human resource

In: Emerging Trends in Global Organizational Science Phenomena ISBN: 978-1-53619-175-2

Editors: G. R. Ferris, P. L. Perrewé and A. Akande ©2021 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 7

MONETARY WISDOM: FROM THE HOLY BIBLE TO

A GLOBAL THEORY OF ORGANIZATION SCIENCE

Thomas Li-Ping Tang* Department of Management, Jennings A. Jones College of Business,

Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, US

ABSTRACT

Monetary Wisdom asserts that decision-makers select their deep-rooted personal

values as a lens and frame the critical concerns in the proximal-immediate and distal-

omnibus contexts to maximize their expected utilities and ultimate serenity. In the Holy

Bible, Jesus talked about the Parable of Talents in the book of Matthew. “A man who was

going on a journey called in his servants and entrusted his possessions to them. To one he

gave five talents; to another, two; to a third, one—to each according to his ability.” These

three servants’ handling of the entrusted possessions tells us an exciting story of the

Matthew Effect, their values toward the money, and their Monetary Wisdom. The Matthew

Effect has bright and dark sides. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. I summarize

my journey from the Matthew Effect, the love of money, serving God and mammon, to the

development of Monetary Wisdom—a global theory of organization science. For decades,

scholars have substantiated this psychological construct in 45 countries across six

continents. Avaricious monetary aspiration predicts not only behavioral intentions but also

actions. This theory applies to decision-makers at the individual, group, organization,

country, global levels, and stressful COVID-19 pandemic. Serving God leads to growth

and prosperity. Serving mammon leads to death and poverty. Monetary Wisdom sparks our

interest in the Holy Bible and behavioral economics, helping us become healthier, happier,

and wealthier than before.

Keywords: monetary wisdom/intelligence, the love of money attitude/avaricious monetary

aspiration/greed, prospect theory, risk-seeking/risk-averse, uncertainty, decision-making,

behavioral economics, business ethics, time/equal opportunity, corruption, coronavirus

pandemic/COVID-19, stress, war, importance/satisfaction, human needs, changes, culture

Cite this book chapter as: Tang, T. L. P. (2021). Monetary wisdom: From the Holy Bible to a

global theory of organization science. In G. R. Ferris, P. L. Perrewé, & A. Akande (Eds.).

Emerging trends in global organizational science phenomena (pp. 149-170). Nova Science

Publishers, Inc.

 Corresponding Author’s Email: Thomas.Tang@mtsu.edu.

Thomas Li-Ping Tang

INTRODUCTION

Monetary Wisdom—a global theory of organization science—applies to decision-makers’

health, happiness, and wealth for yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Surprisingly, more than half

of the Bible’s parables have something to do with money, possessions, and the management of

money (Chen & Tang, 2013; Tang & Chen, 2008; Chiu & Tang, 2015a, 2015b; Tang & Tang,

2010). Jesus talked about money more than anything else, besides the Kingdom of God. It

shows the importance of money in ancient history and our modern everyday lives.

THE MATTHEW EFFECT

In the book of Matthew, Jesus spoke to the large crowds in parables. Teaching ordinary

citizens essential knowledge was difficult because many people looked but did not see and

heard but did not listen or understand. Like others, Maya Angelou stated: “I’ve learned that

people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget

how you made them feel.” Here is the original story from the Bible, the Parable of the Talents:

It will be as when a man who was going on a journey called in his servants and entrusted

his possessions to them. To one he gave five talents; to another, two; to a third, one—to

each according to his ability. Then he went away. Immediately the one who received five

talents went and traded with them, and made another five. Likewise, the one who received

two made another two. But the man who received one went off and dug a hole in the ground

and buried his master’s money. After a long time the master of those servants came back

and settled accounts with them. The one who had received five talents came forward

bringing the additional five. He said, ‘Master, you gave me five talents. See, I have made

five more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you

were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your

master’s joy.’ [Then] the one who had received two talents also came forward and said,

‘Master, you gave me two talents. See, I have made two more.’ His master said to him,

‘well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will

give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master’s joy.’ Then the one who had

received the one talent came forward and said, ‘Master, I knew you were a demanding

person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter; so out

of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back.’ His master said to

him in reply, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I did not plant

and gather where I did not scatter? Should you not then have put my money in the bank so

that I could have got it back with interest on my return? Now then! Take the talent from

him and give it to the one with ten. For to everyone who has, more will be given and he

will grow rich; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And

throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and

grinding of teeth.’ (Matthew 25: 14-30)

Robert King Merton, an American Sociologist with a Ph.D. from Harvard University

(1936) and taught at Harvard, Tulane, and Columbia, published an article in Science (1968) and

Monetary Wisdom

popularized the Matthew Effect. “For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will grow

rich; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away” (Matthew 25: 29).

