The Rule of Saint Benedict and Corporate HRD: Employing the Whole Person

Birgit Kleymann & Hedley Malloch

IÉSEG School of Management, Catholic University of Lille, France

Corresponding author:Dr. Birgit KleymannAssociate Professor, Management & OrganisationIÉSEG School of ManagementCatholic University of Lille3, rue de la Digue59000 Lille, France

Tel (+33) (0)320.545.892e-mail : b.kleymann@ieseg.fr

Paper reference Number: 2.39

Stream: Learning & Performance at WorkType: Full refereed paper

Key Words: HRD; Whole Person; Monastic Organisations; Principle of Subsidiarity

1

The Rule of Saint Benedict and Corporate HRD: Employing the Whole Person

Birgit Kleymann & Hedley Malloch

IÉSEG School of Management, Catholic University of Lille, France

Abstract

The “classical” logic of organisations existing as generators of shareholder value, with the human“resources” seen as a means to this end, has been the subject of criticism regarding alienation in itsmembers and the instrumentalisation both of work and of people. In this paper we look at the Rule of St.Benedict (RSB) and trace its potential relevance as an alternative example for the structure andgovernance of organisations today. The RSB is a medieval monastic rule which governs Christianmonastic communities of the Benedictine and Cistercian orders. The five pillars of the 73-chapter longrule are (1) an attitude of receptivity, (2) moderation, (3) dedication to work, (4) brotherhood, and (5)simplicity.

As well as being part of religious orders, these monastic communities are important commercialorganisations in their own right, producing goods and services for the market place. Some are businesseswith multi-million Euro turnovers, the scale of whose activit ies compels them to rely on lay employees fromoutside the monastery on conventional contracts of employment. Yet these outsiders are managed –tacitly or implicitly- under the same principles of the Rule of St. Benedict (RSB) as the monks. Some ofthese principles are quite different from standard management practice, such as fitting jobs aroundpeople, careful avoidance of excesses, a requirement for mutual care, inverse delegation, and a rathercritical attitude toward organisational growth. Yes these monastic organisations turn out to be highlysuccessful businesses with remarkably low employee turnover and high profitability.

Based on a case study, we critically discuss the feasibility of applying aspects of the RSB to modernorganisations. We claim that the principles of the RSB can contribute, way beyond the monastic context,to the creation and running of more “humane” organisations.

2

Introduction

The “classical” capitalist logic of organisations existing as generators of shareholder

value, with the human “resources” seen as a means to this end, has been the subject of

criticism from Marx (Marx 1848) onwards. Criticisms include the capacity of the system

to generate alienation in its members, the instrumentalisation both of work and of the

people who perform it, and the centralisation of power and authority both in society and

the workplace.

Kallinikos (2003) argues that “[m]odern humans are involved in organisations qua roles,

rather than qua persons.” (p.595). He further warns that “an important outcome of the

current developments in employment and organisational forms is the gradual

undermining of the coherent system once formed by occupational identity, career

development and personal identity” (ibid., 600). Linked to this is the idea of modern

employees working at a ‘cynical distance’ (Fleming and Spicer 2003), where office

workers do not identify with their organisation, but still partake in corporate rituals which

superficially symbolise identification with the organisation. This fragmentation of the

individual –and thus of society- is a trend with negative long-term implications for the

firm.

Considered liberating by many, critical remarks, such as that of Kallinikos, are frequently

heard. However, there seem to be few suggestions as to feasible alternatives. While

recognising the probable irreversibility of a global social tendency, the present paper is

based on the assumption that on a small, local scale, these alternatives do exist, and do

so successfully.

In the context of a larger research project, we turn our attention to the functioning and

continued survival of pre-modern organisations. In this paper we look at the Rule of St.

Benedict (RSB) and trace its potential links to the structure and governance of

organisations today.

We would stress at the outset that these Rules are not abstract, hypothetical concepts.

They can be found in operation today in Monasteries throughout the world. As well as

being part of religious orders, these monastic communities are important commercial

3

organisations in their own right, producing goods and services for the market place.

Many are best-known for their activities as specialist brewers producing high quality

beers, including several internationally known brands. Examples include the Orval,

Chimay, Westmalle and Rochefort beers. Other related industries are dairy production

(Clary 2007) , health food and dietary supplements, and bakery. Communities of the

Benedictine monastic family also run publishing houses, data management services, or

venture capitalist-style holding companies. Many are businesses with multi-million

pound turnovers, the scale of whose activities compels them to rely on outsiders on

conventional contracts of employment. Yet these outsiders are managed –tacitly or

implicitly- under the principles of same Rule of St. Benedict (RSB) as the monks. The

RSB is a medieval rule governing a religious order (Barry 2003). Monastic

organisations have also been called a “premodern organisational form that contains

many of the ingredients of the post-modern, post-bureaucratic commitment-based

organisation.”(McGrath 2002). In recent years, a small number of corporate

organisations have started successfully to apply some tenets of the RSB to their HRD;

for example Novotel, the international hotel chain are believed to have used the guest

reception practices used in Benedictine monasteries as a model for training their own

staff.

Evidence of application of the RSB to lay organisations, let alone of its success, is still

thin on the ground, however, and a question arises as to the general applicability of the

RSB. Corporate organisations are not monasteries, and there are essential differences

in the way they recruit, and develop, their “human resources” (e.g. Reiber, 2003). We

critically discuss the feasibility of applying aspects of the RSB to modern organisations,

and finally point to some requirements for a successful application of the principles

outlined in the RSB to corporate HRD.

