Reorienting Strategy to Shalom

The contemporary concept of strategy is problematic when viewed from ethical and theological perspectives. This concept arose historically from the political-military context of conflicting interests and maneuvers to gain power. When transferred to the realm of business, the concept retained the assumption of conflicting interests expressed in moves and countermoves attempting to achieve advantages over rivals. The theory and practice of strategy takes conflict as inherent to interpersonal, intergroup, and interorganizational relations. Hence, strategy focuses on promoting one’s own interest when facing competing interests.

In contrast with the characterization of strategy as the pursuit of one’s own interests in contexts of conflict, the Judeo-Christian tradition describes shalom— referring to peace, understood as cessation of conflict among people and their reconciliation resulting in cooperation and flourishing. Shalom stands in marked contrast with the assumptions of ongoing conflict and advantage seeking associated with strategy. Scholars writing about shalom raise the question of the appropriate antonym with which to contrast shalom.¹ The chief candidates are conflict, violence, war, evil, and chaos. The business context raises the question of whether competition is a further antonym to add to this list. In view of the misalignment between shalom and the features of strategy, it seems out of place to propose, as did Salgado, that peace (shalom) orient a Christian understanding of strategy.² This proposal raises the questions: what would it mean to reorient strategy to shalom? And how could such a reorientation occur? This article takes up these questions.

This study begins by discussing the origin of the concept of strategy in Western thought in ancient Greece. This background leads into the twentieth-century application of this concept in business. In both contexts, I argue that the key premise underlying strategy is an “ontology of conflict” that takes human relations to be inherently conflictual because they involve competing interests. In contrast, shalom is a vision for peace among people. This study elaborates the meaning of shalom in Judaism and as extended in the Christian faith. Beyond describing shalom, I address the means of shalom (i.e., how it comes). Finally, this study addresses the reenvisioning of strategy and the strategist with shalom as the telos. Shalom carries ethical implications but is not reducible to ethical principles or actions. Shalom comes in relationship with God. A strategy oriented toward shalom calls for discerning and joining God’s peacemaking mission and for strategists being transformed by God into peacemakers.

Strategy’s History and Nature

Greek Origins

For the Greeks (circa fifth century BC), strategic thinking “was related to mētiaō: ‘to consider, meditate, plan,’ together with metióomai, ‘to contrive,’ conveyed a sense of a capacity to think ahead, attend to detail, grasp how others think and behave, and possess a general resourcefulness. But it could also convey deception and trickery, capturing the moral ambivalence around a quality so essential to the strategist’s art.”³ Greek thinkers recognized the role of persuasion in executing strategies and the need to temper deception to remain credible—thereby avoiding the liar’s paradox.⁴ Strategy for the Greeks was not solely intellectual and rhetorical, it also involved deploying brute force when required to achieve objectives.

The Greeks saw the need for coordination and planning in the execution of warfare. In response, they established the Athenian War Council composed of ten commanders (strategoi; singular, strategos) to lead the troops into war. The title “strategos” combined the words “strata” (over the ground) and “agein” (to lead). Creation of the council of strategoi responded to the complexity of military strategy involving units of soldiers and combining naval, mercenary, and allied forces.⁵ The role of the strategos called for political acumen and practical intelligence. It involved both deliberative planning and improvising according to battlefield demands. Strategy encompassed political, diplomatic, and military planning, decision making, and action.

Thucydides’ empirically-grounded account of the war between Athens and Sparta (431-404 BC) identified key themes for formulating political-military strategy including: the limits imposed by the circumstances of the time, the importance of coalitions as a source of strength but also instability, the challenge of coping with internal opponents and external pressures simultaneously, the difficulties of strategies that are defensive and patient in the face of demands for quick and decisive offensives, the impact of the unexpected, and—perhaps most importantly—the role of language as a strategic instrument.”⁶ Thucydides wrote his history of the Peloponnesian War to instruct future strategists who, through studying his record, would prepare themselves to face analogous situations.⁷

The Greek perspective provided background and terminology for the writers of the New Testament. Most occurrences of terms such as strategos and its derivatives refer to literal leaders (strategoi), armies (strateuma), and military service (strateuo). The term for strategy (strateia) occurs twice in the New Testament.⁸ 1 Timothy 1:18-19 says, “Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight [strateue] the battle [strateian] well, holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith.”⁹ 2 Corinthians 10:3-4 instructs, “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war [strateuo] as the world does. The weapons we fight [strateias] with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.” These passages advocate strategies that contrast with those known from history and the Greco-Roman political and cultural context of the author (the apostle Paul) and his readers. They encourage critical reflection on the nature of strategy and commend an alternative approach to strategic thinking and action that expresses faith in God.

Strategy in Business

During the 1960s, interest in the strategies of business firms grew. Publication of Chandler’s Strategy and Structure, Drucker’s Managing for Results, and Ansoff’s Corporate Strategy stimulated discussion of the topic.¹⁰ Distinguishing the perspective of these authors was their effort to think holistically about organizations and how they compete. Concurrently, the Boston Consulting Group launched in 1963 as the first strategy-focused management consultancy.¹¹ Strategizing came to be understood as encompassing both external (industry) factors and internal (organizational) factors.¹² Both academics and consultants contributed to a burgeoning set of strategic analysis tools beginning in the 1960s and continuing in ensuing decades.¹³

Porter’s Competitive Strategy and Competitive Advantage brought important developments in thinking about strategy.¹⁴ Whereas previous work in industrial organization economics sought to explain the social welfare implications of industry structure, Porter deployed industry analysis for the sake of business organizations seeking to gain competitive advantages over rivals. Subsequent work by Barney provided a complementary exploration of the internal resources of firms as sources of sustainable competitive advantage.¹⁵ Although Porter and  Barney chose distinct analytical foci, their shared interest was in explaining differences in economic returns across business firms.¹⁶ Both emphasized differentiation from competitors that allows firms to capture and sustain superior returns from producing and selling their products and services.

Subsequent academic writers in the field of strategic management placed greater emphasis on the dynamics of competition. They elaborated the nature of competitive rivalry within industries as it plays out over time in product positioning, pricing, and research and development.¹⁷ Dynamic competition within industries involves actions and reactions among rivals resulting in competitive advantages gained and lost over time.¹⁸ Teece et al. advanced thinking about dynamic capabilities and the need to upgrade capabilities to regain competitive advantage over time.¹⁹ A paradox that arises in this context is the so-called “Red Queen effect” in which firms accelerate continuous advances in their strategies to avoid obsolescence.²⁰ Advances in one firm’s strategy render other firms’ strategies less effective or obsolete unless they advance as well. This is a scenario of perpetual “creative destruction”²¹ through the dynamics of competitive rivalry.