The Matthew Effect is a double-edged sword. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

IMPLICATIONS

Although the master went away, he gave gifts to his servants: (1) entrusted possessions or

talents, (2) an equal opportunity, (3) the freedom to manage ones’ talents, money, and

possessions, (4) resources and time, (5) the opportunity to develop cumulative advantage,

accountability, responsibility, and (6) the return on investment (ROI) at the individual, group,

and organization levels. “Be fertile, multiply.” “Let them have dominion over the fish of the

sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that

crawl on the ground” (Genesis 1: 26).

At the individual level, the servants’ use of time reveals their intrinsic motivation, free

choice (Tang & Baumeister, 1984), and problem-solving skills (Tang, Tollison, & Whiteside,

1987, 1989). From a much broader perspective at the organization, country, and global levels,

policymakers, including ourselves, have dominion over our people’s prosper and triumphant

lives, all the natural resources, Small and Medium Enterprises, Multi-National Enterprises,

countries, and economic development in the world. We are stewards in charge of thriving

creation and nature—global clean, healthy, and sustainable environment and natural resources.

For several centuries, we have witnessed the development and use of new technology,

inventions, and enhanced goods and services. Globalization has enhanced international

movements of products, services, capital, technology, and human resource and fueled economic

development and prosperity. However, it has created a human-made crisis for climate change

and exacerbated the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic that plagues the world. Natural

resources, including fish and animals, have become extinct. Wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis,

hurricanes, droughts, and floods become more severe and frequent. What will happen next?

The master will return and settle accounts with the servants. Yet, we “know neither the day nor

the hour” (Matthew 25: 13, The Parable of the Ten Virgins).

Are we managing our abundantly available natural resources and environment sustainably

for future generations? Or, are we severely depleting and brutally damaging all resources and

the natural environment? Are we good and faithful servants or wicked, lazy servants (Zhou,

Luo, & Tang, 2018)? What are our scores on the triple bottom line of profit-economic, people-

social, and planet-environmental performance? Are we trying to maximize the expected utilities

or profits for ourselves now but overlook the sustainable benefits, prosperity, and ultimate

happiness for our future generations? Is it ethical? Monetary Wisdom applies to individual,

organization, country, and global levels. It is a global organization science theory.

FEAR

The servant with one talent stated, “so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the

ground.” Servants are accountable for their actions. Fear is the worst enemy of creativity. Steve

Jobs (February 24, 1955-October 5, 2011) was the co-founder, chairman, and CEO of Apple

Thomas Li-Ping Tang

Computer and the inventor and co-inventor of over 450 US patents. He was considered a

legendary, futurist, visionary, and master of innovation. However, he was also one of Silicon

Valley’s leading egomaniacs. One day, Steve Jobs fired a person in a meeting. Getting fired at

Apple was called “being Steved.” Later, Jobs came by the area where the person “being Steved”

was cleaning out his office. “Oh,” said Jobs, “I did not really mean it, I was just upset. You’re

rehired”. A friend of mine in the San Francisco area told me a similar story in 2015. A person

was “being Steved.” When the fired employee stood up, Steve Jobs ordered him to “sit down.”

Should CEOs abruptly and sarcastically fire people—treating them like objects and using

fear to enhance creativity? There are several essential points here. Supervisor bullying hurts

not only the creativity of the victims—being singled out for bullying but also the bystanders—

witnessing the event in public (Jiang, Gu, & Tang, 2019). The love of money results in

objectification (Wang & Krumhuber, 2017). Objectification may have caused Steve Jobs to

treat “people” like useless “objects” without feelings. Steve Jobs’ values toward making money

and profits—“serving mammon,” outweighed caring and developing his employees—“serving

God.”