This paper is structured as follows: In the next section, we will briefly introduce the key

tenets of the RSB and the Principle of Subsidiarity on which it reposes. This is followed

by a case study of a company operating using these tenets. Based on this, we will

sketch some of the key differences between monastic and corporate organisations. We

conclude with some suggestions as to further research.

4

The Rule of Saint Benedict

The Rule of Saint Benedict was written by Benedict of Nursia (c.480- c.547) as a

governance tool for a community of monks. Early Christianity had seen a shift in

monastic life from being that of mostly hermits (Benedict himself had been a hermit for

several years in his youth) to communities which are referred to as “coenobitic” (from

Greek “koinos bios”, living together). These monastic communities comprised monks of

different ages and social backgrounds who lived, worshipped and worked together. Due

to the geographic remoteness of many of these communities, and a certain desire to

remain as independent as possible from the outside world, the monasteries contained

farms, mills, and workshops which were operated by the monks. Thus, and in addition

to the spiritual-contemplative dimension which it had in common with the hermits, from

an early stage coenobitic monasticism had to integrate work and to organise production.

This, in turn, required a somewhat formal organisation, and the instauration of a

coordinating function which would have the authority to assign tasks, distribute

resources, and mitigate conflicts.

Benedict had written his rule to govern the communities he had founded at Subiaco and

Monte Cassino in Italy. In fact, it has been suggested (Henry 2001) that the translation

of “rule” for the original “regula” is misleading, and “trellis”, or “framework” would be a

better term to account for the fact that the RSB was written with maximum flexibility and

adaptability for both the individual and the community in mind. The RSB comprises 73,

often quite short, chapters1. While it does cover spiritual and ceremonial issues, its

largest parts are devoted to the organisation of the community: its hierarchical structure

(the roles of the Abbot and his deputies), conflicts resolution, allocation of

responsibilities, and, importantly, the management of organisational boundaries and

interfaces with the outside world. Interestingly, while some aspects of the RSB appear

1 an online version of the RSB can be found at http://www.kansasmonks.org/RuleOfStBenedict.html. Of astonishingly“immediate” managerial relevance are especially the chapters 2 ;3 ;4 ;21 ; 31 ; 32 ; 34 ; and 48: replace ”prior” or “abbot” with“manager”, and “brother” or “monk” with “employee”.) For a printed version, see e.g. Barry, P. (2003). Saint Benedict's Rule - Anew Translation for Today. Wisdom from the Monastery - The Rule of St Benedict for everyday life. P. Barry, R. Yeo, K. Norrisand al. Norwich, Canterbury Press.

5

to be quite detailed, it is written in a way which permits a remarkable overall flexibility,

allowing individual communities to adapt it to their particular circumstances in, say, local

climate, agricultural profile, and community size or age structure.

Today, the RSB is used to govern all communities of the large, and quite diversified, so-

called Benedictine Family, which includes the Benedictines themselves, the Cistercians,

Cistercians of the Strict Observance (“Trappists”), and other communities. Together,

they make up the largest monastic group within the Catholic Church; there are also

several Anglican and Protestant communities and a number of lay groups which have

adopted the RSB as their constituting rule.

The most commonly known aspect of Benedictine life is probably the imperative of “Ora

Et Labora” (Work and Pray), but in fact this phrase appears nowhere in the RSB itself.

What it reflects, however, is indeed the key thrust of the RSB, namely a way to

harmonise, and eventually unite, the spiritual grounding of a religious community with its

needs for subsistence. To achieve this, the RSB aims to lift the distinction between

“trivial” and “spiritual”; it seeks to address all aspects of human life –and all aspects of a

human being’s needs.

To give the reader a feel for the content, and the spirit, of the RSB, it is useful to start

with pointing to what is sometimes referred to as the “Five Pillars” of Benedictine life.

These “Pillars” are the features which characterise the kind of life that is lived in a

community that follows the RSB. Despite their somewhat archaically sounding titles,

they can easily be translated into recognisable attitudes, which can very well be taken

out of their initially religious context.

The five pillars are:

LECTIO (“Reading”). This refers to a general attitude of receptivity. In fact, the first

word of the RSB is “Ausculta” (Listen!). It refers to a lack of preconceptions, an open

mind, a detached view on oneself and the Other. Lectio also refers to a general attitude

of lifelong learning, both in terms of skill acquisitions, and, more importantly, of

‘learning to be’, of reaching one’s fullest human potential (Reiber 2003).

ASCESIS (“Moderation”). Contrary to how this might initially look to a contemporary

reader, Ascesis is in fact a feature which aims to moderate the strains put on the monk’s

life. Ascesis refers to an attitude of avoiding any exaggeration, or the courage of

6

temperance (Naughton and Cornwall 2006). The Rule does not aim to create an overly

hard lifestyle for the monks: “We are, therefore, about to found a school of the Lord's

service, in which we hope to introduce nothing harsh or burdensome.” (RSB, Prologue).

For example, Benedict pronounces against gluttony as he does against excessive

fasting; he allows his monks to drink wine (with the interesting justification given

elsewhere that if they were forced to abstain, this abstinence could easily turn into a

source of silly pride). In the same vein, the RSB warns against overburdening the

weaker members of the community (RSB 68), or, on the other hand, against curtailing

able individuals by not allowing those who are strong to be challenged and stretched

(RSB 48, 1).

