this parable, 12-13; and John 13: 12-17)
where the central character is a emphasize four common themes:
manager, rarely referred to? In this 1) the differences between God’s
paper, we interpret the parable of the way of managing versus the way
shrewd manager from both a Con- of the world; 2) a call for new ways
ventional materialist-individualist of thinking in order to transform
moral-point-of-view, and from its the ways of the world; 3) the
Radical counterpoint-of-view. identification of servant leadership
Readers are challenged to consider the as a way for managers to manifest
implications of the different interpre- the ways of God; and 4) an empha-
tations of the parable and to think sis on the importance of humility
clearly about their own moral-point- and nonjudgmental discernment
of-view of management. (Dyck & Starke, 2005).
While it is helpful to examine
Christian scholars have drawn common themes among frequently
from a wide variety of biblical cited passages, it is also instructive
passages as they think about and to examine passages that are
develop management theory and conspicuous by their absence.
practice. For example, more than Accordingly, in this paper we focus
1500 biblical passages were cited in our attention on one particular
111
Just What was Jesus Saying?

passage — the parable of the Weber (1958, original 1904)

shrewd manager (Luke 16: 1-15) identified two hallmarks of modern
— that is rarely mentioned in management theory and practice:
the literature that attempts to individualism and materialism.
link biblical teachings with Individualism can be traced back
management theory and practice. to the idea of calling introduced
Despite JBIB’s explicit focus on during the Reformation. Rather
the integration of biblical teachings than having salvation determined
with management theory and by the church (e.g., via confession
practice, none of the articles to a priest, or taking the holy
published in the first decade of sacraments), the preachers of
JBIB cite this particular parable.1 the Reformation argued that it
This paper is organized as depended on how individuals lived
follows: First, we review some out the calling, or vocation, that
of the literature that informs our God had given to them. In particu-
analysis of the parable of the lar, there was emphasis on disci-
shrewd manager. Second, we plined work habits in their jobs.
analyze the parable from two Weber also linked materialism to
perspectives: first from a Conven- this emphasis on calling, suggesting
tional materialist-individualist that preachers of the day argued
moral-point-of-view, and then that religion leads to hard-working
from a Radical counterpoint-of- and frugal individuals, which in
view where materialism and turn cannot help but result in
individualism do not trump other material riches. Solomon and
forms of well-being. We conclude Hanson (1983) suggest that this
with a discussion of the implica- link between material wealth and
tions of our analysis for manage- salvation provided unprecedented
ment theory and practice. legitimacy to the pursuit of profit.
These two dimensions —
Materialism, Individualism, individualism and materialism —
Moral-Points-of-View and give rise to four “ideal-types” of
Self-Fulfilling Prophecies management, where the Conven-
Dyck and Schroeder (2005) tional ideal-type is characterized
note that in The Protestant Ethic by high individualism and high
and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max materialism, and its Radical

112
 Dyck, Starke, and Dueck

counterpart is characterized by low emphasis on radical management

individualism and low materialism. virtues (sensitization, dignification,
It is clear that Weber does not participation and experimentation)
consider the Conventional type to than their less materialist-individu-
be “ideal” in any normative sense. alist counterparts.
Rather, he uses the term “ideal- Weber’s own dislike for the
type” to denote a proto-typical emphasis on materialism that
managerial style or organizational characterizes the secularized
form. In contrast to Conventional Protestant Ethic moral-point-of-
management, Radical management view is captured in his well-known
does not place primary emphasis metaphor of the “iron cage:”
on materialism, individualism,
efficiency, productivity, or competi- The care for external goods
tiveness, nor does the goal of [italics added] should only lie
profit trump other legitimate goals. on the shoulders of the “saint
Instead, alongside financial well- like a light cloak, which can be
being, Radical managers promote thrown aside at any moment.”
spiritual, physical, social, aesthetic, But fate has decreed that the
and intellectual well-being (Burch, cloak should become an iron
2000). Dyck and Schroeder (2005) cage. [italics added] … material
note that the Radical perspective is goods have gained an increasing
not inconsistent with Mennonite/ and finally inexorable power
Anabaptist theology. Dyck and over the lives of men as at no
Weber (2005) examine a data set of previous period in history.
Christian managers and find that, (1958, p. 181)
as hypothesized: a) materialism
and individualism are indeed Weber argues that, just as the
independent constructs and can prophets of the religious Reforma-
be used to form a 2 x 2 matrix; and tion helped to usher in the materi-
b) managers who are more materi- alist-individualist moral-point-of-
alist-individualist tend to place view that underpins Conventional
greater emphasis on conventional management theory and practice,
management virtues (specializa- so also we now need new prophets
tion, centralization, formalization to help us escape the iron cage
and standardization) and less that the materialist-individualist

113
Just What was Jesus Saying?

paradigm has given rise to. Charles implicitly premised on the former
Perrow (1985), a leading critical materialist-individualist view.
management theorist, challenges Expectations generated by a
readers to describe what organiza- given moral-point-of-view can lead
tion and management theory to a self-fulfilling prophecy, that is,
might look like if it were based one which creates the very behav-
on a radical interpretation of the ior it is predicting. The notion that
teachings of Jesus — the same our moral-points-of-view act as a
Jesus, ironically, whose teachings self-fulfilling prophecy that influ-
were originally invoked (Weber, ence how we interpret a text like
1958) as a basis for the Conven- the Bible is also evident in the
tional materialist-individualist larger management literature,
moral-point-of-view. where leading scholars are pointing
In challenging readers to out that “bad” management theory
reconsider the biblical teachings and practice have resulted from
of Jesus, Perrow implies that if two underlying, self-fulfilling
we read the biblical record from assumptions: (1) people inherently
a Conventional moral-point-of- behave in ways that are consistent
view, and if we expect to see with the maximizing assumptions
Jesus’ teachings as supportive of classical economic theory
of this point of view, then our (i.e., materialism), and (2) people
interpretations of Jesus’ teachings are self-interested and primarily
will be consistent with our motivated to compete and get
expectations. However, if we view ahead (i.e., individualism). Many
Jesus’ teachings from a Radical writers note that the dominant
moral-point-of-view, we may management paradigm, with
be surprised to find that our its unquestioned acceptance of
interpretations are qualitatively maximizing shareholder value,
different.2 While many JBIB readers is built on a foundation of indi-
may lean toward a radical view — vidualism and materialism that has
one that suggests that Jesus’ led to some very unfortunate self-
teachings point to a way of manag- fulfilling prophecies in terms of the
ing our lives that permits escape way that people treat one another
from the “iron cage” associated (Ferraro, Pfeffer, & Sutton, 2005;
with the status quo — interpreta- Ghoshal, 2005; Giacalone, 2004;
tions of Jesus’ parables are often Margolis & Walsh, 2003). For
114
 Dyck, Starke, and Dueck