Although the analogy between business competition and warfare still gets invoked occasionally,²² the two realms have significant differences. Business strategy involves creating value for stakeholders, not just capturing value from them; hence, strategists pursue mutually beneficial relations with their stakeholders. Business strategies include both cooperative and competitive relationships among organizations—and often the two occur together, as in strategic alliances where firms collaborate with their competitors.²³ The goal of competition is not necessarily to drive your competitor out of business, which would be analogous to destroying your enemy in the military context; instead, managers may appreciate that competitors stimulate innovation that enhances product quality and drives down costs in an industry. Firms may avoid competing head-to-head by differentiating their products and focusing on distinct market segments, thereby allowing industry players to coexist profitably. It may make more sense to create a new market than compete against incumbents in an existing market.²⁴

Managers may attempt to gain advantages for their firms through deception, but the potential damage from such actions on relationships with employees, customers, and suppliers deters deceptive practices. Opportunistic actions pursuing short-term gains may have long-run negative consequences due to
reputation effects. Regulators can intervene to obstruct anticompetitive actions (e.g., price collusion or consolidation of monopolies) that are detrimental to consumers. Government regulations and professional norms constrain strategists’ actions in pursuit of competitive advantage and profit. Although there are norms—legal and ethical—that restrain strategists’ actions in military warfare, business competition involves a more tightly constrained range of permissible actions and greater enforceability through market discipline and recourse to legal action. Hence, although the military origin of strategy influences managerial thinking and action, the market and institutional context of business tempers the competitive actions that organizations pursue.

Ontology of Conflict

Allowing that strategy in business is tempered relative to military strategy, conflict is nevertheless widely assumed to be central to framing the strategist’s problem in both settings. Schelling highlighted conflict as the context calling for strategic thinking and action.²⁵ He characterized strategists as seeking advantages, ultimately trying to win, in situations of conflicting interests among rivals. Conflict implies interdependence among participants in the determination of outcomes. Despite rivals’ distrust of each other and disagreement about ends, bargaining is crucial for moving toward preferred outcomes and avoiding losses. Bargaining includes threats—verbal and actual—and concessions. Strategists seek bargaining power by building the capacity to bolster or undermine others’ outcomes (i.e., affect their gains or losses). The credibility of threats, rather than their actualization, is the essence of a strategy of deterrence in the face of conflict. The hopeful possibility in such a perspective on strategy lies in the prospect that the players achieve outcomes that are relatively advantageous for both (i.e., positive sum) when compared to alternative plausible scenarios. Resolutions achieved through bargaining are necessarily tenuous in situations of persistent conflict. Latent conflict can reignite in expressed conflict.

To refer to contexts of competing self-interests, I adopt Milbank’s phrase “ontology of conflict.”²⁶ Conflict arises from incompatible interests and can devolve into overt hostility.²⁷ In organizational and interorganizational settings, conflict arises where appropriable resources are limited (but not necessarily fixed) and parties stand to gain or lose relative to their goals because of their own and others’ actions over time. Disputes over the distribution of resources call for strategies, involving “the alignment of potentially infinite aspirations with necessarily limited capabilities.”²⁸

Milbank calls for a Christian theological response to the ontology of conflict, which he views as widely expressed in the social sciences. ²⁹ A Christian theological response to conflict cannot simply be a denial of its key ontological features. It cannot assume away the presence of incompatible interests in social, political, and economic situations; neither can it deny resource limitations as a constraint. This theological response must address the distributional implications of business strategies with a view toward justice. Instead of neglecting the ontology of conflict, Christians can engage it as a context for theological reflection and responsive action. Doing so raises possibilities for strategies that encompass stewardship and generosity, which hold meaning in situations characterized by scarcity and loss. Because conflict is endemic in social relations, peacemaking takes on an essential role. A theological response to an ontology of conflict must engage the core features of this social reality and inform practical action.

Shalom

Proposal

Salgado proposed peace as a theme from Christian theology that could serve to orient strategic thinking and action.³⁰ He commended peace in the strategy formation and implementation process and as the aim of strategy. To prioritize peace in organizations, he advocated (1) communication that facilitates learning, (2) practicing peacemaking in conflict, (3) development of collaborative skills for working in teams, (4) fostering community among employees, and (5) exercising creativity in anticipation of the future. In response, Daake raised challenges to framing strategy in terms of peace.³¹ First, he pointed out the lack of consensus regarding peace across Christian denominations. Second, he suggested broadening the theological framing of strategy to encompass the other fruit of the Spirit³² along with peace.

Salgado acknowledged that his work was a starting point and he called for further work to elaborate the implications of peace for organizations and their strategies.³³ Other authors have affirmed shalom as the basis for a Christian vision for business,³⁴ yet that work says little about strategy. Their primary focus has been applications of shalom to behavior in organizations, rather than implications for the strategies pursued by organizations.

This section’s purpose is to present an understanding of shalom that can provide a basis for reconceiving strategy. This section elaborates a theological understanding of shalom relevant to managerial leaders charged with setting strategic direction in their organizations. To this end, two questions deserve attention. First, what is the meaning of shalom? This question focuses on the nature of shalom within the Judeo-Christian tradition. Second, how does shalom come? An understanding of the meaning and process for realizing shalom can guide strategists’ actions in situations of competitive rivalry where resources are constrained and interests conflict.

Meaning of Shalom

Shalom is a multifaceted concept, and its meaning has evolved and expanded over time.³⁵ Yoder identified three Biblical understandings of shalom: “First, it can refer to a material and physical state of affairs, this being its most frequent usage. It can also refer to relationships, and here it comes closest in meaning to the English word peace. And finally it also has a moral sense, which is its least frequent meaning.³⁶ The first sense of shalom connects to human well-being and prosperity. The second sense ties shalom to justice and righteousness in social relationships. The third (moral) usage includes honesty and integrity and, by implication, avoidance of deceit and hypocrisy. Shalom in its fullness requires all
three aspects. It cannot, for example, refer to material well-being in the absence of right relationships and moral conduct.