Closely linked to Moderation and Receptivity, and in a way a result of these attitudes, is

discernment. Taking decisions by discernment requires deep, dispassionate reflection,

an examination of one’s consciousness, and, importantly, a strong sense of

contextuality: A decision may be good in one context, and bad in another. It is the

capacity of discernment that each monk is to develop, and it is one of the key

requirements, especially for the role of the Abbot and those members of the community

who hold posts of responsibility. Related to this is what one of our interview partners,

who was the cellarer of his community, and thus responsible for the management of its

brewery operations, called “portraits of monks”. The RSB provides several chapters2 in

which the holders of different roles and functions in a monastery are indeed “portrayed”,

not only in some functional detail, but also, and more importantly, with an elaboration on

the mindset in which the holder of a certain position should approach his or her task.

According to this cellarer, the individual monk who finds himself entrusted with a

particular function, can easily use these “portraits” as behavioural guidelines.

LABOR (“Work”). Work is a very important feature of life in a Benedictine community. The

role of work is two-fold. First, it is needed in order to provide sustenance to the

community. Second, and more importantly, manual and physically demanding work is

2 The RSB describes in some detail the functions of abbot (ch 2), cellarer (ch 31/32/34/39/40 –it is indeed interesting to notethe extensive treatment the RSB gives to this particular function, which regards the economic “management” of thecommunity), weekly servers in the kitchen and the table (ch35), infirmaries (ch 36/37), the weekly reader (ch 38), priests (ch 64),priors (ch 65), porters (ch 66).

7

considered to provide a necessary balance to the spiritual and mental occupations that

make up much of the monks’ day.

FRATERNITAS (“Brotherhood”). The monastic community is understood to be a family,

where each member has his place and is accepted as such. The attitude of Fraternitas

is characterised by mutual care on one hand, and a respect of individual differences

on the other. This is important in the sense that the RSB does not seek to treat all

members of the community on fully equal grounds. Instead, it seeks to recognise each

individual member’s special abilities and needs, and to place him in the community

according to those. The principle is that each member is to give to the community

whatever and wherever he can, and to assure him that he will receive whatever he

needs. The principle of Fraternitas is therefore a highly individualistic one, where

differences are respected, and accommodated whenever possible, as long as the

requirement of mutual care is fulfilled. For example, the RSB clearly stipulates that

positions of responsibility ought not necessarily be given according to seniority, but

rather according to ability. It also advocates leniency towards weaker members of the

community as much as it warns against constraining the more able members of the

community.

In HRD terms Fraternitas is clearly a strategy of fitting jobs to people rather than fitting

people to jobs. Yet it is not driven by considerations of economic rationality; rather it

reflects pastoral care and respect for the individual. Fraternitas is closely linked to:

SIMPLICITAS (“Simplicity”). This is a proxy for simple, but straightforward

communication, and an avoidance of exaggerated formality or encrypted ways of

interaction.

We can also observe that these conceptual pillars of the RSB appear to be connected

and that they reinforce and support each other. For example simplicitas interlocks with

both ascesis and lectio. Fraternitas and Labor would seem to be mutually self-

supporting, too.

8

The RSB and secular organisations: the Principle of Subsidiarity

The RSB rests on the ethical principle of Subsidiarity. This principle can be defined as

follows: “a larger and higher-ranking body should not exercise functions which could be

efficiently carried out by a smaller and lesser body; rather the former should support the

latter by aiding it in the coordination of its activities with those of the greater community”.

(Melé 2005). In other words, this principle holds that in an organisation, a problem ought

to be tackled by the organisational level that is closest to the problem.

The application of the principle of subsidiarity in management has frequently been

referred to as “inverse delegation”, in the sense that individuals or groups take on a task,

and only “delegate” it (or a part of it) to the next higher level in the organisation if they

find that they do not have the resources to deal with it themselves. Primacy, however, is

given to initiative and decision making at the lowest possible level. Recent years have

seen some interest in the application of this principle to corporate governance (Gaburro

and Cressotti 1998; Porth and McCall 2001; Chamberlain 2004; Kelly 2004; Wishloff

2004; Marens 2005; Melé 2005; Cusick 2006; Naughton and Cornwall 2006).

While the principle of subsidiarity implies a very strong bottom-up component in the

organisation, the role of senior management is twofold. First, it remains the seat of

ultimate authority. Second, senior management also has a role of facilitator, and

catalyst, of initiatives, and, importantly, that of ensuring that resources are channelled to

lower levels in order to enable them fulfil their functions, and experiment with initiatives

on their own. This requires a certain hands-off mentality. As one of our interview

partners, a young monk who was responsible for the brewery operations of his

monastery and who in this position was the manager of a company exclusively staffed

by lay persons put it: “the firm runs by itself, it does not need me to run. If it does not run,

I ask the personnel to tell me what’s wrong.” Senior management’s role is also that of a

steward of the goods and people entrusted to them (Wishloff 2004; Grün 2005; Bilgri

and Stadler 2006). In Melé’s case study (2005), he describes “ethical” management as

one where humans are never to be considered as means to further the interests of

others. Also, the principle of subsidiarity must be supported by the principles of

solidarity (each individual must contribute to the common good), authority (there must be

9

some coordinating function towards common goals in a society), and participation (an

individual must partake in managing the community) (Melé, 2005). Gaburro and

Cressotti (1998) add to this what they call the framework of subjectivity: “It should be

the worker himself who gives sense to his work; by working he fulfils his very being and

lives his vocation”; and hence: “work, understood as a person’s acts, demands to be

accomplished in freedom. For this reason the system cannot reduce men to the status of

a mere resource…”

Case Study: A Trappist Brewery

Our case company is a small but highly successful brewery attached to a Trappist

(Cistercians of the Strict Observance) monastery in Europe. They produce beer of

premium quality which is renowned across Europe and North America. The brewery

operations finance the monastery and allow the community to support other, less well-off

Trappist communities mostly in Africa. Despite its success and demand for more of their

brand of beer, they have so far refused to increase production beyond a certain limit.