example, Ferraro et al. (2005, p. that permits escape from the iron
11, 13) note that economic theory cage (see also MacIntyre, 1981).
— the “reigning queen of the social Perrow (1985, p. 22) even notes
sciences” — is characterized by that it is possible to ground this
an emphasis on self-interest and liberating non-conventional
extrinsic rewards. They identify approach to management theory
several mechanisms by which and practice explicitly on the
social science theories become self- teachings of “the Man from Galilee
fulfilling, thereby creating the very and his radical social doctrine.”
behavior they predict. A similar This challenge is consistent with
line of thinking is pursued by the common themes of current
Ghoshal (2005), who observes that scholarly work that integrate
an “ideology-based gloomy vision” biblical teachings and management
(i.e., the pessimistic view of human theory and practice, which were
nature), when combined with the noted at the beginning of this
notion of self-fulfilling prophecies, paper (Dyck & Starke, 2005).
has contributed to problematic
management behaviors that we The Parable of the
have witnessed during recent years. Shrewd Manager:
In sum, Weber argues that Two Interpretations
current management theory and Jesus’ parables have proven
practice was originally grounded particularly useful for applying
on a particular (Protestant Ethic) biblical teachings to the practice
interpretation of biblical teachings, of management because they were
characterized by its emphasis on designed to teach certain values as
materialism and individualism. they applied to everyday life and
This materialist-individualist work (Tucker, 1987, p. 44; see also
moral-point-of-view has become Moxnes, 1988, p. 56, 62; Oakman,
secularized and serves as a self- 1986). Parables help to put flesh-
fulfilling prophecy that, among and-bones to what the Kingdom of
other things, leaves us captured in God3 is like, and how it differs
an iron cage. Although himself from the ways of this world. In this
an agnostic, Weber recognizes way, parables help to “ground ideas
the importance of developing a of local resistance [to the status
religious basis to develop radical quo] in specific empirical contexts”
management theory and practice (Alvesson & Deetz, 1999, p. 206).
115
Just What was Jesus Saying?

Moreover, if we think of parables cleverness, and he is called

as metaphors of what Godly living “shrewd” (NIV, Good News) or
is like on-the-ground, then a “crafty” (NJB). For the remainder
parable can “become the vehicle of this paper, we will call him
through which paradigms become a shrewd manager because as
actualized in the mind of the we shall see, that label seems
theorist” (Burrell, 1999, p. 397; appropriate when analyzing both
see also Morgan, 1988). the Conventional, or mainstream,
As noted earlier, many writers and the Radical interpretations of
who apply biblical principles to the this passage.
practice of management have often To better analyze the meaning
ignored the parable of the shrewd of the parable and to grasp what
manager. Why might this be so? Jesus was saying, it is helpful
Perhaps because it is one of the to first understand the role of
“most difficult” (Capon, 2002, a manager in Jesus’ time. The word
p. 302), “puzzling” (Herzog, 1994, used in this passage is oikonomos
p. 233) and “notoriously difficult” and describes someone who
(Liefeld, 1984, p. 986) of Jesus’ managed the farm estate for an
parables to comprehend. This absentee owner. According to
difficulty in interpretation is Aubert (1994) managing an estate
evident in the variety of headings was considered beneath the dignity
that are used in different Bible of the landowner. Consequently,
translations for this text. There is the job of managing a farm was
wide agreement that the central given over to a trusted slave, or
character in the parable is a “man- perhaps on rare occasions, to a
ager” (NRSV, NIV, Good News), freeman. It should also be noted
sometimes called a “steward” that a farm was considered to be a
(NASB, New Jerusalem Bible). safe investment; a place for steady
However, there is considerable but not spectacular returns on
disagreement as to the adjective investment. Since the owner did
used to describe this manager. In not get involved in the day-to-day
many translations he is clearly a affairs of managing the farm,
shady figure, called “dishonest” there was considerable latitude for
(NRSV, KJV) and “unrighteous” dishonest managers with ambition
(NASB). In other translations to amass their own wealth, as long
the emphasis is on the manager’s as the owner received some steady
116
 Dyck, Starke, and Dueck

income. This situation was so lived up to their reputation as

pervasive that the Latin equivalent agents of injustice and greed.
term for manager (institores) had These background facts should
“acquired a derogatory meaning be kept in mind as we present
and has a flavor of greed, luxury two alternative interpretations
and debauchery” (Aubert, 1994, of the parable, first from the
p. 17). So, although social norms Conventional management
required nobility to entrust their perspective, and then from a
farms to managers, it is interesting Radical management perspective.
to note that: Table 1 presents the biblical text
and a brief overview of our two
The typical institor was viewed interpretations. We encourage
by the nobility as a necessary readers to think critically about
disease to be contained within these two interpretations and to
strict limits. This was mainly come to their own conclusions
achieved by social segregation, about which moral-point-of-view
the upper classes pretending to is most helpful in applying Chris-
abstain from potentially very tian principles to the practice of
profitable activities which management. Readers should keep
became the preserve of lower in mind that we offer these two
classes. (Aubert, 1994, p. 24) as ideal-types or “extremes” —
we are not arguing that the two
This attitude towards managers moral-points-of-view are the only
must surely have been shared ones for readers to choose among,
by the lowest classes who were nor are we arguing that these
exploited by unjust managers. The are necessarily the best ones with
manager thus found himself caught which to interpret the parable
in the middle, being despised by of the shrewd manager. We do,
both the rich and the poor. By however, think that juxtaposing
using a manager, the rich person these two points of view gives us
could claim full obedience to the new insights into what the parable
law while implicitly requiring might be saying.
behavior from the managers that
they could claim not to condone.
The poor, on the other hand,
suffered under those managers who
117
Just What was Jesus Saying?

TABLE 1: Parable of the Shrewd Manager, with

Conventional and Radical Interpretations

I. Body of parable (Luke 16: 1-8) Conventional interpretation Radical interpretation

a) Manager is accused: “Jesus told his disciples:
1
A manager fails to safeguard A manager purposefully
‘There was a rich man whose manager was accused a rich man’s financial disperses a rich man’s
[diaballo] of wasting [diaskorpizon] his possessions. self-interests. resources.
b) Rich man’s first response: 2So he called him in The outraged rich man The rich man strips title
and asked him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give fires the manager. from manager and asks
an account of your management, because you cannot for an accounting.
be manager any longer.’
c) Manager’s response: 3The manager said to himself, The manager does an The manager does some
‘What shall I do now? My master is taking away my instrumental cost-benefit soul-searching, notes his
job. I’m not strong enough to dig, and I’m ashamed to analysis of his options, personal financial poverty,
beg — 4I know what I’ll do so that, when I lose my job and decides that it is in and purposefully continues
here, people will welcome me into their houses.’ 5So he his own financial self-interest to scatter the rich man’s
called in each of his master’s debtors. He asked the first, to unilaterally reduce the resources (thereby cementing
‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6“Eight hundred amounts that debtors owe his radical reputation
gallons of olive oil,’ he replied. The manager told him, to the rich man (thereby the and bringing honor to the
‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four manager ingratiates himself rich man).
hundred.’ 7Then he asked the second, ‘And how much to the debtors).
do you owe?’ ‘A thousand bushels of wheat,’ he replied.
He told him, ‘Take your bill and make it eight hundred.’
d) Rich man’s second response: 8The master The rich man admires the The rich man admires
commended the dishonest manager [oikonomon tes manager for out-witting him. the manager for acting
adikos] because he acted shrewdly. righteously and bringing
honor to him.

