Essay: Lessons on Spiritual Capital from Silicon Valley
An occasional essay by Bruce Baker, presented to the Center for Integrity in Business
What does it take to get a new company off the ground? Or to bring a new product to market? We all know that new business development requires a certain kind of “right stuff”—
an entrepreneurial spirit, if you will—a kind of energy and enthusiasm which aims to do something new and different because it’s worth doing. It takes a certain kind of character and spiritual energy to push past all the obstacles that stand in the way. There seems indeed to be some kind of “right stuff” which is just as important in launching a business as it is in launching a space capsule.
Strength of human spirit is required in such endeavors. In business, we may refer to this strength as “spiritual capital,” an ingredient just as crucial to success as financial capital. We find spiritual capital in people who seem to have the right stuff when it comes to entrepreneurism. This spiritual capital seems to be like art—we know it when we see it, but we have a hard time defining it. But what if we could get better at recognizing it, understanding it, cultivating it and rewarding it? What a benefit that would be for building high-performance businesses with integrity and the “right stuff”! That’s exactly what I hope to help do with my current research project. I’m researching companies where spiritual capital is on display: identifying it, interviewing the entrepreneurs who have it, and analyzing the organizations where it thrives. I can think of nothing more thrilling in my business career than to have been a part of entrepreneurial start-ups in several different places. One of those places (which has become famous for its own special mystique) is Silicon Valley, and that's where my research into this topic will begin.*
California’s Silicon Valley symbolizes the entrepreneurial spirit which has made American business the world’s pace-setter for inventiveness and technological advancements. The success of start-up companies in Silicon Valley can be traced back to the early days of “Bill & Dave’s” garage in Palo Alto, where in 1938 they developed the audio oscillator which launched the company that still bears their names—Hewlett Packard. The prolific productivity of the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who have followed in their footsteps during the past 70 years has become legendary, and has led to the creation a venture capital industry which leads the world in wealth-creation through entrepreneurial start-ups.
The culture of these entrepreneurial companies deserves to be studied for the sake of the witness it can bring to a theological understanding of human inventiveness and industriousness. How do entrepreneurial companies recognize, enhance and harness the creative talents of the human spirit? What can we learn from their experience about the concept of spiritual capital? To what extent do these companies formulate and communicate an ethos that recognizes and builds upon the source of human dignity found in the imago Dei? These are some of the questions I’ll be pursuing.
In academic terms, the hypothesis to be tested is that there are models of transformational leadership at work here which point to a transcendent concept of human nature. This understanding of human nature transcends other concepts, such as homo economicus, an idea popularized in 20th-century economics based on the idea that human nature can be reduced to utilitarian, conscious decisions to maximize happiness. The flaw in that idea of human nature is that the quintessential humanness of human kind cannot be reduced to economics functions; but rather it has to be understood in a larger context of spirituality expressed in and through relationships with one another and with God.
This research project therefore aims to discover how the goals, aspirations, leadership styles and corporate cultures represented by Silicon Valley companies bear witness to a bigger notion of human nature—that is, to a theological understanding of human nature. By studying the entrepreneurial ethos of representative companies, our hope is to learn practical lessons which managers and entrepreneurs can use to build up and deploy spiritual capital for the sake of their employees, customers and the greater community.
If this sounds interesting, I would love to hear from you. Here’s how you can help: send me an email. Share your ideas with me regarding what “spiritual capital” means to you. Share stories with me, and give me examples of people and companies you know. Perhaps you would even be willing to take part in a personal interview on the topic. I’d love to hear from you. Thanks! And thanks for your support of the Center for Integrity in Business. They occupy a unique and much-needed niche by providing thought leadership in some of the most crucial aspects of business.
* By the way, Seattle is right there on a par with Silicon Valley these days, but I’m going to start my research with the Silicon Valley, which is where a critical mass of the start-up culture seems to have first arisen.
---
Dr. Bruce Baker is Asst. Professor of Business Ethics at Seattle Pacific University. His previous work includes founding and leading high-tech companies, and serving as a general manager at Microsoft. The CIB is pleased to sponsor his current research project: Silicon Valley and the Human Spirit: an inquiry into the entrepreneurial ethos of California’s Silicon Valley with lessons for the development of spiritual capital. For further information you may contact Dr. Baker at bakerb@spu.edu.