Our interview partners were Brother X., the monk in charge with managing the brewery,

and Monsieur A., a lay manager and deputy to Brother X. Interviews were unstructured

and open-ended to give the interviewees full opportunity to state, and elaborate upon,

issues which they themselves considered of importance. The following is a translation

and summary of the transcripts gathered.

a) A trappist monk’s understanding of his role as manager

X. considers himself first and foremost a cellarer. In the RSB, the cellarer is the one who

distributes the food to the monks, handles provisions and procurement, and who is

responsible for the economic management of the monastery. He says that this is a

service he has been “entrusted” with. It is ultimately the position of Servant. This is the

“portrait” of this role. Each Benedictine monk can identify himself with one of the portraits

given in the RSB. This is more than just a role model. It is a specific spiritual Way.

What strikes him most about what the RSB says about the Cellarer, is the imperative of

foreseeing, preventing, and assuaging any lack of material (sustenance, food, tools,

10

clothing…) which the monks may have. Ultimately, he is there in a facilitating role. He

is there to help the monks to be, and to work. The cellarer’s role is one of paternity

towards the community (he uses the French expression “gérer en bon père de famille”).

Paternity is referred to also in the sense that he is supposed to find the right words. In a

situation of want, or need, or when faced with a fellow monk having a problem, even if

the cellarer cannot always provide material help, he is meant to always find a word that

points to continuation, toward something positive, “to life” as he puts it. This requires a

spiritual and human attitude.

The RSB tells the cellarer to take care of tools and work equipment as if they were

sacred vessels on the altar. This can mean two things:

- either by taking this literally (“sanctifying” the tools)

- or (the opposite) by sanctifying the work, giving it a spiritual meaning. Work is “sacred

in itself. This, to the Cistercian monks, is the true meaning of the incarnation3.

Work has always been an integral part of the Cistercian charisma. They have a

spirituality of work. Originally the focus was on manual work. This was perceived to be

necessary to set a strong contrast with Cluny4, which had turned into a feudal operation.

X. stresses that Saint Bernard de Clairvaux (the Father of the Cistercians) was an

aristocrat. He turned to working the fields, which was seen as a strong provocation at

the time and induced rupture with his family. The idea behind it is: “nothing is strange to

the monk. Nothing is “profane””.

X. compares his management job with work in the fields and on the farm, and the

sometimes dirty aspects involved in this. As he puts it: “To open an accounts file is very

close to putting your hands to the dungheap.”

During the interviews, X. frequently uses the phrase “good governance”. When asked

what specifically he understands by “good governance”, his answers came in the form of

the following list:

« Take time for reflection before making decisions »

3 the meaning of God becoming incarnate is that the dichotomy between « sacred/divine » and « human/profane » can be, andhas been, overcome Christ is God and man at the same time.4 the site of Cluny, in Burgundy, was in medieval times a huge and immensely wealthy Benedictine monastery. It increasinglybecame an object of severe criticism from both the outside and from within its own order due to its excessive show of wealth,the feudal system on which its vast landholdings were operated, and the lavish lifestyle of the abbot. This sparked variousmovements within the Benedictine order to return to a simpler lifestyle; this gave birth to the Cistercian order.

11

« advancing in a certain rhythm »

« start from the principle that there is always a solution »

« Discernment: What is a source of life for the long term ? »

« Not letting oneself be dominated by one’s own fears and worries… »

« …and that does include the fear of asking things from people »

« sharing issues » (with his Abbot & other monks)

“Living a certain non-attachment”, in the sense of not becoming the slave of

one’s work. One should not identify oneself with one’s job(s).

It is interesting to note that X has never received any formal management training. He

learned “on the job”, acquiring what he calls a “contextual competence” gained from

talking to, and observing, other monks.

To X., there is no conflict between being a manager and attending the liturgy of the

hours5.

This being said, there are certain other functions within the monastery which do conflict.

X. cites the example of monasteries that subsist entirely on dairy farming: The monks

who are responsible for milking the cows or for supervising the calving are exempt from

the liturgies because they need to attend to the animals. But for a “manager”, there is no

such imperative. X. arranges his meetings around the liturgy. Which sometimes means

leaving a meeting. To X, this is not a problem; he is not a control freak: problems must

be solved at the level where they arise, before top management does anything:

“the company runs on its own, it does not need me to run properly. If things don’t run, I

question the responsible employees who are close to the problem”.

“I am there to de-dramatise situations, and to provide a space for freedom”.

“Subsidiary is key in the good running of a hierarchy. One must trust the men. People

here have been hired because they are competent to do their job. But of course I must

be kept up to date in terms of knowing what’s going on.”

As the Cellarer, X. is also responsible for all other economic activities of the monastery.

But, true to the principle of subsidiarity, he does not interfere at all with e.g. the running

of the small souvenir / bookshop which is situated outside the monastery gates. The

monk who runs it has free reign, “except for really great investments”.

5 the Trappist monks assemble 7 times a day in church for brief prayer sessions.

12

“This is a question of trust. Besides, I’ve got other things to do.”

To X., it is important to have enough time and space to let decisions mature in his mind.