118
 Dyck, Starke, and Dueck

II. Meaning of parable (Luke 16: 9-15) Conventional interpretation Radical interpretation
a) Jesus’ lesson: For the people of this world are more Christians should be just as If you cannot be trusted
shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are people shrewd in managing God’s to purposefully manage to
of the light. 9I tell you, use worldly wealth [mamona true riches as the manager “scatter” (mere) worldly
tes adikos] to gain friends for yourselves, so that when was in maximizing his own wealth to those who need
it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings. financial self-interests. it (even in the role of an
10
Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be In part, this means being employee of the very rich),
trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest [adikos] trustworthy (by conventional how can you be expected
with very little will also be dishonest [adikos] with standards) in managing to be a good manager of
much. 11So if you have not been trustworthy in handling someone else’s property, and God’s true riches? In their
worldly wealth (adikos mamona), who will trust you thereby showing that they “scattering,” managers
with true riches? 12And if you have not been trustworthy serve God rather than money. reveal who their true
with someone else’s property, who will give you property master is.
of your own? 13No servant can serve two masters.
Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he
will be devoted to the one and despise the other.
You cannot serve both God and Money.’”
b) Listeners’ response: 14The Pharisees, who loved Lovers of money equate Lovers of money
money heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. money with true riches. feel threatened by
Jesus’ teaching.
c) Jesus’ response: 15He said to them, “You are the Don’t love money more Woe to teachers whose
ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but than God (but, of course, love for money trumps
God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among don’t “waste” money the obvious value of its
men is detestable in God’s sight. either — duty to purposeful scattering.
“conventional” justice).

119
Just What was Jesus Saying?

Interpretation of the to sponge off the debtors whom

Parable From a Conventional he has helped.
Moral-Point-of-View Then comes the first surprise
A Conventional interpreta- in the parable. When the rich
tion of this parable starts from man finds out about the deals
the assumption that the rich man that the manager has struck,
wanted the manager to maximize he commends the manager for
the rich man’s financial wealth. acting shrewdly. This unexpected
Any actions by the manager that response from the rich man may
failed to safeguard the rich man’s have occurred because he was
possessions would be deemed impressed by the resourcefulness
to be wasteful, dishonest, and of his former manager. Put
unrighteous. From this material- another way, the rich man
ist-individualist moral-point-of- grudgingly admires someone
view, the rich man is outraged who can beat him at his own
to hear that the manager has game and is impressed at how
squandered his resources; he shrewd the manager was in
therefore fires the manager. dealing with people like him.
From a Conventional The second surprise comes
moral-point-of-view, the manag- when Jesus does not condemn
er’s subsequent behavior is not either the manager (for his
surprising, given that he is about behavior) or the rich man (for
to lose his job and that his future praising the manager’s unjust
job prospects look dim (bad [adikos] actions). Instead, Jesus
reputation as a manager, unable praises the manager, and encour-
to do physical work, unwilling ages listeners to do likewise: “Use
to beg). The manager acts in his worldly wealth to gain friends for
own financial self-interest, and yourselves, so that when it is
“buys” himself some friends by gone, you will be welcomed into
unilaterally lowering the amounts eternal dwellings” (v. 9). From
of money owed by others to a Conventional perspective, it
the rich man.4 Although this seems inconceivable that Jesus
seems to cement his reputation actually meant that we should
as a dishonest manager, he is manage other people’s possessions
hoping that he will later be able in a way that harms (i.e., does

120
 Dyck, Starke, and Dueck

not maximize) their financial one and hate the other,” and
self-interest. “you cannot serve both God and
In trying to deal with this money”). Taken at face value,
apparent contradiction, com- these harsh statements seem to
mentators who interpret this contradict the Conventional
parable often argue that Jesus was view, which holds that managers
not commending the managerial should work to maximize owners’
practice of wasting an employer’s financial self-interests (e.g., many
wealth; rather, they argue that managers who hold to Weber’s
Jesus was emphasizing the idea version of the Protestant Ethic
of managers being shrewd for assume that there is no conflict
God (Lockyer, 1963). Thus, in between loving God versus
terms of the Conventional managing to maximize riches).
moral-point-of-view, the parable To address this concern, the
is interpreted to suggest that, just Conventional interpretation
as worldly managers shrewdly use suggests that Jesus is condemning
material wealth to protect their a narrow segment of people like
own financial self-interest, so the sneering Pharisees, who love
also should God-fearing manag- money more than they love
ers creatively use material wealth God. In this view, Jesus uses the
to achieve God’s goals. Chewning strong “either-or” language
et al. (1990, p. 97) illustrate merely as a way of emphasizing
this approach when they say that the importance of loving God
“Jesus used this story to suggest more than loving money. As a
that Christians should be just as result, managers still can serve
creative and clever in working in owners’ financial self-interests,
the world for kingdom values as so long as they do it out of a love
this manager was in taking care for God (e.g., evident in the idea
of his own needs.” of “calling” associated with the
Another problem that this Protestant Ethic) rather than out
parable poses for Conventional of love for money.
interpreters is evident in the very A contemporary Conven-
strong “either-or” statements that tional example. What might a
Jesus makes about money versus modern Conventional manager
God (“either you will love the look like? Consider Jack Welch,

121
Just What was Jesus Saying?

the former CEO of General wasting his master’s possessions.

Electric, who is the most often- One of GE’s main “masters”
cited manager in leading manage- is the U.S. government, GE’s
ment textbooks (Dyck & Starke, largest customer accounting for
2005). He has been called a nearly 20% of its revenues.
visionary “prophet” (Litz, 2003, Unfortunately, GE earned “the
p. 671) and a “modern saint” dubious distinction of leading
whose “miracles” have inspired corporate criminal among the
a host of “apostles” (Hegele & Pentagon’s one hundred largest
Kieser, 2001, p. 298). Under defense contractors” (O’Boyle,
Welch’s leadership, GE experi- 1998, p. 266). Welch’s GE was
enced over two decades of both accused and found guilty
consecutive annual dividend of “wasting” the resources of the
increases, a near-perfect record government (GE’s “master”).
of ever-higher profits, and a In 1985 GE was indicted on a
greater than one thousand Minuteman missile contract
percent increase in the value of and then suspended from doing
its shares (O’Boyle, 1998). He business with the U.S. govern-
was voted the Most Respected ment. However, in this case
CEO four times by Industry Welch fared better than the
Week, named the “manager of the manager in the parable; he met
century” as well as “America’s with the Defense Secretary and
toughest boss” by Fortune got the suspension lifted within
(O’Boyle, 1998, p. 83), and two days. Like the shrewd
called the “gold standard against manager in the parable, Welch
which other CEOs are measured” was good at “buying” friends,
by Business Week (Hegele & for example, by “exhorting GE
Kieser, 2001). Like the shrewd executives to give more money
manager in the parable, Welch to the corporate political action
comes highly commended! committee so that GE could
Consider the following engender more goodwill with
specific example where Welch’s friends in Congress” (O’Boyle,
actions are somewhat akin to 1998, p. 270). Welch enjoyed
those of the shrewd manager in formidable connections inside
the parable, who was accused of the Beltway.