Shalom can be framed both negatively and positively. Brenneman notes, “Negative peace—what the absence definition points to—is the lack of violence or its threat. Positive peace is an environment where resources for health, personal and community development, and happiness are commonly available (i.e.,
a condition of human flourishing).”³⁷ Gorman adds other dimensions to this contrast: “First, negatively, shalom is the cessation—and henceforth the absence—of chaos, conflict, broken relations, and the evil powers that cause these things. Second, positively, shalom is the establishment, and henceforth the presence, of wholeness, reconciliation, goodness, justice, and the flourishing of creation.”³⁸

Yoder observes that eirene, the Greek word for peace in the New Testament, continues the threefold understanding from the Hebrew term shalom.³⁹ Additionally, the New Testament authors used eirene theologically: “This theological significance of eirene in the New Testament comes to a peak when it is used to refer to the results of Jesus’ death and resurrection.”⁴⁰ Jesus’ death and resurrection reconcile people to God and each other. Salvation through Christ establishes peace with all its rich implications and connections as laid out in the New Testament. Peace is soteriological and, hence, necessarily Christocentric.⁴¹ God’s intention in Christ was and is to bring peace.⁴²

In the biblical narrative, shalom is associated with God’s reign. Hebrew prophets announced God’s intention to establish shalom through a coming messiah. In his life and teaching, as well as his death, resurrection, and glorification, Christ established this kingdom of righteousness and justice among people. His kingdom is present, yet not in fullness, so actual experience of shalom is limited; justice and liberation are incomplete, and their advance is often impeded. Brueggemann writes, “Shalom of a biblical kind is always somewhat scandalous—never simply a liturgical experience or a mythical statement, but
one facing our deepest divisions and countering with a vision.”⁴³ Because God’s reign is advancing, the church holds out the eschatological hope of shalom, often in defiance of current circumstances.

The biblical concept of peace does not imply inactivity. As Grudem points out, “God’s peace means that in God’s being and in his actions he is separate from all confusion and disorder, yet he is continually active in innumerable well-ordered, fully controlled, simultaneous actions.”⁴⁴ The ceaseless activity associated with peace is ordered and controlled. These attributes of peace are essential to effective strategic leadership. Grudem elaborates, “When we understand God’s peace in this way we can see an imitation of the attribute of God not only in ‘peace’ as part of the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23, but also in the last-mentioned element in the fruit of the Spirit, namely, ‘self-control’ (Galatians 5:23).”⁴⁵ Peace as ordered and controlled activity—as contrasted with confused, disordered, or chaotic activity—carries direct implications for organizational leaders. It serves as an evaluative standard for alignment with God’s character and activity. Leading strategic change involves articulating its purpose and guiding coordinated implementation steps. The process imposes disruption in organizations and industries, not chaos, and moves toward a coherent alignment of diverse interests and activities.

How Shalom Comes

Appreciation of shalom in the Judeo-Christian tradition could motivate actions to realize shalom in organizations. This would involve working out the implications of shalom for organizations’ missions and strategies, as well as their processes, practices, and cultures. Working from a robust conception of shalom, advocates could draw out countless managerial and organizational implications. They could translate shalom into leadership principles and ethical guidelines. Evaluating organizations and their activities based on shalom would highlight discrepancies from the ideal and suggest needed correctives. Leaders could manage organizations following shalom-informed objectives. Some—possibly, much—good might come of these efforts. However, before taking this path that concords with the managerial inclination to control and action, pause to ask, how does shalom come about—and what role do people assume in the process?

The narrative of scripture presents the Messiah, Jesus, as the fulfillment of the Hebrew longing and prophetic hope for shalom.⁴⁶ Peace comes as God’s gift in Christ Jesus—to the Jews but also to the Gentiles. Christ’s centrality to God’s establishment of peace is featured throughout the New Testament:

. . . Luke implies that Jesus is the Davidic Prince of Peace, whose liberating activity (Luke 4) and resurrection (Acts 13) inaugurate the reign of God, the age of shalom. Matthew implies that Jesus is the peacemaking Son of God in his earthly ministry, who teaches his disciples that those who make peace will similarly be called children of God (Matthew 5:9). The letter to the Hebrews affirms that Jesus is the king of peace and righteousness (Hebrews 7:1-3). Revelation attests to Jesus as the reigning (Revelation 1:4) and coming king of peace, in spite of (or, better, because of) its use of graphic scriptural images of war to portray Jesus as God’s peacemaker (e.g., Revelation 19:11-21).⁴⁷

Summarizing the evidence, Gorman concludes: “The canonical witness, taken as a whole, is that the covenant-of-shalom-making activity of Jesus spans his entire ministry in the broadest sense of that term, that is, his activity from birth to parousia.”⁴⁸ Christ establishes peace with God and among people.

Shalom is God’s gift to be lived in practice. Characterizing the perspective on shalom in the Old Testament, Swartley summarizes, “Indeed, shalom is a gift of God, but the people must actualize that reality by living in accord with the righteous and just statutes that God gives and prescribes in the covenant.”⁴⁹ In a later writing, Swartley identified two comparable usages of peace (eirene) in the New Testament: (1) “God’s gift of peace” and (2) the “fruit of peace.”⁵⁰ The former refers to God’s gracious salvation through Christ Jesus. The latter includes faith, hope, holiness, and harmony among people. Similarly, Neufeld describes peace as both God’s gift and a social practice: “Peace, in its full biblical circumference and depth, is the gift and goal of God’s righteousness and peacemaking is the necessary practice on the part of all who have tasted God’s kindness.”⁵¹ The apostle Paul called his readers to live in keeping with the peace granted by God through Christ Jesus and the work of his Spirit. Key personal attributes that manifest and contribute to peace are humility, gentleness, patience, and loving tolerance.⁵²

The Bible portrays human incapacity to enact peace apart from God. People’s enmity toward God spills over in discord among neighbors, groups, and nations. God, through Christ Jesus, intervened to reconcile people to God and to one another, uniting those who previously were estranged and in conflict. Gorman observes, “What God has done and is doing in Christ, therefore, is an act of radical pacification, of radical transformation. God has made friends out of enemies.”⁵³ Similarly, de Villiers affirms, “It is God who is peace and who is also the giver of peace, who transforms humanity from its hostile, violent existence to be like God and to live in peace.”⁵⁴

The outworking of this gift of peace comes through God’s ongoing work in those who are in Christ Jesus. Peace, along with love, joy, patience, and other related qualities expressed in interpersonal relationships are the product of God’s Spirit working in people.⁵⁵ Peacemaking expresses God’s justifying and sanctifying work in peoples’ lives. People become instruments of God’s peace in social relations as they abide in union with Christ and are sanctified and empowered by his Spirit. They respond to the call to pursue peace by the Spirit, not by the flesh.⁵⁶ Christian peacemaking responds to and exalts God as the source and enabler of shalom. Peacemaking happens in personal and social union with Christ.