It is important to act and re-act without any pressure. Also, there is a need to coordinate

with the other two members of senior management: “We are three, so no one will ever

have to face the commercials (i.e. wholesalers) alone”.

B) Management and Personnel Issues: How the brewery is run

X. says that his main shareholder is the community, represented by the Abbot. They

have a monthly meeting with the laboratory, the chief of production, and the commercial

director. They discuss each other’s needs.

The principle of subsidiarity works fine, and X. thinks that it does because information

flows freely, within and beyond monthly meetings etc.

During these meetings, everything is discussed with everybody: “We always, whatever

the situation may be, go across all issues together. That way, the manager who is

specifically concerned by a particular issue gets a feel for the context”.

He stresses that in running the firm, even if it is a monastic one, the RSB is not a goal in

itself: “I am not there to impose the Rule of Saint Benedict [on the running of the firm].

That would not make sense. I am there to live a spiritual experience based on my

engagement with this community

Apart from X, all employees are laypeople, not all of them Catholics or even Christians;

there are several atheists, a Marxist and a freemason among his staff.

They have not fired anyone for the past 15 years. They take a lot of time and effort to

hire the right people: “There’s a lot of ‘feeling’ that goes into this process”. They first

select candidates on basis of CV, then invite them to an interview, in front of a jury of 5

(including members of the supervisory board). But X. says that it is not always the

candidate who got the majority vote of the jury who is hired. X. tells a story where he

vetoed a jury’s decision: their candidate was “too young, too dynamic; not at all fitting

with the solid Trappist image”.

What is he looking for in a job interview? :

“I never base my hiring decisions on a candidate’s religion. But I do try to see whether

they empathise with our monastic values. They must understand what a monastic

community is about. So I ask the candidates directly what they think about working for a

13

community of monks. I want to see their response. Does it make sense for him? Can

they have a monk as a boss? If the person has not even thought about this issue, then,

well, it’s ‘nyet’.

But on the other hand, we don’t require them to be little saints, either. It’s more important

that they meet the criteria of competence. The monastic spirit must be very strong with

the people who are in customer contact, however, such as the people who work at the

bookstore. They are transmitters of our spirit; there, we need very strong profiles”

Our case brewery is a smallish firm, and cannot offer great career prospects compared

to the big breweries elsewhere in this part of Europe, an area with a strong brewing

tradition. . What it does offer as a workplace is on a different plane. X. tries to make sure

he only hires people who have a long-term commitment to the Brasserie, and what it

stands for:

“I won’t hire people who will pack up after only three years.”

“we need a capacity to be open to everyone, and to every situation. It is important not to

judge immediately. One must listen first. That’s the principle of realism.

Then, there’s also a need for discretion. That is very important in any human

relationship, to find the right position, the right place, because sometimes there are

situations that can be a bit delicate. One must take care to be discreet”.

It is also important that people who come to work at this brewery understand that this is

first of all a place in a community, and not a decision one takes purely on financial

and/or career grounds. The following citations illustrate this point:

“It is very important to live solidarity in and through work. It is a workplace, but also the

place of a community.”

“We are respectful of people, and our people are very well paid, but we seldom have

dramatic increases in salaries”.

“Greedy people have no place here.”

Within their larger professional community, the workers of this brewery enjoy high

recognition. Everyone knows that they are “special”. Their workers are considered to be

at the top of their profession. For professional training of brewers, the firm sends them to

a private technical training institution where they take tailor-made courses.

14

c) Laypeople in a monastic organisation

I then ask X. whether there are any lessons to be learned for non-monastic, ‘ordinary’,

companies. Interestingly, he cannot answer this. He admits knowing very little about

‘outside’ firms. He starts by naming the main difference: “Laypeople are much better at

navigating the economic machinery”. Then, he mentions another managerial issue:

“Inter-personal conflicts are managed differently. A monk isn’t in it for the job. He needs

no job security. He’s not in the brewery to have a career. This has a liberating effect (on

the monk). Also, the relationship to money is different.”

Interestingly, these issues were mirrored by what was said by Monsieur A., the

commercial manager of the brewery. To A., , the main difference between them and

other firms is “the human aspect”, “the attention paid to the individual person”, and that it

is “a little community”. He cites the Abbot as having said that the commercial brewery

with its lay staff is “the second community on this site”.

A. understands his and his fellow lay employees’ attitude towards their this way:

“There is always the monastic aspect behind things. Our work is a service to the

Trappist community. It is essential to do things in full respect of their faith and

convictions. And this respect is there, with the great majority of employees. We feel the

life of the community.”

The brewery is considered to be an attractive employer. “People think that they are on a

job for life. But of course the job must be done well”.

He says there is a strong company culture: “Either you have it, or you don’t. It’s not

enough just to do your job”.

The brewery is bit like a family: Young new hires “confirm what the ancients live”;

pensioners and widow’s are integral part of community.

There is enormous pride in being part of this particular community. Within the hospitality

industry, they is seen as something special and greatly admired: “people put us on a

pedestal”, both because of the quality of the beer and the spirit of the community. For

A.,, these two go together. There is a link between the monastic site of the brewery and

the high quality beer. In a very nice example of how Cistercian values of work well done

can be adopted by lay people, A. says:

15

“It’s all one. The site itself means that we really do not have the right to produce anything

but very high quality”.

I also asked A. about the management of personnel problems. His immediate answer is

“with great respect for the person concerned”, in other words, the employee is not seen

as merely a “human resource”, but as a whole individual. They either re-train a

problematic worker, or, if they need to dismiss him, generously pay his outplacement.

