Higher Education for Higher Consciousness: Maharishi University of Management as a Model for Spirituality in Management Education

Abstract

The system of education at Maharishi University of Management (MUM) provides a model for management educators seeking to understand and teach spirituality. It locates transcendental consciousness—“pure spirituality”—at the basis of the universe and the human mind, experienced through the Transcendental Meditation (TM) program. Disciplines are taught as expressions of one unified field of consciousness. This integrated approach develops students who express “applied spirituality”— acting for the positive transformation of the quality of life for all. Research on educational outcomes at MUM gives evidence of cognitive, affective, and moral development in students. The authors offer suggestions for educators at other institutions.

Spirituality at Work: Comparison Analysis

“…Overall, the ways in which values-based spirituality is defined range from simple to complex. Schmidt-Wilk, Heaton, and Steingard (2000) suggested that in the management literature there are three main definitions for spirituality:…”

The Art of Dealing with Religious and Cultural Diversity in the Classroom

“…Our spiritual practice in the classroom is often largely invisible because our actions do not come with explicit religious labels. A compassionate act is a compassionate act, whether it springs from cultural values based on Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam or Judaism (Schmidt-Wilk et al, 2000;Pielstick, 2005;Kernochan et al, 2007).…”

A “Spiritual Turn” in Organizational Studies: Meaning Making or Meaningless?

“…With a view toward exploring the contribution of a "spiritual turn" in organization studies as a response to a crisis of meaning, some of the definitional complexities of spirituality and its relationship to the concept of meaning will now be reviewed. In spite of the many attempts to define spirituality , research has not produced an agreed upon defmition (Ashforth and Pratt, 2003;Schmidt-Wilk, Heaton and Steingard, 2000). Most suggest that this is due to the complexity of the topic in that spirituality has so many dimensions and is so difficult to pin down to any particular paradigm (Boje, 2000) or definition (Furnham, 2003;Gull and Doh, 2004;Harlos, 2000;Ingersoll, 2003;Neal, 1997;Schmidt-Wilk, Heaton and Steingard, 2000).…”

“…In this new paradigm, so it is proposed, we leave behind reductionist, positivist or overly materialistic conceptions of organizations (Ashar and Lane-Maher, 2004;Lund Dean, 2004;Neal and Biberman, 2004;Vaill, 1998). By contrast, others warn that spirituality research may be dismissed as rhetoric, potential fad (Boje, 2000;Calas and Smircich, 2003;Howard, 2002;Lund Dean, 2004) or dead end lacking methodical research, empirical validation and theoretical rigor (Duerr, 2004;Milliman, Czaplewski and Ferguson, 2003;Schmidt-Wilk, Heaton and Steingard, 2000). From this perspective, spirituality research seems to be the ugly duckling of organization science, perhaps popular but not legitimate (Lund Dean, Fomaciari and McGee, 2003), ignored by the mainstream as "simply obfuscat[ing] more important issues" (Graber and Johnson, 2001: 40) and deconstructed by the critical as a tool for increased organizational control and exploitation (Ashforth and Vaidyanath, 2002;Bell and Taylor, 2003;Boyle and Healy, 2003;Brown, 2003;Elmes and Smith, 2001;Forray and Stork, 2002;Kamoche, 2003;Nadesan, 1999).…”