122
 Dyck, Starke, and Dueck

By placing managers like word could serve as a hint that

Welch front-and-center in our the charges against the manager
textbooks and classrooms, we are false. However, the word that
are essentially approving of his is more important to the mean-
Conventionally-defined shrewd ing of the passage is diaskorpizon.
actions and telling student to Most Bibles translate the word as
“go and do likewise.” “wasting” or as “squandering.”5
The image is that of a meaning-
Interpretation of the Parable less waste of resources. However,
From a Radical Moral-Point- it is striking that in other Bible
of-View passages diaskorpizon is usually
A Radical interpretation translated as “scattering,” and
of this parable is based on two is never translated in the same
assumptions: (1) that there is pejorative manner that translators
nothing inherently righteous or have given to it in this passage.6
commendable about managers For example, in the parable of
who maximize the wealth of the talents, the master gathers
people who are already rich, where he did not “scatter” (Matt.
and (2) that the manager is 25:24; see also Deut. 9:4; Matt.
commended by Jesus because 26:31; Mark 14:27; Luke 1:51;
he is actually modeling truly John 11:52; Acts 5:37).
righteous behavior (even though The meaning of this parable
that behavior is clearly “dishon- changes considerably when the
est” from a Conventional moral- accusation against the manager is
point-of-view). Most readers translated as “scattering” instead
will not find the first assumption of as “wasting.” The manager’s
problematic, but some may behavior then becomes more
at first have trouble accepting purposeful since the word
the second assumption. diaskorpizon carries with it the
A key issue is how the words connotation of deliberate action,
diaballo and diaskorpizon are as opposed to scattering due to
translated (see Luke 16: 1). The carelessness. Thus, we could say
term diaballo is often translated that the manager was accused
as slander or false accusation. In of deliberately dispersing the
the context of this parable the owner’s money in a way that

123
Just What was Jesus Saying?

some others found objectionable, ager had followed conventional

hence their complaint to the wisdom and unlawfully taken
owner. Whereas “wasting” money out of the estate for
implies that the rich man’s himself, then he would not be
resources are being used in a way facing such dire financial straits.
that benefits no one, “scattering” Furthermore, the rich man
or dispersing the resources commends the manager for being
implies that others may be oikonomos tes adikos (literally,
benefiting from the redistribu- a manager of unrighteousness
tion. And, as we learn in the or dishonesty). This unusual
parable, this dispersing of re- manner of speaking begs the
sources does not maximize the question: What exactly is being
rich man’s financial self-interest called unrighteous or dishonest?
(or the manager’s, for that mat- Is it the manager (a conventional
ter) but may enhance other interpretation), or is it the larger
forms of well-being and, more socio-economic system that he is
importantly, fulfills the righteous part of (evident, for example, in
requirements of the Law. the unrighteousness of those who
If the rich man believed that would call him to account for his
the manager was “wasting” his scattering). If it was the manager
resources, as per a Conventional who was dishonest, then why not
interpretation, then why does the use a more common expression
rich man not immediately fire the such as adikos oikonomos (literally,
manager? Rather, the manager an unjust manager). Clarification
is given some additional time comes by way of another unusual
to further “scatter” the rich man’s expression. In explaining the
resources. What the rich man meaning of the story, Jesus urges
does not realize at first, and his listeners to use mamona tes
which we as listeners are cued adikos (literally, money of unrigh-
into by the manager’s speech — teousness) to gain friends.
in which he indicates extreme Taken together, these
poverty if he loses his job — is phraseologies (awkward from
that the manager has not been a Conventional view) raise an
using his master’s wealth for his important question: What is the
own personal gain. If the man- unrighteousness that both the

124
 Dyck, Starke, and Dueck

manager and the money are a that “the manager’s actions make
part of? From a Radical perspec- his master appear to be generous,
tive, it is the unrighteousness of charitable, and law-abiding.” This
a socio-economic system which would have been an important
rejects the scattering of resources consideration for the owner,
for friendship and the common because, as scholars point out:
good, and denigrates managers “In both Jewish and Greco-
who challenge such a system. Roman societies of New Testa-
Such an “unrighteous” economic ment times, honor was just as
system demands that goods and important as wealth — if not
services be paid for and properly more so — to a man’s social
accounted for, regardless of status” (Landry & May, 2000,
who needs them. Such a system p. 208). So, maximizing the
creates an “iron cage” that both financial return on his posses-
secular and biblically-grounded sions was likely not the only
scholars long to escape.7 By priority for the rich man. Indeed,
reducing the debt of oil and it seems that honor comes when
wheat (which were necessities actions subvert the Conventional
of life), the manager was, even if financial self-interest view:
unintentionally, circumventing
the economic system and the While some modern
systemic prejudicial views of [Conventional?] people see
himself in the role of manager, it as unbelievable that a rich
in favor of true justice and mercy. man would praise an employ-
This radical manager is com- ee for giving away his money,
mended for modeling the charac- almost every scholar who
ter of a righteous man in his employs the honor-shame
seemingly audacious transactions. paradigm would dispute this.
Moreover, by scattering Many sociologically-oriented
resources the manager also critics have pointed to the
brought honor to the rich man frequency with which the
who would be seen as someone rich engaged in benefactions
who is concerned about and the spectacular amounts
righteousness. Landry and often involved as proof of
May (2000, p. 201) point out their claim that honor is more