Workforce problems are reported to, and handled by, the monks, who feel responsible

for their community. The link between the firm and the monks is very strong. “We are

lucky”.

A. has been working at this brewery for over ten years, and he admits that it has

become difficult for him to imagine working anywhere else. He is aware of the big gap

with what goes on in the ‘outside world’:

“The world outside is a bit more difficult… there is a chasm between them and us…we

are a handful of irreducible ones”

A. does discuss monastic values with his colleagues (from other breweries). The base

values to him are attention to the individual, product quality, and “no messing around

with marketing gimmicks”.

- “If we do something, we do it well.”.

A and his colleagues are very aware of a special “charisma” of the site of the monastery

with the brewery attached, both in architectural (beautiful buildings in the medieval

Cistercian style) and spiritual (a living monastery belonging to one of the Great Orders)

terms

-“We are making something beautiful, something solid, just like our site. It is important to

do things in accordance with the spirit of this site.”

D) On growth and corporate strategy

X is in favour of Market Research, but he says he does not want to “push” consumers.

The beer they make is so good that “sales happen by themselves”. Nevertheless, he

does not think that production should be increased dramatically:

“We are actually at 45000 (hectolitres / year, which is rather little), and we don’t want to

produce much more. If we grow, it has to be done softly. You often hear things said like

16

“controlled growth”, but that’s an illusion. It’s a big illusion to think that you can control

anything in the commercial world”.

There has been a slight increase in production and sales this year. But he is very

cautious about this:

“One must strive to manage responsibly and with caution, like a family father. One must

look at the long term. We must slow down the sales growth a bit, without jeopardising

the visibility of the product.”.

One concrete problem is on the retail side: In this part of Europe, beer is bought in bulk

by Distribution Centres, who then resell with impressive profit Margins. X. makes sure

that he controls the retail price tag of his beer. Which means he refuses to deal with

some of the big names in distribution:

“This is an example of us going against this brainless commercial logic. It is indeed

possible to carve out space for freedom6.”

He is equally hesitant about getting into corporate sponsoring :

“We is first and foremost the name of a monastic community, and not a beer brand. One

cannot do just anything with such a name”.

He also mentions the fact that he is ultimately responsible towards the monastery (not

the business!): all major decisions are taken by the Abbot, and the council of monks.

Conclusion: Some Differences between Monastic and Corporate Organisations

The case of our brewery, a highly successful business organisation which is hesitant to

grow and which actively avoids the speeding up of processes, tones down its marketing

activities and manages through inverse delegation, is not an isolated one. The authors

have, in the course of their involvement with monastic communities (especially the

Cistercians), encountered a number of other examples. These organisations are

different, but they do well in an environment which, according to conventional wisdom,

strongly favours the highly flexible, strongly marketed, hypercompetitive and fast-acting

firm.

6 the term “espace de liberté” (space for freedom) comes up very frequently in his discourse, as it does in much of Benedictineliterature

17

The question arises now as to the differences between organisations in a monastic

versus a modern corporate context. The following table juxtaposes some characteristics

of human involvement in organisations in a monastic versus a corporate context. We

use Kallinikos’ (2003) analysis of modern human involvement in organisations and

Fleming & Spicer’s (2003) concept of “Working from a Cynical Distance” as a base for

our understanding of the modern corporate organisation.

Monastic context Corporate contextRationality Value-based Purpose-based

Meaning of Membership Transcendental & Personal, IntentionalCommunity (Kanter 1972)

Calculated appurtenance. Sometimes artificiallycreated pseudo-transcendental meaning

Membership stability Institutionally supported (“stabilitas”)and pre-supposed

Not given. Macro-institutionally discouraged (e.g.job-hopping, flexibility discourse), micro-institutionally increasingly encouraged (“promotionfrom within”)

Orientation Being DoingManagement by… Personalism / Subsidiarity (also called

“inverse delegation”)Top-down delegation

Meaning of work Material survival of self & community,plus provider of personal balance in aprayer-centred life (cf RSB 48)

Material survival of self & family.

Distribution of resources To each his own according to needs (cfRSB 34, 1/2/3 and RSB 39;40)

Large differences between status levels. Internalcompetition for resources.

Interaction betweenmembers based on…

“Game of mutual benefit” (Mc Grath,2002: 203)

Competition and/or hierarchy

What organisation does tomembers

Developing Channelling / exploitation / selective development

Role of learning acquisition of technical know-how andmaturation of personality

acquisition of technical knowledge

Meaning of obedience Listening and paying attention, act onlyafter personal discernment

Following orders

Interface between systemand environment

Clear. Based on slightly scepticalattitude towards the ‘outside world’ (cfReiber 2003:167)

Fuzzy / permissive

Goal incongruencebetween individual andorganisation

Few: “All those involved in thecommunity had strong personalmotivation to ensure its survival” (McGrath 2002:203).

Pronounced - e.g. “working at a cynical distance”,(Fleming & Spicer, 2003), this needs often to bediscursively suppressed or hidden.

Human Agency Holistic (cf Porth & McCall, 2001) Modular (cf Kallinikos 2003:597)

It appears that a monastery is a community in the sense given by Clark (1973):

community in this context goes beyond structures and social links, and is based on

18

“sentiments” such as trust, gratitude, courtesy, sympathy and deeply shared common

interests. There is little or no goal incongruence between the individual and its

organisation; to the contrary, the organisation is seen as a tool for the development of

the individual7.