Reenvisioning Strategy and the Strategist

Strategy within the military-political context involves overt, and even violent, conflict. Adaptation of strategy to business retains assumptions regarding conflicting interests and competition for limited resources. The intention of both military-political and business strategy as commonly conceived is to gain advantages over rivals, thereby achieving a measure of control and accruing resources. In contrast, seeking shalom presupposes that an alternative to perpetual conflict is viable—and eschatologically inevitable. Shalom requires resolving conflicts and establishing conditions for cooperation and collective flourishing. Reenvisioning strategy and the role of the strategist to align with shalom requires transforming the paradigm that prevails in military, political, and business affairs. A renewed vision for strategy should include competitive actions that advance stakeholder flourishing, while reforming those aspects of strategy that violate shalom.

The two New Testament uses of “strategy” cited earlier suggest that there may be a way to employ the concept for the sake of shalom. The apostle Paul’s admonition to Timothy encouraged the choice to “fight [strateue] the battle [strateian] well, holding on to faith and a good conscience.”⁵⁷ Faith, it appears, can animate strategy and strategy can be conducted in keeping with a good conscience. Likewise, Paul contrasted carnal and divinely empowered ways of battling, with the latter overcoming ungodliness and bringing obedience to Christ.⁵⁸ Paul’s strategic thinking and acting broke from the prevailing pattern evident in the culture surrounding him. His redeployment of the concept of strategy from the context of warfare to that of ministry suggests that there remains something in strategy to be redeemed for the life of the church and the world. Discovering this understanding is the theological task taken up here.

Considering how shalom translates into strategy, I offer two complementary approaches: (1) ethics and (2) relationship with God. I raised both approaches earlier when addressing how shalom comes. Shalom as ethics seeks to elaborate the principles of peace from a Biblical perspective and apply them in contemporary social life—through social critique and constructive actions. Its method involves ethical reflection relating shalom to a contemporary social context. The essential movements within this approach are exploration and discovery of the nature of shalom (within Judeo-Christian tradition and, centrally, within the Bible) and practical enactment in the world. The process is iterative as the text and tradition move people of faith into the world, and experience in the world leads to new interpretations of the text and tradition. Shalom as ethics prioritizes conflict resolution and distributive justice for human flourishing.

As observed above, shalom is God’s gift in which people participate. Hence, the divine-human relationship is central to enacting shalom. As the initiator of peace, God calls people into a peacemaking partnership. This relational perspective centers on discovering what God is doing to extend shalom and cooperating with God. This partnership is based on reconciliation with God and, by implication, inclusion in the divine mission (i.e., the missio Dei). God is present in the world for relationships that transform people and their context to realize shalom. Key themes within shalom as relationship with God are discernment and personal transformation. These themes bear upon the practices and the person of the strategist.

Ethics of Shalom

Conflict Resolution

Leading organizations involves navigating conflicting interests. Organizations consist of individuals whose competing interests often go unresolved. ⁵⁹ As such, organizations are tenuous coalitions that change over time as individuals enter and exit in pursuit of personal interests. Organizations are sites for political activity where individuals seek to shape the organizational agenda, form coalitions, and influence direction and outcomes. Refocusing from the intraorganizational to the interorganizational level, competing and conflicting interests drive organizations’ strategies. Strategists often frame their role in terms of seeking advantage for their organization relative to competitors.⁶⁰ Cooperative strategies develop between organizations with interests that align (at least partially), yet collaborating partners retain their commitments to pursue their own interests, so alliances are temporary arrangements with limited scope. Managerial leaders deal with conflicts in relationships within and across organizations.

Pursuing shalom among organizations requires confronting key assumptions about how a market economy operates. One key assumption is that competition motivates improvements in organizational efficiency and effectiveness that enhance producer and consumer surplus. Market competition stimulates value creation for stakeholders. Competing for profit disciplines firms in ways that can benefit society—particularly when contrasted with alternative ways of organizing production that lack market-based incentives. Hence, the fiduciary responsibility of managers is to pursue profit while enhancing the value proposition offered to customers. Competition drives productivity and wealth creation in market economies. Society and regulators look askance at deviations from competition through interfirm collusion. Given the value creation associated with competition, how might shalom expressed as conflict resolution inform organizations’ strategies?

Despite its successes, competition among firms also produces suboptimal results when evaluated in terms of the well-being of society. The intention to maximize the value of a single firm for its shareholders leads to strategic actions and outcomes that deviate from maximizing the value of firms within an industry or the welfare of diverse stakeholders. Appreciation for the significance of reorienting strategy to shalom comes through identifying situations in which the pursuit of managerial and shareholder interests through market competition falls short of the flourishing envisioned in shalom. In these situations, a shalom perspective reorients strategic thinking away from the pursuit of parochial interests for the sake of collective benefits.

Organizations pursuing private advantages can overlook opportunities for collective gains. Competitors often make redundant investments. They replicate each other’s resources and capabilities without achieving efficient scale. Organizations making independent decisions may invest in excess capacity, relative to market demand. They engage in learning races expending resources to achieve innovations independently rather than sharing development costs. Knowledge and technologies are held as confidential and proprietary, thus limiting the benefits that could accrue to other organizations and consumers if shared. Rivals compete to the point of driving poor performers into bankruptcy, resulting in costly redeployment or disposal of assets, yet cooperation might facilitate turning around poor performers and upgrading their resources and capabilities. The logic of cooperative strategies is to identify—and even anticipate—such suboptimal results and create collaborative solutions. A shalom-informed perspective directs strategy toward cooperative relationships that improve organizational efficiency and effectiveness.

Once opportunities are identified, managers of competing organizations can turn their attention to negotiating cooperative agreements. Negotiations, viewed from the perspective of shalom, are contexts for sharing information, building trust, and creating innovative solutions. Among competitors, such negotiations can acknowledge their existing interdependencies and work toward enhancing interorganizational relations and outcomes. In distributive negotiations, parties perceive that their interests compete; hence they pursue win-lose strategies. Integrative negotiations seek mutually beneficial (win-win) outcomes for all parties. Open sharing of information, interest-based discussion, tradeoffs among valued interests, and shared problem solving characterize integrative negotiations.⁶¹ An orientation toward shalom can guide the process as well as the outcome of interorganizational negotiations toward integrative solutions. In contrast, opportunistic actions based on competing interests undermine integrative negotiations and solutions.