125
Just What was Jesus Saying?

important than money. as “wasteful” and “unjust” from

(Landry & May, 2000, the Conventional perspective, it
p. 304) is commendable when viewed
from a Radical perspective.
Thus, from a Radical inter- You cannot serve God if you
pretation it makes sense for are fixated on trying to maximize
Jesus to echo the rich man’s praise profits. Whoever can be trusted
of the manager. Jesus is saying to use mere worldly wealth in a
that we should be like the man- Radical way can also be trusted
ager, who acted in ways that were with true wealth, but whoever
“dishonest” from a Conventional blindly follows the Conventional
socio-economic systems perspec- mantra of self-interested
tive.8 Jesus asks, if we can’t be wealth-maximization cannot be
trusted to share worldly wealth trusted to nurture interpersonal
(adikos mamona) — that is, if relationships, build community,
we constantly seek to maximize and gain true riches. A society
our own financial self-interest — has true riches (e.g., friendship,
then how can we be trusted to consideration, trust, and commu-
manage true riches? A Radical nity) if it manages to disperse
interpretation suggests that wealth to those who need it, even
Jesus was actually encouraging if such scattering may be deemed
his listeners to literally follow the “wasteful” and “unjust” from a
example of the manager and to Conventional perspective.
redistribute worldly wealth in a Finally, the sneering response
non-wealth-maximizing way, that that Jesus receives from the
is, in a way that seems “unjust” Pharisees — who were key
(adikos) from a Conventional teachers of the day — is entirely
point of view.9 Such distributions consistent with a Radical inter-
would benefit others (particularly pretation.10 Woe to today’s
debtors and the poor), would management teachers and practi-
win friends, and would nurture tioners who justify their theories
community. All of these out- and actions by trusting in a
comes are consistent with Jesus’ materialist-individualist view —
teachings. So, although the what is highly-valued among
manager’s scattering is viewed people is detested by God. Woe

126
 Dyck, Starke, and Dueck

to lovers of money who sneer decided to deliberately “scatter”12

at Radical views—God sees the his resources in his community
underpinning moral-point-of- by rebuilding the factory on
view that we use to justify our the same site, even though the
wealth management. God insurance covered only three
wants us to manage our lives quarters of the reconstruction
by deliberately and purposefully costs. He also voluntarily kept all
scattering resources, even though three thousand employees on the
this goes against conventional payroll during reconstruction: “I
wisdom. From a Radical perspec- simply felt an obligation to the
tive, the parable points to an entire community that relies on
understanding of management our presence here in Lawrence; it
theory and practice that differs would have been unconscionable
substantially from what is found to put three thousand people out
in standard textbooks.11 on the streets” (Batstone, 2003,
A contemporary Radical p. 133). His willingness to
example. Aaron Feuerstein, “scatter” resources to nurture
CEO of Malden Mills Industries community attracted a lot of
in Lawrence, Massachusetts, media attention: “I got a lot of
illustrates certain aspects of the publicity. And I don’t think it
Radical shrewd manager (Dyck speaks well for our times. … At
& Starke, 2005). When most of the time in America of our
the Malden Mills factory burnt greatest prosperity, the god
to the ground in 1995, the then of money has taken over to
seventy-year-old Feuerstein could an extreme” (The Mensch of
easily have taken the $300 Malden Mills, 2003).
million insurance money and The contrast between
enjoyed retirement. Or, he Conventional and Radical
could have taken the advice of shrewdness was evident in 2003,
(Conventional) advisors who after Malden Mills had been
counseled him to follow the forced into bankruptcy (due to
trend of moving his operations successive warm winters and
south, where labor costs were cheaper overseas goods)13 and
lower. Instead, Feuerstein, who was now owned by a group of
found guidance in the Torah, creditors led (ironically) by GE,

127
Just What was Jesus Saying?

who was looking to sell it. Again increasingly linked to problem-

flying in the face of conventional atic societal outcomes (e.g., the
wisdom, radically-shrewd Feuer- iron cage); and (3) scholars are
stein tried to buy back the beginning to look to the biblical
company and keep jobs in narrative to underpin a Radical
Lawrence, one of the poorest counterpoint-of-view which will
cities in America, in a deal where serve as an alternative to the
his partner Winn Cos would Conventional status quo (e.g.,
develop 600 units of housing on Dyck & Starke, 2005; Perrow,
land owned by Malden Mills 1985; Weber, 1958).
next to its new state-of-the-art In developing these themes,
factory. However, the Feuerstein- our paper provided two interpre-
Winn offer was deemed “far too tations of the parable of the
low to be acceptable” according shrewd manager, one from a
to a spokesperson for the conven- materialist-individualist perspec-
tionally-shrewd GE: despite the tive and the other from its
socio-economic merits of the Radical counterpoint. Because a
offer, the deal would compromise Conventional interpretation
GE’s ability to maximize profits starts with the assumption that
because it meant that GE would any use of resources that fails to
get $2.7 million less than the maximize the financial self-
asking price (Bailey, 2003). interests of the rich man is
deemed to be wasteful, and
Discussion because Jesus seems to commend
In this paper, we observed precisely such behavior, the
that: (1) management scholars parable has been difficult to
generally accept Weber’s argu- reconcile with a materialist-
ment that Conventional manage- individualist moral-point-of-
ment theory was initially under- view. Conventional interpreters
pinned by a specific (Protestant are to be commended for their
Ethic) interpretation of the clever interpretation that the
biblical text; (2) the materialist- parable is saying that, just as the
individualist management theory manager was clever in managing
and practice that characterizes the rich man’s resources to meet
modern management is being the manager’s own financial self-

128
 Dyck, Starke, and Dueck

interests, Christians should be as saying that managing according

clever in managing God’s true to the Kingdom is characterized
riches for the glory of God. by a purposeful redistribution of
Unfortunately, because such a resources. Such a radical teaching
Conventional interpretation has all sorts of implications for
suggests that readers should developing an approach to
(obviously) not follow the management that differs substan-
example of the shrewd manager, tially from conventional wisdom
readers are left with little practi- and challenges today’s dominant
cal guidance about how to go socio-economic systems. Listen-
about managing God’s resources ers are driven to think about
for God’s glory. Presumably what kind of redistribution is
Conventional managers believe God-pleasing. For example, for
that they are glorifying God by whom should debt be reduced?
honestly managing to maximize By how much? When? The
the financial interests of share- parable seems to suggest that it is
holders. However, because such a acceptable for wealth to be
view is not inconsistent with distributed unequally throughout
secular Conventional manage- society (e.g., the rich man is still
ment theory, there is little left to rich at the end), but when are the
differentiate the ways of the rich too rich, and the poor too
Kingdom with Conventional poor? How can wealthy people
management theory. promote wealth-creation among
In one sense, the “punch poor people? And so on.
line” of both the Conventional In sum, a Radical interpreta-
and Radical interpretations is tion points to a way of managing
similar—don’t love money more that is qualitatively different from
than you love God—but because conventional wisdom. In stark
the Radical interpretation sees contrast to a Conventional
the shrewd manager’s actual interpretation, a Radical interpre-
behavior as exemplary, it provides tation challenges status quo
much more direction as to how socio-economic systems, and
to manage to put this sentiment calls for much work in rethinking
into practice. From a Radical per- management theory and practice.
spective, Jesus is interpreted as Moreover, it shows what