The perhaps most important difference is that the rationality underlying a monastic

community is value-based, whereas it is purpose-based in a corporation. In other

words, the corporate organisation exists for itself (it is “there” to ensure its own growth,

or at least survival); while a monastic community exists because of a transcendent “aim”.

It is this aim which binds members of such communities together, and to the community

itself, while appurtenance to a corporate organisation is often mostly calculative.

We recognise that the monastic approach may appear strange, even bizarre, to

managers schooled in other more corporate orientated rationalities, but the fact that

monasteries have operated successfully in commercial environments for over 1300

years does seem to suggest that their strategies have met in full key tests of strategic

sustainability and durability (Barney 1991; Barney 1995; Barney 2002) over a period of

time unmatched by any other type of organisation. What may be highly significant in this

respect is the central role played by ‘organizational culture’ in monasteries in sustaining

competitive advantage through the maintenance and support it gives to the capabilities

of its employees, in particular their socialisation (Barney 1986).

Locating the RSB in HRD Theory

To locate RSB in HRD theory we can draw on a useful distinction in the strategic HR

literature made by between ‘open’ and ‘closed’ HR (Mabey, Salaman et al. 1998). There

are different types of open model, but they all rest on the assumption that HR and HRD

should vary with the type of business strategy, which in turn depends upon some fit with

the external environment. In this approach HRD is contingent upon strategy. There is

no one best strategy, merely those which furnish the best fit with strategy. Some early

writers in this field such as Hendry and Pettigrew (1986) were quite content to leave the

7 “The dignity of human beings rises above state and society, which serve as instruments for human self-improvement” (Gaburro& Cressotti, 1998)

19

analysis at this level, but later ones developed the connection between HR and strategy

in more detail.

Examples include Kocan and Borocci’s (1985) life-cycle model of HR which attempts to

link HR and HRD strategy to stages of the product life cycle; Formbrum et al’s (1984)

analysis of strategic growth options to HR; and Schuler and Jackson’s (1987) attempt to

link Michael Porter’s (1980) generic competitive strategies to HR. All these analyses

devote some space to what the link between strategy and HR means for HRD. An

important part of HRD is organisational development (MacLean 2005). There are

several classic works of organisation theory and development which fall under the

umbrella of ‘open’ HRM including Miles and Snow’s work on organisational adaptation

(1978), Mintzberg’s typologies of organisation structure (1979) and Burns and Stalker’s

(1961) analysis of mechanistic and organic structures. Again, each of these models has

implications for HRD. The closed view of HRD is therefore contingent. It stresses that

the humans employed by the enterprise are resources to help the firm achieve its pre-

determined strategic goals. A closed view of HRD can therefore be seen as part of the

positioning school of strategy (see Mintzberg, Ahlstrand et al. 1998, pp.80-122) and it is

common in much of the HRD literature (Swanson 2001)

It is clear that RSB is not part of this HR tradition. It is not environmentally dependent

because the strategic objective of Christianity and other religions (insofar as they have

one) is not to adapt to the environment, but to change it. They enact their environments

rather than adapt to them (Weick 1995). Good corporate behaviour, HRD included, is

not contingent upon the vagaries of technical change, globalisation, demographics, and

the emergence of niche markets or changing patterns of consumption. Good corporate

governance, including HR and HRD strategies absolute and not contingent. In other

words, HR and HRD are ‘closed’ rather than open. There is a package of best practice

HR and HRD which should be followed irrespective of the strategy and business

environment. For Guest (1987) these are participation, flexibility and quality. Often, too,

there is a distinct moral imperative for HR and HRD practices with policies implemented

to meet employee needs and societal well being (Poole 1990). SB therefore is part of

20

the closed tradition of HR and HRD. It also rests comfortably with the view that any

attempt to define HRD is counterproductive (Lee 2001).

Closed approaches can also be seen in ‘best practice models’ of HR, models founded

on bundles of best practices in many HR areas including training and learning (Arthur

1994; Delaney and Huselid 1995; Huselid 1995; Huselid, Jackson et al. 1995; Purcell

1996). All these approaches assume that if there is good internal fit between the HR

and HRD practices then adoption of these best practice models will lead to positive

outcomes irrespective of the competitive strategy followed by the firm, or the

environment in which it operates.

Directions for future research

There is a clear need for some empirical data to illuminate if and how the five pillars of

RSB support each other and how they are implemented in practice. In particular we

need to know what their implementation means for the learning and development of

participants, and the policies and practices adopted by monastic communities to support

participants in these processes. An important question arising from the location of RSB

as a ‘closed’ system of HR and HRD is the fit between these learning and development

practices. Further, the Principle of Subsidiarity raises important questions of

organisation structure and adaptation; that is organisation development, but we know

little of how that occurs or how it interacts with the processes of learning and skill

development.

21

References

Arthur, J. B. (1994). "The link between business strategy and industrial relations systems inAmerican steel minimills." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 45: 488-506.

Barney, J. (1986). "Organization culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage?"Academy of Management Review 11: 656-665.

Barney, J. (1991). "Firm Resource and Sustained Competitive Advantage." Journal ofManagement 17(1): 99-120.

Barney, J. B. (1995). "Looking inside for competitive advantage." Academy of ManagementExecutive 9(4): 49-61.

Barney, J. B. (2002). Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage. Upper Saddle River, NJ,Prentice Hall.

Barry, P. (2003). Saint Benedict's Rule - A new Translation for Today. Wisdom from theMonastery - The Rule of St Benedict for everyday life. P. Barry, R. Yeo, K. Norris and al. Norwich,Canterbury Press.