Jesus Christ, however, went beyond win-win as the norm for negotiations or ethical action. Self-giving love characterized Jesus’ way of making peace. His self-sacrificial death marked his way of salvation and became the pattern for his followers. His life and teaching were a call to bear losses for the sake of others. Such a lose-win strategy (as contrasted with a win-lose strategy) makes little sense from the world’s perspective. In the economic realm, self-interest defines rationality, yet Jesus chose to suffer so that others could benefit. The “way of the cross” is a more fully Christian ethic than exclusively pursuing win-win outcomes in business relations.⁶² This radical ethic calls Jesus’ followers to seek others’ welfare even when it is costly.

Managers responding to Christ’s call must discern the implications within their fiduciary duty to look out for their organization’s financial interests. In a dynamic context, taking a loss now may serve interests shared across companies over the long term. Foregoing one’s own interests now may serve the cause of peace and open new directions in stakeholder relationships and subsequent negotiations. Managers and owners of the loss-bearing organization may seek constructive transformation of a conflictual relationship through a unilateral conciliatory gesture.⁶³ Such actions are taken with hope, not in the efficacy of the actions alone, but in God using them. Yoder summarizes the logic of this hope: “In the end, then, it seems that the way of love, even suffering love, is the Christian way which brings about shalom. For it is out of love which transforms and makes new that people become new and structures become life giving.”⁶⁴

Distributive Justice

Justice is essential to establishing shalom. Justice expresses God’s nature and way of reigning.⁶⁵ What kind of justice does God intend for the world? God’s justice aids those who are disadvantaged and oppressed within established social relations. Yoder points out that “[s]halom justice has two sides: aid for the needy is one; the other is the breaking of the power of the oppressor.”⁶⁶ The objective of realizing shalom—rather than simply meting out punishment according to a rule—tempers the retributive justice exercised against oppressors. Whereas shalom limits retributive justice, it bolsters distributive justice by uncovering and reforming the systemic causes of injustice. Progress toward shalom requires rectification of oppressive social conditions.

Shalom calls for recognizing diverse others and acknowledging their unique needs and capabilities. Oriented toward shalom, people respond empathetically to others’ vulnerabilities and respect the interdependence of their lives in community. Flourishing happens within such mutual recognition of others, attending to others’ vulnerabilities along with one’s own, and commitment to living interdependently.⁶⁷ Groups move toward shalom as they include previously excluded others, validate their needs, and, most essentially, act to abate actual and potential threats. This perspective promotes inclusiveness in organizations and stakeholder relations. It motivates criteria for evaluating products and services oriented toward seeking the good of others, including those who are not direct consumers but are, nevertheless, affected by the production process and others’ consumption. Such inclusiveness brings previously neglected externalities into strategic analysis and decision making.

An inclusive stance toward stakeholders also requires attention to the implications of organizational activities for future generations. Market prices reflect current conditions of supply and demand, not the needs of future generations. Managers rely on prevailing prices to inform resource sourcing and allocation decisions consistent with operating efficiency. To the extent that market prices fail to register future needs, this practice is at odds with justice for future generations. In addressing intergenerational equity, strategists confront questions regarding the environmental impact and sustainability of organizational production. Even though the resource needs of future generations are unknowable, accepting that they will overlap with those of current stakeholders supports prudent use of exhaustible resources.

Much of the Bible reflects the concerns of people living in precarious situations—the “have nots” as Brueggemann calls them.⁶⁸ The Old Testament prophets often named the sources of oppression that undermined shalom and caused people to cry out to God for deliverance. Brueggemann writes,

My impression is that our normative theology has been formulated in a situation of precariousness concerned with survival. But there is a set of traditions that has little sense of precariousness and is not much worried about survival. These traditions cluster around Noah-Abraham-David. In broad, sweeping terms I propose that these traditions emerge from and reflect a situation of “haves” whose life is not precarious and who are concerned with questions of proper management and joyous celebration. It is the well-off who can reflect on proper management, who are aware that blessings have been given to them that must be wisely cared for and properly maintained for the generations to come.⁶⁹

With a view toward shalom, the political or business strategist operates from among the “haves” for the welfare of the “have-nots.” The strategist occupies a privileged position characterized by influence, decision authority, and control over resources. In view of this privilege, strategists pursuing shalom must attend to the voices of stakeholders previously neglected in the strategy process—including those who, because of their social situation, have limited voice and power.

Freeman’s influential stakeholder view drew attention to the need to manage relations with diverse groups who have stakes in an organization’s strategy and performance.⁷⁰ His approach went beyond the narrower owner-oriented focus on profit-seeking in Porter’s guidance for strategists.⁷¹ Freeman directed managers to conduct a “stakeholder audit” identifying stakeholder issues and concerns and developing strategies suited to the various groups. A thorough look at affected stakeholders compels managers to confront the adverse consequences— both intended and unintended—associated with their organization’s strategy. Responding to stakeholders requires adjustment of organizational priorities and, hence, reallocation of resources. Business strategists that pursue justice must consider the distributional consequences of their organizations’ actions for diverse stakeholder groups and across generations. Hence, managers are challenged to engage in ethical reasoning encompassing both the current and future implications—both beneficial and adverse—of their organization’s actions.

The stakeholder view frames managerial analysis but does not provide an ethical or theological perspective to guide decision making. Indeed, any ethical perspective (irrespective of its strengths and weaknesses) could be deployed by managers doing a stakeholder audit. Recognizing the need for an orienting Christian theology from which to perform stakeholder management, Yancey (2020) chose the Anabaptist tradition and, specifically, the concept of “gelassenheit,” meaning detachment or letting go. Yancey explained, “The term was used in Anabaptist communities to convey the necessity of yielding material and individual interests to God for the strengthening of relational bonds.”⁷² The ethic of gelassenheit expresses care for community that is grounded in Christ’s self-giving love. As argued above, this way of self-giving love is Jesus’ path toward shalom; it also is the norm for Christians to address distributive justice in managing stakeholder relations. The strategist does not attain this ideal but orients toward it over the duration of a career.

