Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 128
feel about yourself over-rides everything else: so what if your life is meaningless, you do
nothing worthwhile, and your health is endangered? However, I don‘t buy the often well-
intentioned distinction between the inner essence of a person and their behavior. (A good
topic for a song?) One could imagine Hitler using precisely such a defense had he reached
the Nuremberg trials. ‗Hey, I‘m a nice guy too. Pity about the concentration camps, but that
was only what I did, not who I am.‘
Arnott propounds the distinction throughout this book, evidently intending to promote a
humanistic ethos in the workplace. I believe that his approach leads in the opposite
direction. There is no intrinsic reason why work should be alienating, with people compelled
to seek all personal satisfaction outside the hours of nine to five and away from where they
earn their living. Yet this is the logical conclusion to Arnott‘s analysis. His message is that
we should fulfill all our personal needs elsewhere. Anything which improves our affinity for
work can be seen as just another attempt by the all-powerful organization to lure you into
its belief system. And, indeed, Arnott seems to regard attempts to improve the quality of
working life (child-care, gym facilities, evenings out with colleagues, health plans) in
precisely this light. He doesn‘t seem to notice that such benevolence is generally absent
from the behavior of most documented cult leaders. Where, for example, were the gym
facilities, expensive holidays and opulent meals in Jonestown?
A side effect of such an approach is that most organizations can be characterized as
corporate cults, thereby devaluing the analytic worth of the term through indiscriminate
usage. If most everything is a cult, the term carries no special explanatory power, and our
analysis would have to move to a new level.
Corporate Cults is crammed with poorly thought out concepts and wild generalizations. Hard
data has mostly gone walkabout. The problem is epitomized by Chapter Two. Starting from
the assumption that people born in particular periods are likely to share common
psychological characteristics (where is the evidence?), the author divides the population
born since the depression period into five categories. Arnott seems to assume that those
allocated to these essentially arbitrary categories share some kind of distinctive essence
with each other. Thus we read that ‗Baby Boomers were encouraged to be free thinkers, to
not trust the organizational establishment‘ (p.22). Presumably, free thinkers and dissenters
did not exist in earlier periods, while everyone born after 1945 smokes dope, opposed the
Vietnam war and is contemplating the formation of a new Marxist sect. Other chapters make
increasingly convoluted attempts to relate this approach to the recruiting habits of modern
corporations, particularly those that might be deemed cults. Sadly, the elasticity of the
concept, and its inadequate empirical presentation, thwarts the attempt, which collapses at
each new hurdle. It is hard to run without legs.
However, even a rotten omelet can sometimes contain one good egg. Thus, Chapter Nine in
this book offers useful pointers for future research. Corporate cultism is clearly an important
issue. All types of organization can become cults – including businesses. (It is notable that
one of the best-known business organizations to cause concern, Amway, doesn‘t even rate a
mention here). Arnott proposes at this point a Work Relationship Survey, designed to
measure devotion, the charisma levels of perceived leaders and the extent of separation
from the community. It is a commonplace in the field of cultic studies that there is a dearth
of valid and reliable instruments with which to measure these processes. Despite the recent
development of the Group Psychological Abuse scale there are still few good instruments
with which to conduct research.
Arnott‘s survey is adapted from three other questionnaires, which have been well validated
and are clearly referenced in the academic literature. He has selected those items which
pertain to the three domains he argues most characterize corporate cultism, and integrated
them into a 20-point inventory. Unfortunately, he provides no information to justify his
feel about yourself over-rides everything else: so what if your life is meaningless, you do
nothing worthwhile, and your health is endangered? However, I don‘t buy the often well-
intentioned distinction between the inner essence of a person and their behavior. (A good
topic for a song?) One could imagine Hitler using precisely such a defense had he reached
the Nuremberg trials. ‗Hey, I‘m a nice guy too. Pity about the concentration camps, but that
was only what I did, not who I am.‘
Arnott propounds the distinction throughout this book, evidently intending to promote a
humanistic ethos in the workplace. I believe that his approach leads in the opposite
direction. There is no intrinsic reason why work should be alienating, with people compelled
to seek all personal satisfaction outside the hours of nine to five and away from where they
earn their living. Yet this is the logical conclusion to Arnott‘s analysis. His message is that
we should fulfill all our personal needs elsewhere. Anything which improves our affinity for
work can be seen as just another attempt by the all-powerful organization to lure you into
its belief system. And, indeed, Arnott seems to regard attempts to improve the quality of
working life (child-care, gym facilities, evenings out with colleagues, health plans) in
precisely this light. He doesn‘t seem to notice that such benevolence is generally absent
from the behavior of most documented cult leaders. Where, for example, were the gym
facilities, expensive holidays and opulent meals in Jonestown?
A side effect of such an approach is that most organizations can be characterized as
corporate cults, thereby devaluing the analytic worth of the term through indiscriminate
usage. If most everything is a cult, the term carries no special explanatory power, and our
analysis would have to move to a new level.
Corporate Cults is crammed with poorly thought out concepts and wild generalizations. Hard
data has mostly gone walkabout. The problem is epitomized by Chapter Two. Starting from
the assumption that people born in particular periods are likely to share common
psychological characteristics (where is the evidence?), the author divides the population
born since the depression period into five categories. Arnott seems to assume that those
allocated to these essentially arbitrary categories share some kind of distinctive essence
with each other. Thus we read that ‗Baby Boomers were encouraged to be free thinkers, to
not trust the organizational establishment‘ (p.22). Presumably, free thinkers and dissenters
did not exist in earlier periods, while everyone born after 1945 smokes dope, opposed the
Vietnam war and is contemplating the formation of a new Marxist sect. Other chapters make
increasingly convoluted attempts to relate this approach to the recruiting habits of modern
corporations, particularly those that might be deemed cults. Sadly, the elasticity of the
concept, and its inadequate empirical presentation, thwarts the attempt, which collapses at
each new hurdle. It is hard to run without legs.
However, even a rotten omelet can sometimes contain one good egg. Thus, Chapter Nine in
this book offers useful pointers for future research. Corporate cultism is clearly an important
issue. All types of organization can become cults – including businesses. (It is notable that
one of the best-known business organizations to cause concern, Amway, doesn‘t even rate a
mention here). Arnott proposes at this point a Work Relationship Survey, designed to
measure devotion, the charisma levels of perceived leaders and the extent of separation
from the community. It is a commonplace in the field of cultic studies that there is a dearth
of valid and reliable instruments with which to measure these processes. Despite the recent
development of the Group Psychological Abuse scale there are still few good instruments
with which to conduct research.
Arnott‘s survey is adapted from three other questionnaires, which have been well validated
and are clearly referenced in the academic literature. He has selected those items which
pertain to the three domains he argues most characterize corporate cultism, and integrated
them into a 20-point inventory. Unfortunately, he provides no information to justify his