129
Just What was Jesus Saying?

Kingdom management looks like manipulation, and less connect-

in a specific empirical context. edness with others, less generos-
Societal Implications ity, less empathy for others and
Because it flies in the face greater conflict (for an excellent
of conventional wisdom, some review, see Kasser, 2003).
readers may find the Radical Moreover, society seems
interpretation controversial. to be ready for a more Radical
They may also be reluctant to act approach to managing our
on it. Others may agree with it everyday lives. In a recent survey,
in principle, but be inclined to 93% of respondents thought that
dismiss the Radical approach as “there is too much emphasis on
too idealistic to be of practical working and making money, and
value in the rough-and-tumble not enough emphasis on family
real world of everyday manage- and community” (New American
ment. However, the Radical Dream, 2004). More than half
approach may have more to of those responding have opted
commend it as practical than not to maximize their material
we might first think. For wealth in order to facilitate other
example, a growing body of forms of well-being (e.g., social,
scholarly research shows that a physical, ecological, aesthetic,
materialist-individualist approach spiritual or intellectual). Idealistic
to life contributes to significant perhaps, but Jesus did teach his
negative outcomes. These include listeners to pray and work to
a lower satisfaction with life manage relationships here on
(Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2002; earth “as it is in Heaven.”
Kasser, 2003; Kasser & Ryan,
2001), poorer interpersonal Implications for
relationships (Richins & Business Schools
Dawson, 1992), an increase in We have already seen how a
mental disorders (Cohen & growing number of management
Cohen, 1995), environmental scholars are lamenting the
degradation (Brown, 1998; materialist-individualist moral-
Thurow, 1996; McCarty & point-of-view that underpins
Shrum, 2001), social injustice Conventional management theory
(Rees, 2002), interpersonal and practice. Pattison (1997)

130
 Dyck, Starke, and Dueck

argues that management has are not the only ones that
become a religion which preaches are important. In any case, the
that managers should put their most widely-used management
faith in maximizing efficiency, textbooks in all schools continue
competitiveness, profitability, to emphasize the maximization
and productivity. The leading of shareholder value.
“priests” and “prophets” of The Conventional manage-
this Conventional faith are ment assumptions contained in
management professors and widely-used textbooks have had
practitioners, and business a definite impact on the students
schools serve as the “churches” who attend business schools.
where adherents learn about the Even though surveys among
basics of the faith. A study by management students in our
the Aspen Institute (2002) found university indicate that a major-
that “the assumption that the ity aspire to be Radical managers,
primary, if not the sole, purpose their preferences are at odds
of the firm is to maximize with standard business education.
wealth for shareholders has come A longitudinal study of how the
to dominate the curricula of values of MBA students change
business schools and the thinking between the time they enter
of future managers” (Margolis & the program and the time they
Walsh, 2003, p. 271). This graduate found that they became
dominance of Conventional more materialistic as they pro-
management may be changing, ceeded through their program.
given the growing interest in Graduates placed more emphasis
corporate social responsibility on enjoying a comfortable life,
and business ethics. Also, it is pleasure, and being capable, and
unclear whether these Conven- less emphasis on non-materialis-
tional views are as prevalent tic pursuits like wisdom, inner
in smaller religious liberal arts harmony, or a world of beauty.
colleges, where instructors may These students also became
be more likely to reflect the views more individualistic, placing less
such as those described in Alford emphasis on developing true
and Naughton (2001), who friendships, world peace, family
recognize that financial criteria and national security, being

131
Just What was Jesus Saying?

helpful, loving, and polite, and beg scrutiny. Why should

instead placing more emphasis competitiveness be valued
on being independent and over cooperativeness? Why
enjoying social recognition should efficiency be valued
(Krishnan, 2003). over relationships? Why should
Perhaps the time has come shareholder self-interest be
to re-think the business valued over society’s interests?
school curriculum. Second, our moral-points-of-
view tend to become self-fulfill-
Implications for Readers ing prophecies. In this paper we
As noted earlier, we are have demonstrated that a person’s
not arguing that the two moral-point-of-view influences
moral-points-of-view that we his or her interpretation of
have described here are the only the Bible and of management
ones or the best ones for readers behavior. For example, from a
to choose among. The important materialist-individualist perspec-
message of our paper is not in tive, managers like Jack Welch
its details, and we do not want may be seen as heroes, while
readers to lose sight of the forest managers like Aaron Feuerstein
because of the trees. Our larger may be seen as fools. But from
message has three interrelated a Radical perspective, the social
parts. First, everyone has a and environmental costs created
moral-point-of-view. There is by Welch’s profit-maximizing
no such thing as value-neutral strategic actions are bad,
management theory or practice. while the community-building
All theory and practice are facilitated by Feuerstein is good.
implicitly based upon certain Our moral point of view affects
assumptions. Conventional what we see.
management theory is based This argument is not new,
on a materialist-individualist but it is often forgotten. As a
moral-point-of-view that values result we are often seduced
things like maximizing efficiency, into non-critically adopting
productivity, competitiveness, the dominant socio-economic
and profitability. These are systems as our own. This is
value-laden assumptions that particularly problematic for

132
 Dyck, Starke, and Dueck

management scholars because how our worldview influences

the materialist-individualist our perceptions and interpreta-
moral-point-of-view is so well tions of the world.
entrenched. So strong is the
Conventional hold on our Conclusion
thinking that, for example, As management scholars,
even enlightened scholars in the we have a responsibility to help
corporate social responsibility our students become increasingly
movement feel compelled to moral persons. This means (1)
defend it on the grounds that allowing them to see how
corporate social responsibility different moral-points-of-view
is good for the bottom-line influence how they perceive
(Margolis & Walsh, 2003). their world, (2) helping them to
Third, to be a moral person understand the implications of
one must be aware of one’s own the various moral-points-of-view
moral-point-of-view and then for management theory and
act upon it. In this paper, we practice, and (3) giving them the
have offered two moral-points-of- necessary tools to discern where
view. Since there may be as many they stand. This is a dynamic and
specific moral-points-of-view on-going process, and our views
as there are readers, we are not will change and grow as we
suggesting that readers must discern in community what is
choose between one of these good and bad. May we scatter
two. However, we are exhorting these resources widely.
readers to carefully consider
what their moral-point-of-view
is. Failure to do so prevents us Bruno Dyck, Frederick A.
from being fully moral persons, Starke, and Calvin Dueck
University of Manitoba
and leaves us vulnerable to the Winnipeg, Manitoba
dominant (and often unstated) CANADA R3T 5V4
moral-point-of-view that under-
pins the status quo. Sire (1997)
makes a similar point when he
notes that we need to live an
examined life and be aware of

133
Just What was Jesus Saying?

Endnotes
1
Three authors did briefly mention Jesus’ explanation of the parable’s meaning as
described in Luke 16: 9-15. For example, in discussing the relationship between
Christian ethics and profit, Hoover (1998, p. 51, 71) notes that we are to place
friends before wealth (verse 9), and reminds us of Scripture’s warning against
the love of money (verse 13). Smith (1999, p. 89) quotes verse 10 in the context
of trust, and Chewning and Haak (2002, p. 66) also cite verse 10 under the
heading of integrity.