Relationship with God

Shalom carries ethical implications, yet it is not reducible to ethical principles or actions. Shalom is a theological vision. God is the initiator and essential actor for shalom. “Shalom is primarily God’s purpose for creation; it is his justice, peace and mercy and it is God who determines and defines what shalom is, not culture or society. Therefore, relationship and engagement with him are crucial in responding to and communicating shalom.”⁷³ Christ’s reconciling work brings people into personal relationship with God and one another, and involves them in the ongoing ministry of peacemaking through reconciliation. Peacemaking responds to God’s dynamic work in the world and, as such, is always more than following ethical principles; peacemaking grows out of participation in the life and mission of God. Focusing on ethical reasoning grounded in the shalom tradition risks missing the very life God intends within shalom, which is personal and corporate participation in divine life. “Since God is a God of peace who gives peace, being at peace implies being with God and experiencing the divine presence.”⁷⁴

Discerning the Spirit of Peace
God’s peacemaking centers on Jesus, and this focus necessarily connects to the complementary role of the Spirit in extending shalom in the world. Tyra observes that some passages in Hebrew Scripture depict the Spirit inspiring and empowering acts of warfare to free Israel from its oppressors, such as those of the judges and kings, whereas other passages anticipate the Spirit’s role with the coming Messiah to realize shalom.⁷⁵ The New Testament portrays the Spirit empowering the Messiah to proclaim and demonstrate God’s kingdom. The Spirit also forms and endows the church to continue Christ’s ministry. The Spirit is present in the world to advance peace with God, among men, and with creation. Hence, people find their role as peacemakers as they discern and participate in the Spirit’s peacemaking in the world. A strategy oriented toward shalom must, therefore, align with the Spirit’s activity.

How do people discern the Spirit’s peacemaking? An answer to this question must meet the test of practical relevance to strategists, yet it should not be reducible to human capacity and activity alone. Discernment is both a human activity, which can be conducted as a matter of practice, and a revelation of the Spirit. In other words, spiritual discernment is a divine-human relational activity. Discernment is ongoing because the movement of people and the Spirit never ceases. When discerning, it is appropriate to ask, what is the Spirit doing (a question about present action) and what does the Spirit intend (for the future)?

Yong’s response to the question of method for discernment is that “[o]ne proceeds to the task of spiritual discernment only by concentrating on what is phenomenologically revealed to the broad range of human senses.”⁷⁶ Yong advises discerners to study the empirical evidence. Analysts using methods familiar to social scientists and management consultants together with theological reflection can encounter evidence of the Spirit’s intention and involvement. Social scientists are comfortable with postulating unobservable causes behind observed phenomena and the Spirit is such an unobserved personal agent whose movements are evident in creation—particularly among people. Inferences about the Spirit’s activity arising from discernment must be tempered by humility, recognizing the fallibility of human faculties. Discerners depend upon the guidance of the Spirit as they analyze the data, dialogue with others, reflect, and pray.

Strategic analysis typically involves gathering data about an organization and its context to address questions relevant to strategy and performance. Such analysis can incorporate discerning the Spirit’s activity and intention toward shalom in social relations. The ethics of shalom discussed above provides essential background for discerning the Spirit’s work. Where social and economic relations shift toward conflict resolution and distributive justice (particularly when it involves willingly bearing loss for the sake of others), examine how God is at work. Just as importantly, strategic analysis incorporating discernment can identify what is contrary to God’s intended shalom. Insights into social processes advancing or contrary to shalom can inform strategic decisions and actions. Liebert’s “social discernment cycle” illustrates how such an analysis can proceed.⁷⁷ This discernment process moves through a series of phases, beginning with (1) establishing the focus for discernment, (2) describing the current situation, and (3) engaging in social analysis. In the social analysis, Liebert encourages attending to those powers in social relations resulting in people’s oppression or liberation. The social discernment process continues through (4) prayer and theological reflection, (5) choosing a response, and (6) reviewing the discernment process and confirming evidence. Overall, this process is empirical and theological, in its focus on discovering the Spirit’s work and intention in the situation, and it is practical, in its movement toward strategic action.

Although there are well-established traditions for practicing discernment that managers can adopt,⁷⁸ discerning the Spirit’s peacemaking is not reducible to a method. Pursuing discernment moves the strategist toward an ambiguous and subjective inquiry process like that of the pneumatologist interested not solely in the biblical record of the Spirit’s activity but also in ascertaining the Spirit’s contemporary movement in the world. The biblical record of the Spirit’s work provides historical precedents with characteristics that serve as clues for discovering the Spirit’s present intention and activity. Moreover, the Spirit accompanies and self-reveals to the discerner; discernment is, after all, a gift (charism) of the Spirit. As Welker explains, “The Spirit effects and makes use of particular forms of understanding so that people in finite structural patterns of life and experience can relate themselves to the fullness of this power of the Spirit and can attest to its real presence and action.”⁷⁹ The discerner depends on the Spirit’s revelation of divine activity moving people toward shalom. Discerning strategists can direct the organizations that they lead toward participation in the will of God as revealed by the Spirit of peace at work in the world.⁸⁰

Personal Transformation

Self-interest predominates in personal choices and organizational strategic actions. The assumption of self-interest is so widely taken for granted in the practice of strategy that it often goes unstated in the literature, veiled behind references to concepts such as “competitive advantage,” “value capture,” “opportunism,” “bargaining power,” and “managerialism.” Self-interest causes people to fall short of the call to other-regarding action needed to enact shalom. Actions to resolve conflict and bring justice require the self-giving love of Jesus. The loss bearing often required to make peace is antithetical to conventional strategic thinking. Reorienting strategy to shalom calls for transformed strategists who pursue others’ welfare and, at times, willingly suffer personal loss. The strategist’s orientation should unite getting (capturing value) and giving (conferring value) as the strategist works within the constraints of resource scarcity and potential for creating abundance.

The attitudes and actions required for shalom follow the pattern established in Jesus Christ who gave himself for the sake of others.⁸¹ Christ revealed God’s self-giving love by humbling himself to live among people and eventually alowed himself to be crucified at their hands. In obediently going to the cross, Christ offered reconciliation to people and established himself as God’s means of peace. Christ’s self-giving (cruciform) way of making peace, in turn, became normative for his followers. Such a way of life does not result from human capacity; it is prompted and enabled by the Spirit. The sanctifying and empowering work of the Spirit is essential to enacting Christ’s way of making peace. People become practitioners of reconciliation and justice in the manner of Christ Jesus as his Spirit infuses and transforms their lives. God’s work makes people peaceable, not merely desirous of peace.⁸²

Strategic leaders do not come to organizational leadership fully formed for peacemaking. Instead, their transformation as leaders is an ongoing life-long process. To be a peacemaker, the strategist relies on ongoing learning and spiritual formation, with a view toward alignment in thought, will, and behavior to Christ. Receptivity to the transforming work of the Spirit must characterize the leader’s life. Strategists can cultivate reflection and discernment in their practice of organizational leadership.⁸³ They can acknowledge God’s continuous presence to work in and through them in their daily activities. ⁸⁴ The formation of peacemakers occurs in their pursuit of shalom and their humble confession when they fall short in this pursuit.