Book Review: Second Treatise of Government
Second Treatise of Government
by John Locke, edited by C.B. Macpherson (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1980; originally published in 1690. 124 pp)
Widely known as the Father of Liberalism, John Locke’s work in epistemology and political philosophy has influenced countless nations. Born in 1632 in England, Locke attended Westminster School in London earning a bachelor’s and master’s degree. Having fled to the Netherlands to escape suspicion of an assassination plot, Locke began publishing his writing upon his return to England. With his writing gaining widespread influence, Locke died in 1704. He never married nor fathered children.
C.B. Macpherson was born in Toronto, Canada in 1911. From 1935 to his death in 1987, he taught primarily at the University of Toronto on political economy and political science. The author of numerous books, Macpherson received the Benjamin E. Lippincott Award of the American Political Science Association in 1979.
Review by Donovan Richards
“Mine!”
It begins early with a child yelling, “Mine!” We have all heard him/her bursting into tears and the quick crawl/run/waddle to a parent claiming the injustice of lost property. From an early age, we feel the seemingly self-evident truth of private property. We were given an object; we collected items; we connected those items in ways that made a new and much better object.
In business, this principle transforms into the rubric behind which we operate. Our work gives precedence for ownership. We develop goods and services and by ownership we are capable of buying and selling.
In John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, the author presents a theological case for the principle of property and the need for government authority to maintain property rights. Despite the density of the prose, the short length and topics offer a valuable read for business practitioners.
The Premise of Property
Any discussion regarding John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government must center on property. A highly influential writer on political philosophy, Locke’s tome details the ways in which a society organizes and manages itself. But before one can state maxims regarding political government, one must discuss the reasons for organizing societal connections. For Locke, this reason begins with private property.
Locke’s justification for private property begins with the assumption that God the Creator fashioned a world for humanity to subdue and manage. Locke writes,
“God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being” (18).
The earth, then, exists in a supporting role to humankind; it carries no first order intrinsic value. Instead, it functions instrumentally for the good of humanity.
From this position, Locke believes that private property arises from mixing personal labor with land from the God-given commons of the earth. Locke argues,
“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others” (19).
Thus, while God provides commons for the good of all humanity, the ability for any human to conduct work allows him or her to transfer land held in common into private property.
To illustrate, under Locke’s philosophy of property, I cannot travel to a pristine wilderness and, upon discovering it, proclaim the land my property. Instead, I must cultivate this discovered land. By building on it and utilizing its soil for food, I then possess the right to proclaim the land my private property.
In short then, Locke suggests that God, who created humanity through labor, considers humans God’s property. God provides the earth as a common for which humans can use their God-given gifts of manual labor to cultivate and transfer the earth into private hands.
Governance
The need for political government arises from this principle of private property. When a society expands beyond the simplicity of cultivating open commons into private property, the need to protect and govern property becomes an important issue. Locke reasons,
“Political power is that power, which every man having in the state of nature, has given up into the hands of the society, and therein to the governors, whom the society hath set over itself, with this express or tacit trust, that it shall be employed for their good, and the preservation of their property” (89).
Even though the Second Treatise of Government explores many specific matters in the execution of governmental affairs in a united society, the core principles behind these discussions surround Locke’s theological notion of property and the need for governing those God-given rights.
Locke: An American Ideal
Interestingly, I find that Locke’s arguments sound natural as if they are ingrained in the psyche of American society and capitalism as a whole. John Dunn, in an essay titled “Measuring Locke’s Shadow” confirms this idea when he writes,
“Locke is still intractably America’s philosopher, and still very much America’s philosopher for what still seems ever more peremptorily America’s globe. He is the sign on the banner of America’s imperious external reach, her cultural, imaginative, ideological, economic, and even political Griff nach der Weltmacht [bid for world power].”
Put differently, Locke’s ideas on property and the need for government to authorize and protect it are the modus operandi for American business and politics.
Property as Dominance
In fact, Locke’s ideas seem to be the foundation for the domination of nature for which society now encounters drastic repercussions. In other words, to align theologically with Locke’s views on property, one must translate “dominion” in Genesis 1:28 as “domination.” What else could private property mean other than the absolute control of a specific portion of God’s creation?
By assuming “domination” of God’s creation in Genesis 1:28, I find tension in Locke’s arguments. Given Locke’s premises, God owns humanity because God created us through work. Under the same assumption, God possesses all of creation. Therefore, humans cannot possess an absolute right over a portion of creation because they were not the first to labor on it.
It then follows that the God-given commons for which humans carry the right to fill and subdue is not a space which humans carry the right to section off into private property, but an area owned by God given to humans in common to share and steward for the good of the whole.