2
This idea that one’s moral-point-of-view has an effect on how one interprets
Jesus’ teachings will not come as a surprise to biblical scholars or to readers who
are familiar with social construction theory (e.g. Berger & Luckman, 1967).
For example, much has been written about differences in the way that Jesus is
interpreted among the four Gospel writers which, for example, leads to discussion
comparing Luke’s “Jesus” to Matthew’s “Jesus.” We build on these observations,
and we note that Western biblical interpretations are often influenced by the
dominant materialist-individualist moral-point-of-view, and that there is relatively
little sustained rigorous scholarly interpretation of any of the Gospels from what
we call a Radical moral-point-of-view [some exceptions include Hauerwas and
Willimon (1989), Gay (2004), and Finn (2006)]. This emphasis on the materialist-
individualist view is noteworthy in light of the fact that our contemporary notion
of individualism was unfathomable in biblical times, and that in biblical times
assumptions about economics and production (e.g., the economic pie as a fixed
sum) would have resulted in a very different understanding of what it might mean
to be materialistic.

3
Jesus’ teachings about the “Kingdom of God” should be of particular interest to
management scholars because, as Dyck and Schroeder (2005) note, a contemporary
translation of that phrase might be rendered as “the managerial character of God”
(e.g., do Jesus’ teachings promote a Conventional or a Radical managerial charac-
ter?). They argue that, because God’s “Kingdom” is not primarily territorial
or national in nature, a more accurate translation might be the “kingly rule,”
“sovereignty,” “reign,” or the “managerial character” of God. However, because the
contemporary notion of management would not have been fathomable in biblical
times, we do not argue that these passages are limited only to applications in the
workplace, or even that Jesus’ teachings are primarily directed at managers.

4
The first debtor owes 800 gallons of olive oil, which represents the yield of about
150 olive trees and a debt of about 1000 denarii (one denarii is the equivalent to
about one day of wage labor). His debt is reduced by 50%. The second debtor
owes about 1,000 bushels of wheat, the equivalent of about 100 acres of land,
134
 Dyck, Starke, and Dueck

worth about 2,500 denarii. His debt is reduced by 20% (taken from Herzog, 1994;
Liefeld, 1984). Some scholars suggest that the differences in the loan reductions
were related to the inherent “riskiness” of the commodity, and reflect the “interest”
built into the debt. For example, because oil could easily be adulterated, it was
discounted at a higher rate than wheat (Wright, 2000, p. 226; cf Herzog, 1994,
p. 256-257). Others point out that in each case the reduction was the equivalent
of about 500 denarii (Liefeld, 1984, p. 988).

5
The Greek word diaskorpizon is translated as “wasting” in three translations of the
Bible (King James Version, New International Version, Revised Standard Version),
as “squandered” in two others (New American Standard and New Revised Standard
Version), and as “cheating” in one other (New Century Version).

6
The only two places in the New Testament where translators have given the word
the pejorative twist of “wasting” is this parable and the parable of the prodigal
son wasting or scattering his possessions (Landry & May, 2000, p. 306). Context
is important in biblical exegesis, so we examined the parables that preceded and
followed the parable of the shrewd manager (the parable of the prodigal son and
the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, respectively) as preparation for our
analysis of the parable of the shrewd manager. Because of space limitations, we do
not discuss how the parable of the prodigal son might be affected by translating the
word as scattering, but in the parable of the shrewd manager the translation is of
particular importance for interpreting the parable.

7
Jesus and his listeners would have been familiar with the frequent passages in
the Old Testament where readers are exhorted to give to those who need it without
expecting a return. [E.g., “If your brother becomes poor, and cannot maintain
himself...you shall maintain him.... You shall not lend him your money at interest,
not give him your food for profit” (Leviticus 25: 35-37).] Indeed, at the start of his
public ministry Jesus quotes from Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because
he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor … to proclaim the year of the
Lord’s favor” (Luke 4: 18-19). Recall that the Year of Jubilee required regularly
redistributing financial resources so that everyone had enough.

8
Note that the manager’s “dishonesty” vis a vis the Conventional materialist-
individualist moral-point-of-view is very different from the dishonesty evident in
modern-day events like Enron and so on. As Bonanventure (1221-74) noted long
ago, but modern commentators seem to forget (Wright, 2000, p. 228), unlike the
Enrons of our time, the manager in the parable did not line his own pockets by
making deals with the debtors. Rather, the manager is trying to build friendships. It
is unclear whether his actions make it less likely that he will find future employment

135
Just What was Jesus Saying?

as a manager (because he cannot be trusted to profit-maximize) or more likely to

get another job as manager (because his actions bring honor to his employer).

9
Note that this dispersing is purposeful and planned — not haphazard squandering
— and different from hand-outs that create a dependency that may lead to a lack
of motivation for recipients.

10
Another Radical way to understand the parable is to argue that it is the wealth
of the owner that Jesus is calling unrighteous. If this is the case, then the manager
becomes a manager of unrighteousness (oikonomon tes adikos) because he is manag-
ing dishonest wealth. It is only after it is revealed how much wealth the rich man
had that the term adikos is used and it is used in a way that allows us to interpret
it as someone who manages unjust riches. The rich man had far more than enough
and yet had apparently lent, not given, the basic necessities of life (wheat and oil)
to others expecting full repayment. In another place Jesus argues that we are to
give to the one that asks of us expecting nothing in return. Jesus, here, likewise
exhorts us to use money of unrighteousness (mamona tes adikos) — money that
is more than we need for the basics of life — to make friends, not to reinvest
for more monetary gains. It is in this sense that Jesus then lumps all wealth into
unrighteousness (adikos mamona). If you are not trustworthy in handling unjust
(or as many translations say, worldly money — adikos mamona, that is, more than
you need to live on) who will trust you with true riches? This may more fully
account for the sneers of those who love money.

11
Seeing the parable as a story of how a just, or faithful, person responds to
unrighteous economic systems also helps to explain another puzzling aspect of
Jesus’ response to the Pharisee’s sneers. In Luke 16: 16-18 Jesus indicates that,
although the Kingdom of God is evident in the Law and the prophets, people
need to “force” their way into it because of the dominance of un-Kingdom-like
socio-economic systems. It requires considerable strength of character and will to
challenge the rules and norms evident in “unrighteous” economic systems that favor
the accumulation of wealth over that of justice and righteousness. The Law does
not change (it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke
of the pen to drop out of the Law), therefore, when our socio-economic systems are
not oriented toward justice as a primary motive, those who wish to truly follow the
Law must reorient even their economics toward the justice called for by the Law.

Or to “waste” his resources, as his actions would be interpreted by Conventional

12

observers.

136
 Dyck, Starke, and Dueck

13
It is important not to confuse being Radical with being financially successful.
Most people admire Feuerstein for doing the “right thing.” As Margolis and Walsh
(2003) note, managers and scholars alike would be wise not to argue that doing the
right thing will be rewarded with financial success; thankfully the world is much
too complex for such simplistic arguments. Doing the right thing sometimes leads
to results that, in the short term, can seem as negative as death on a cross.