Organizations are the primary contexts for forming strategists into peacemakers; they are sites for leaders’ sanctification. The church has an essential role in supporting the formation of peacemakers, but those with careers outside the church invest much of their time in their workplace. Organizations consist of individuals in networks of formal and informal social relationships in which conflict and opportunities for peacemaking occur. ⁸⁵ Peacemaking is relevant within a strategist’s own organization and in relationships with diverse outside stakeholders. Strategic leaders can approach conflicts as opportunities for frank dialogue to generate creative solutions and reconcile and deepen relationships among individuals, groups, and organizations. Those advocating a shalom perspective in organizations will face opposition from those who reject its means and ends. Pursuing shalom amid such opposition calls for tact, persuasiveness, patience, and perseverance, as well as a willingness to bear the cost of pursuing
peace according to the way of Jesus.

Conclusion

This study contrasted the traditions of strategy and shalom and then asked how it might be possible to work between the two concepts to discover an approach to strategy oriented toward shalom. The proposed exercise appeared problematic because strategy as understood in military, political, and business contexts focuses on the pursuit of personal and group self-interest in contexts of conflict, with the intention to gain advantages affording influence on people and control over resources. In contrast, the Judeo-Christian concept of shalom envisions peaceful and just relationships resulting in shared prosperity. At the center of shalom is the cessation of conflict (and its threat). Working within this contrast between strategy and shalom, this study proposed two ways forward: one involving ethical reasoning from shalom applied to strategy and the other focusing on possibilities for shalom open only in relationship with God. Essential to the ethical perspective on shalom are efforts toward conflict resolution and distributive justice. The relational perspective affirms God’s initiative and centrality in establishing shalom. Efforts for shalom goes awry without discerning God’s activity among people and experiencing personal transformation.

Along with Salgado,⁸⁶ this study points to the promise of a shalom perspective for reimagining organizations’ strategies. This study unpacked some of that potential. The themes elaborated here deserve fuller development than the space that a single article affords. Other aspects of shalom not pursued here deserve coverage to give context and balance to a shalom perspective on strategy. For example, this study centered on interpersonal relationships—among people and with God—for shalom. It did so to the neglect of how God sustains the natural environment and how people steward the environment for sustained flourishing. Further study and discussion are needed to relate this and other important aspects of the context of contemporary business strategy to the hope of shalom.

A special thanks to Peter Snyder, Jason Stansbury, and participants in the “Shalom in Business” symposium at Calvin University who commented on earlier drafts of this article.