Locke centers his political philosophy on a theological case for private property. By mixing labor with the God-given commons, private property arises. As an extension, political governance exists to protect that property. Nevertheless, the notion that God created and thus possesses the created world forces us to consider the earth in stewardship instead of domination. Even though we feel the pull of private property from an early age, our connection to an item through work does not require it to become our private possession.
With dense philosophical writing, Locke’s Second Treatise of Government is a difficult but rewarding read. Despite my reservations regarding Locke’s premises, this book is a must read for anyone interested in the foundations behind the modern conception of business. Locke’s writing is the bedrock of American politics and the principle of property holds sway over much of our popular thought. Our labor is valuable. Likewise, the way we create carries the capacity to help others through stewardship. A product of God’s labor, humans too possess the capability to work and mold resources into goods and services that promote human flourishing. The government, too, possesses the ability to direct a society where property functions for the good of everyone. If you are in business, you need to read this book.
Film Review: Black Swan
Black Swan (Fox Searchlight Pictures, 2010.)
Directed by Darren Aronofsky, starring Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, and Vincent Cassel
Reviewed by Donovan Richards, Center for Integrity in Business intern
Keep (Over) Working
We all find times when the pressures of success feel like a tightening vice in our stomach. The desire for excellence is motivating, consuming, and at times, it physically alters our lives in mostly deleterious ways.
Black Swan director, Darren Aronofsky, interprets these notions on the big screen. Similar to previous psychological thrillers directed by Aronofsky, such as Pi and Requiem for a Dream, Black Swan dives into the dark outcomes of overwork, including stress, paranoia, and, schizophrenia.
Just Dance?
The film follows a brittle and timid ballerina named Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman). The beginning of a new ballet season provides artistic director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) with reason to insert fresh blood in the role of prima ballerina for Swan Lake.
Obsessed with dance and influenced by an over-controlling mother, Nina is primed for obtaining the headlining position. The lead role in Swan Lake necessitates a performer capable of elegantly dancing the part of the white swan and sensually dancing the part of the black swan. In Nina’s case, her precise moves and shy demeanor represent the white swan well. Yet her timidity poorly translates to dancing the part of the black swan.
Furthermore, a new dancer named Lily (Mila Kunis) perfectly assumes the dark and sensual character of the black swan. This competition for the prima ballerina role forces Nina to channel a dark and wild character contrary to her personality as she tries to perfect her skills; a character that threatens to consume her. As the movie unfolds, Nina Sayers spirals into darker corners of her psyche believing that everyone is her enemy scheming to ruin her.
Masterful Form
Black Swan is brilliantly written, acted, and directed. While slightly and, more than likely, intentionally annoying, the timidity of Natalie Portman’s character is believable and renders the psychological aspects of the movie a reality. The film pushed me to the edge of my seat through impressive visuals, intense dialogue, and suspenseful scenes.
Impressively, Aronofsky craftily weaves humor into the story allowing the viewer to never fully be consumed in the darker themes of the narrative. These brief moments of levity supply the viewer with a counterbalance to some grisly images and suspenseful scenes almost fitting for horror genres.
Work to Live or Live to Work?
Through vividly surreal scenes, we watch as Nina transforms under stress and overwork. On one hand, her quest for perfection in her trade produces a better ballerina. Yet on the other hand, her obsessive plying of her trade unfolds unintended consequences. Black Swan ultimately teaches us that intense focus on work deteriorates the life around us and in us.
When we bring work home and make ourselves “on-call” at all hours of the day, our body cannot shut down and rest. Such continued stressful practices result in physical, emotional, and spiritual harm. We all need to manage our work/life balance for the sake of ourselves, our family, our friends, and our co-workers. The film, however, carries these themes a step further. Stress can literally destroy a life. Is a job worth perfection if it diminishes your personhood and that of those who love you?
Not Happily Ever After
Black Swan is not a happily-ever-after story; it depicts the broken qualities of humanity and portrays emotions reserved for the deepest depths of the soul. As Christians, we know that God always offers hope in every scenario. Although Black Swan most vividly highlights the impact of the fall, we know that God will ultimately redeem us from the consequences of stress and our destructive impulses for perfection this side of the New Creation.
Nevertheless, be forewarned that Aronofsky’s film does not tell a story in the redemptive mold. With excellent acting and direction, however, Black Swan deserves every ounce of critical acclaim it is receiving. I wholeheartedly recommend this movie.