References
Alford, H., & Naughton, M. (2001). Managing as if faith mattered. South Bend,
IN: Notre Dame Press.
Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (1999). Critical theory and postmodernism: Approaches
to organizational studies. In S. R. Clegg & C. Hardy (Eds.), Studying organiza-
tion: Theory and method (pp. 185-211). London: Sage.
Aspen Institute Initiative for Social Innovation through Business. (2002). Where
will they lead? MBA student attitudes toward business and society. Washington,
D.C
Aubert, J. (1994). Business managers in ancient Rome: A social and economic study of
institores, 200 b.c. — a.d. 250. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Bailey, S. (2003). Time for a Miracle. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://www.
boston.com.
Batstone, D. (2003). Saving the corporate soul & (who knows?) maybe your own. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Berger, P., & Luckman, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. New York:
Doubleday.
Brown, L. R. (1998). State of the world. Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Institute.
Burch, M.A. (2000). Stepping lightly: Simplicity for people and for the planet.
Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Burrell, G. (1999). Normal science, paradigms, metaphors, discourses and genealo-
gies of analysis. In S. R. Clegg and C. Hardy (Eds.), Studying organization:
Theory and method (pp. 388-404). London: SAGE.
Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and well-being: A conflict-
ing values perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 348-370.
Capon, R. F. (2002). Kingdom, grace, judgment: Paradox, outrage, and vindication in
the parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.
Chewning, C., & Haak, D. (2002, Fall). Integration reinforced through apologet-
ics: Two case illustrations. The Journal of Biblical Integration and Business, 53-
68.
Chewning, R. C., Eby, J. W., & Roels, S. J. (1990). Business through the eyes of faith.
San Francisco: Harper (in conjunction with Christian College Coalition).
Cohen, P., & Cohen, J. (1995). Life values and adolescent mental health. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
137
Just What was Jesus Saying?

Dyck, B., & Schroeder, D. (2005). Management, theology and moral points of
view: Toward an alternative to the conventional materialist-individualist ideal-
type of management. Journal of Management Studies, 42(4), 705-735.
Dyck, B., & Starke, F. (2005, Fall). Looking back and looking ahead: A review of
the most frequently cited biblical texts in the first decade of JBIB. The Journal
of Biblical Integration in Business, 134-153.
Dyck, B., & Weber, M. (2005). Conventional vs. radical moral agents: An explor-
atory empirical look at Weber’s moral-point-of-view and virtues. Organization
Studies, 27(3), 429-450.
Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2005). Economic language and assumptions:
How theories can become self-fulfilling, Academy of Management Review,
30(1), 8-24.
Finn, D. (2006). The moral ecology of markets. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Funk, R. W., Scott, B. B., & Butts, J. R. (1988). The parables of Jesus: Red letter
edition. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge.
Gay, C. M. (2004). Cash values: Money and the erosion of meaning in today’s society.
Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management
practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(1), 75-91.
Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A transcendant business education for the 21st century.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(4), 415-420.
Hauerwas, S., & Willimon, W. (1989). Resident aliens: Life in the Christian colony.
Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Hegele, C., & Kieser, A. (2001). Control the construction of your legend or
someone else will: An analysis of texts on Jack Welch. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 10(4), 298-309.
Herzog II, W. R. (1994). Parables as subversive speech: Jesus as pedagogue of the
oppressed. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.
Hoover, H. (1998, Fall). Christian ethics and market mechanisms of profit: The
intersection of Scriptural themes and models of market structure. The Journal
of Biblical Integration in Business, 50-73.
Kasser, T. (2003). The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA: A Bradford Book,
MIT Press.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Be careful what you wish for: Optimal function-
ing and the relative attainment of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. In P. Schmuck
& K. M. Sheldon (Eds.), Life goals and well-being: Towards a positive psychology
of human striving (pp.116-131). Goettingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.

138
 Dyck, Starke, and Dueck

Krishnan, V. R. (2003). Do business schools change students’ values along desirable

lines? A longitudinal study. In A. F. Libertella, & S. M. Natale (Eds.), Business
Education and Training: A Value-Laden Process (vol. 8, pp. 26-39). Lanham,
MD: University Press of America.
Landry, D., & May, B. (2000). Honor restored: New light on the parable of the
prudent steward (Luke 16...1-8a). Journal of Biblical Literature, 119(2), 287-
310.
Liefeld, W. L. (1984). Luke. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed), The Expositor’s Bible Commen-
tary (vol. 8, pp. 797-1059). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan (Regency Reference
Library).
Litz, R. (2003). Book review essay: Looking at both sides — Jack Welch in review.
Academy of Management Review, 28, 670-673.
Lockyer, H. L. (1963). All the parables of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Publishing House.
Longenecker, R. N. (2000). Luke’s Parables of the Kingdom. In R. N. Longenecker
(Ed.), The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables (pp. 125-147). Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdman’s.
MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame, IN:
University of Notre Dame Press.
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social
initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268-305.
McCarty, J. A., & Shrum, L. J. (2001). The influence of individualism, collectiv-
ism, and locus of control on environmental beliefs and behavior. Journal of
Public Policy and Marketing, 20(1), 93-104.
“The Mensch of Malden Mills.” (2003, July 3). 60 Minutes [Online]. Retrieved
from http://www.CBSNews.com.
Morgan, G. (1988). Images of organization. London: Sage.
Moxnes, H. (1988). The economy of the kingdom. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
New American Dream Survey (September, 2004). Retrieved from http://www.
newdream.org.
Oakman, D. E. (1986). Jesus and the economic questions of His day. In Studies in
the Bible and Early Christianity (vol. 8). Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen
Press.
O’Boyle, T. F. (1998). At any cost: Jack Welch, General Electric, and the pursuit of
profit. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Paine, L. (2003). Value shift: Why companies must merge social and financial impera-
tives. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pattison, S. (1997). The faith of the managers: When management becomes religion.
London: Cassell.
Perrow, C. (1985). Comment on Langton’s “Ecological theory of bureaucracy.”
Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 278-283.

139
Just What was Jesus Saying?

Rees, W. E. (2002). Globalization and sustainability: Conflict or convergence?

Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 22(4), 249-268.
Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for
materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation.
Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 303-316.
Sire, J. (1997). The universe next door. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press.
Smith, V. (1999, Fall). Organizational control through trust: A biblical system?
The Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, 77-102.
Solomon, R. C., & Hanson, K. R. (1983). Above the bottom line: An introduction
to business ethics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Thurow, L. (1996). The future of capitalism: How today’s economic forces shape
tomorrow’s world. New York: Penguin Books.
Tucker, G. (1987). The faith-work connection. Toronto: Anglican Book Centre.
Weber, M. (1958). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. (T. Parsons,
Trans.). New York: Scribner’s.
Wright, S. I. (2000). Parables on poverty and riches. In R. N. Longenecker (Ed.),
The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables (pp. 217-239). Grand Rapids, MI: William
B. Eerdman’s.

140