Bilgri, A. and K. Stadler (2006). Finde das rechte Maß - Benediktinische Ordensregeln für Arbeitund Leben heute. München, Piper.

Burns, T. and G. Stalker (1961). The Management of Innovation. London, Tavistock Publications.

Chamberlain, G. (2004). "The evolution of business as a Christian calling." Review of Business25(1): 27-36.

Clark, D. (1973). "The concept of community: A re-examination." Sociological Review 21: 397-416.

Clary, B. J. (2007). "Broadening the Concept of Rational Economic Behaviour: A Case Study ofCheese Making at the Abbey of Tamié." Review of Social Economy LXV(2): 165-186.

Cusick, T. (2006). "Management, Labor, and the Development of the Human Person: Insightsfrom the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church." Review of Business 27(2): 20-26.

Delaney, J. T. and M. Huselid (1995). The impact of human resource management practices onperceptions of performance in profit and not-for-profit organisations. Academy ofManagement, Vancouver, Canade.

Fleming, P. and A. Spicer (2003). "Working at a Cynical Distance: Implications for Power,Subjectivity and Resistance." Organization 10(1): 157-179.

22

Formbrum, C. J., N. M. Tichy, et al. (1984). Strategic Human Resource Management. New York,John Wiley.

Gaburro, G. and G. Cressotti (1998). "Work as such - The social teaching of the Church on humanwork." International Journal of Social Economics 25(11/12): 1618-1639.

Grün, A. (2005). Menschen führen - Leben wecken. Anregungen aus der Regel Benedikts vonNursia. Münsterschwarzach, Vier Türme Verlag.

Guest, D. E. (1987). "Human Resource Managment and Industrial Relations." Journal ofManagement Studies 24(5): 503-521.

Hendry, C. and A. Pettigrew (1986). "The practice of strategic human resource management."Personnnel Review 15(5): 3-8.

Henry, P., Ed. (2001). Benedict's Dharma - Buddhists reflect on the Rule of Saint Benedict. NewYork, Riverhead Books.

Huselid, M. (1995). "The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,productivity and corporate financial performance." Academy of Management Journal 38(3):635-672.

Huselid, M., S. E. Jackson, et al. (1995). The significance of human resource managementimplementation effectiveness for corporate financial performance. Academy of ManagementConference, Vancouver.

Kallinikos, J. (2003). "Work, Human Agency and Organizational Forms: An Anatomy ofFragmentation." Organization Studies 24(4): 595-618.

Kanter, R. M. (1972). Commitment and Community. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

Kelly, J. (2004). "Solidarity and Subsidiarity: "Organizing Principles" for Corporate MoralLeadership in the New Global Economy." Journal of Business Ethics 52: 283-295.

Kochan, T. A. and T. A. Barocci (1985). Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations.Boston, MA, Little Brown.

Lee, M. (2001). "A refusal to define HRD." Human Resource Development International 4(3):325-341.

Mabey, C., G. Salaman, et al. (1998). Human Resource Management: A Strategic Introduction.Oxford, Blackwell Publishers.

23

MacLean, G. N. (2005). Organization Development; Principles, Proceses, Performance, McGrawHill.

Marens, R. (2005). "Timing is Everything: Historical Contingency as a Factor in the Impact ofCatholic Social Teaching Upon Managerial Practices." Journal of Business Ethics 57(3): 285-301.

Marx, K. (1848). "Manifesto of the Communist Party." Retrieved 11 January 2005, 2005, fromhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm.

McGrath, P. (2002). "Early Medieval Irish Monastic Communities: A Premodern Model withPost-Modern Resonances." Culture and Organization 8(3): 195-298.

Melé, D. (2005). "Exploring the Principle of Subsidiarity in Organisational Forms." Journal ofBusiness Ethics 60: 293-305.

Miles, R. and C. Snow (1978). Orgnaization Strategy, Structure and Process. New York, McGraw-Hill.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.

Mintzberg, H., B. Ahlstrand, et al. (1998). Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through the Wilds ofStrategic Management. New York, NY, Prentice-Hall.

Naughton, M. and J. Cornwall (2006). "The Virtue of Courage in Entrepreneurship: Engaging theCatholic Social Tradition and the Life-Cycle of the Business." Business Ethics Quarterly 16(1): 69-93.

Poole, M. (1990). "Human resource management in an international perspective." InternationalJournal of Human Resource Management 1(1): 1-5.

Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries andCompetitors. New York, McGraw-Hill.

Porth, S. and J. McCall (2001). "Contemporary Management theories and Catholic SocialTeaching: Similarities and Differences. ." Review of Business 22(3): 8-15.

Purcell, J. (1996). Human resource bundles of best practice: A utopian cul-de-sac? ESRC/BUIRASeminar Series on the Contribution of HR Strategy to Business Performance.

Reiber, K. E. (2003). Organisationen im Spiegel der Regula Benedicti - eine hermeneutischeInterpretation der benediktinischen Regel im Kontext der Lernenden Organisation. Fakultät fürSozial- und Verhaltenswissenschaften. Tübingen, Eberhard-Karls Universität.

24

Schuler, R. S. and S. E. Jackson (1987). "Linkng competitive strategies with human resourcemanagement practices." Academy of Management Executive 1(3): 207-219.

Swanson, R. A. (2001). "Human resource development and its underlying theory." HumanResource Development International 4(3): 299-312.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.

Wishloff, J. (2004). "Catholic Social Thought and Business Ethics: The Application of 10Principles. ." Review of Business 25(1): 15-26.