1. Laura L. Brenneman, “Peace and Violence Across the Testaments,” in Strugglesfor Shalom: Peace and Violence Across the Testaments, eds. Laura L. Brenneman and Brad D. Schantz (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2014), 1-10; Paul D. Hanson, “War and Peace in the Hebrew Bible,” Interpretation 38, no. 4 (1984): 341-362; Willard M. Swartley, Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2006), chap. 2.
2. Leo Salgado, “How a Christian Worldview Defines Strategy,” Journal of Biblical Integration in Business 14, no. 1 (2011): 8-22.
3. Lawrence Freedman, Strategy: A History (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2013),
4. Freedman, Strategy, chap. 3.
5. Stephen Cummings, “Pericles of Athens—Drawing from the Essence of Strategic Leadership,” Business Horizons 38, no. 1 (1995): 22-27.
6. Freedman, Strategy, 30.
7. John Lewis Gaddis, On Grand Strategy (New York, NY: Penguin, 2018), chap. 2.
8. James Strong, The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville, TN: T. Nelson Publishers, 1990).
9. Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible (NASB) 2020 update.
10. Alfred D. Chandler, Jr., Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1962); Peter F. Drucker, Managing for Results: Economic Tasks and Risk-taking Decisions (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1964); H. Igor Ansoff, Corporate Strategy: An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1965).York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1965).
11. Walter Kiechel, III, The Lords of Strategy: The Secret Intellectual History of the New Corporate World (Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2010).
12. Kenneth R. Andrews, The Concept of Corporate Strategy (Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1971).
13. Edward H. Bowman, Harbir Singh, and Howard Thomas, “The Domain of Strategic Management: History and Evolution,” in Handbook of Strategy and Management, eds. Andrew Pettigrew, Howard Thomas, and Richard Whittington (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002), 31-51.
14. Michael E. Porter, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors (New York, NY: Free Press, 1980); Michael E. Porter, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance (New York, NY: Free Press, 1985).
15. Jay Barney, “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage,” Journal of Management 17, no. 1 (1991): 99-120. See also Margaret A. Peteraf, “The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-based View,” Strategic Management Journal 14, no. 3 (1993): 179-191; Birger Wernerfelt, “A Resource-based View of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal 5, no. 2 (1984): 171-180.
16. Economic rents are financial returns above those necessary to keep the firm producing for the long run. See David J. Teece, “Contributions and Impediments of Economic Analysis to the Study of Strategic Management,” in Perspectives on Strategic Management, ed. James W. Fredrickson (New York, NY: Harper Business, 1990), 39-80.
17. Sharon M. Oster, Modern Competitive Analysis, 3rd ed. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999).
18. Richard A. D’Aveni, Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering (New York, NY: Free Press, 1994); Curtis M. Grimm, Hun Lee, and Ken G. Smith, Strategy as Action: Competitive Dynamics and Competitive Advantage (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006).
19. David J. Teece, Gary Pisano, and Amy Shuen, “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management,” Strategic Management Journal 18, no. 7 (1997): 509-533.
20. William P. Barnett and Morten T. Hansen, “The Red Queen in Organizational Evolution,” Strategic Management Journal 17, no. S1 (1996): 139-157.
21. Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, 3rd ed. (New York, NY: Harper, 1950).
22. Freedman, Strategy, chap. 31.
23. Adam M. Brandenburger and Barry J. Nalebuff, Co-opetition (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1996).
24. See W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne, Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition Irrelevant (Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2015).
25. Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980).
26. John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason (Oxford, UK: Blackwell,  1990).
27. Sara Greco Morasso, “The Ontology of Conflict,” Pragmatics & Cognition 16, no. 3 (2008): 540-567.
28. Gaddis, On Grand Strategy, 312.
29. Milbank, Theology and Social Theory.
30. Salgado, “How a Christian Worldview Defines Strategy.”
31. Don Daake, “Exploring for a Christian View of Strategy?: We Have Not Yet Discovered a Stream, River, or School, but We May Have Found the Headwaters,” Journal of Biblical Integration in Business 14, no. 1 (2011): 23-26.
32. Galatians 5:22-23.
33. Salgado, “How a Christian Worldview Defines Strategy.”
34. For example, Michael E. Cafferky, “The Ethical-Religious Framework for Shalom,” Journal of Religion and Business Ethics 3, no. 7 (2014): https://via.library.depaul.edu/jrbe/ vol3/ iss1/7; Kenman L. Wong and Scott B. Rae, Business for the Common Good: A Christian Vision for the Marketplace (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2011).
35. Ulrich Mauser, The Gospel of Peace: A Scriptural Message for Today’s World (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1992), chap. 2; Swartley, Covenant of Peace, chap. 1.
36. ”Perry B. Yoder, Shalom: The Bible’s Word for Salvation, Justice, and Peace (Nappanee, IN: Evangel, 1987), 10-11.
37. Brenneman, “Peace and Violence Across the Testaments,” 2.
38. Michael J. Gorman, “Shalom in the Book of Revelation,” in Struggles for Shalom: Peace and Violence Across the Testaments, eds. Laura L. Brenneman and Brad D. Schantz (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2014), 280; cf. Michael J. Gorman, Becoming the Gospel: Paul, Participation, and Mission (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015), 145-146.
39. Yoder, Shalom, 19-20.
40. Yoder, Shalom, 20; italics in original.
41. Swartley, Covenant of Peace, 43.
42. Christopher Marshall, “ ‘Making Every Effort’: Peacemaking and Ecclesiology in Ephesians 4:1-6,” in Struggles for Shalom: Peace and Violence Across the Testaments, eds. Laura L. Brenneman and Brad D. Schantz (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2014), 262.
43. Walter Brueggemann, Peace (St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2001), 23.
44. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 203.
45. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 203.
46. Michael J. Gorman, The Death of the Messiah and the Birth of the New Covenant: A (Not So) New Model of the Atonement (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014), chap. 6; Mauser, The Gospel of Peace.
47. Gorman, The Death of the Messiah and the Birth of the New Covenant, 170-171.
48. Gorman, The Death of the Messiah and the Birth of the New Covenant, 171; italics in original.
49. Swartley, Covenant of Peace, 30.
50. Willard M. Swartley, “Peace and Violence in the New Testament,” in Struggles for Shalom: Peace and Violence Across the Testaments, eds. Laura L. Brenneman and Brad D. Schantz (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2014), 141-154.
51. Thomas R. Yoder Neufeld, “ ‘Righteousness and Peace Will Kiss’: The Peaceableness of the ‘Super-righteous’ ” in Struggles for Shalom: Peace and Violence Across the Testaments, eds. Laura L. Brenneman and Brad D. Schantz (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2014), 167.
52. Marshall, “ ’Making Every Effort’,” 262-263.
53. Gorman, The Death of the Messiah and the Birth of the New Covenant, 192.
54. Pieter G. R. de Villiers, “Peace in the Pauline Letters: A Perspective on Biblical Spirituality,” Neotestamentica 43, no. 1 (2009): 9.
55. Galatians 5:22-23.
56. See Galatians 5 and Romans 8.
57. 1 Timothy 1:18-19.
58. 2 Corinthians 10:3-6.
59. Richard M. Cyert and James G. March, A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1963); James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations (New York, NY: Wiley, 1958).
60. Porter, Competitive Advantage.
61. Michael L. Spangle and Myra Warren Isenhart, Negotiation: Communication for Diverse Settings (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003), chap. 1.
62. Guy Franklin Hershberger, The Way of the Cross in Human Relations (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1958).
63. See Louis Kriesberg, “Constructive Conflict Transformations” in Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, and Conflict, Vol. 1, 3rd ed., ed. Lester R. Kurtz (London, UK: Elsevier, 2022), 235-247.
64. Yoder, Shalom, 146.
65. Yoder, Shalom, chap. 3.
66. Yoder, Shalom, 35.
67. Alasdair C. MacIntyre, Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues (Chicago, IL: Open Court Press, 1999).
68. Brueggemann, Peace, chap.2.
69. Brueggemann, Peace, 28.
70. R. Edward Freeman, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Boston, MA: Pitman, 1984).
71. Porter, Competitive Strategy.
72. Andrew Yancey, Transforming Enterprise?: American Evangelicalism, Capitalism, and the Challenge of Practical Theology (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2020), 118.
73. Grace Milton, Shalom, the Spirit and Pentecostal Conversion: A Practical-Theological Study (Leiden, NL: Koninklijke Brill, 2015), 208; italics in original.
74. de Villiers, “Peace in the Pauline Letters,” 10-11.
75. Gary Tyra, The Holy Spirit in Mission: Prophetic Speech and Action in Christian Witness (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2011), chap. 1.
76. Amos Yong, Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 151.
77. Elizabeth Liebert, The Soul of Discernment: A Spiritual Practice for Communities and Institutions (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2015).
78. See Kent D. Miller, “Discernment in Management and Organizations,” Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 17, no. 5 (2020): 373-402.
79. Michael Welker, God the Spirit (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1994), 240.
80. Kent D. Miller, “Organizing with the Spirit,” Christian Scholar’s Review 46, no. 3 (2017): 213-231.
81. Gorman, Becoming the Gospel.
82. Stanley Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983), chap. 8.
83. Emilie Griffin, The Reflective Executive: A Spirituality of Business and Enterprise (New York, NY: Crossroad, 1993); Miller, “Discernment in Management and Organizations.”
84. Denise Daniels and Shannon Vandewarker, Working in the Presence of God: Spiritual Practices for Work (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2019).
85. See Ken Sande, The Peacemaker: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Personal Conflict, 3^rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004).
86. Salgado, “How a Christian Worldview Defines Strategy.”