In the book of John, “Then [Jesus] poured water into a basin and began to wash the

disciples’ feet and dry them with the towel around his waist” (John 13: 5). Jesus told Simon

Peter, “Unless I wash you, you will have no inheritance with me” (John 13: 8). “If I, therefore,

the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet. I have

given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do. If you

understand his, blessed are you if you do it” (John 13: 15-17). “But many that are first will be

last, and [the] last will be first” (Mark 10: 31). Leaders must serve employees and empower

them to help each other as leaders. Bullying destroyed “the bully.” Sadly, Steve Jobs died of

pancreatic cancer at a very young age of 56, indeed a tragic and tremendous loss. How do we

store treasures in heaven (Matthew 6: 19-21)? We store treasure in people’s hearts as they

remember the feelings about us. Monetary Wisdom affects decision-makers’ health, happiness,

wealth, and death.

Harvard Business School Professor Teresa Amabile, Ph.D. in Psychology from Stanford

University, is most famous for her research on creativity (Amabile, 1998; Amabile, Conti,

Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). “When creativity is under the gun, it usually ends up getting

killed” (Amabile, Hadley, & Kramer, 2002, p. 52). Jeffrey Pfeffer, Thomas D. Dee Professor

of Organizational Behavior and a management guru at Stanford University, stated in his book,

entitled: The human equation: Building profits by putting people first (1998), that the first rule

of the seven practices of successful organizations is “employment security.”

Fear will cause most people, including the least talented servant in the Parable of the

Talents, to buckle, disobey, settle for less than God’s best, and dilute their trust in Him, which

will regrettably rob them the peace and joy in their lives. Trust, without fear, is vital to a

conducive work environment (Gilbert & Tang, 1998). The Bible teaches us: “Fear not, for I

have redeemed you; I have called you by name: You are mine” (Isaiah 43: 1). “Love one

another” (John 13: 34). Know employees by their names. When you love others, others will

love you back. Corporations with high employee satisfaction outperform their peers by 2.35%

to 3.8% per year (Edmans, 2011). Virtuous leadership enhances creativity and reduces

dishonesty (Gu, Tang, & Jiang, 2015; Tang & Liu, 2012). The principle of reciprocity exists

(Özbek, Yoldash, & Tang, 2016). Adam Grant (2016) mentioned in his book, Originals:

Among American presidents, “The least effective leaders were those who followed the will of

the people and the precedents set by their predecessors. The greatest presidents were those who

Monetary Wisdom

challenged the status quo and brought about sweeping changes that improved the lot of the

country” (p. 23).

HOPE

Following prospect theory (Kahneman, 2011), the most talented servant in the domain of

gains (with five talents) has a high level of risk-seeking orientation, whereas the least talented

servant in the domain of losses (with one talent) has a high level of risk-averse orientation,

under the condition of low probability (the possibility effect). With the possibility of winning

the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, scientists James P. Allison and Tasuku Honjo have

worked very hard in their careers to discover cancer therapy. In 2018, they won the Nobel Prize.

(https://www.wired.com/story/meet-jim-allison-the-texan-who-just-won-a-nobel-cancer-

breakthrough/). Following the Bible, “Hope will renew their strength” (Isaiah 41: 31).

TIME IS MONEY

With sufficient autonomy and no supervision, “immediately,” the most talented servant

traded with them and made another five. What we do in our free time is a genuine indication of

our intrinsic motivation. At the end of the Parable, the servant who received five talents had a

total of 11 talents (5 + 5 + 1 = 11), whereas the one who received only one had none

(1 - 1 = 0). Time is the essence. We live a life as the wise ones, “making the most of the

opportunity, because the days are evil” (Ephesians 5: 16). Use “Time”—God’s Precious

Gifts—Wisely. A wandering mind is an unhappy mind (Killingsworth & Gilbert, 2010).

Chinese people consider 168 as a lucky number. Why? The Chinese pronunciation of 168

sounds like a blessing of prosperity all the way. It is directly related to ones’ time, success, and

prosperity, reflecting an equal opportunity. Time is the scarcest resource and more precious

than money (Leclerc, Schmitt, & Dubé, 1999; Devoe & Pfeffer, 2007). You can trade with

money but cannot trade with time. Time is money, but why?

We all have 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Most individuals are up for 16 hours and

sleep for 8 hours. We simply put 16 hours and 8 hours next to each other and obtain the magic

number 168. The sum reflects the total number of hours in a day (16 + 8 = 24). Amazingly, by

managing the 24 hours effectively every day for 7 days, we have dominion over the 168 hours

in a week (24 x 7 = 168). With excellent time management skills, one may enjoy great success

and prosperity in one’s life. “Tell them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous,

ready to share, thus accumulating as treasure a good foundation for the future, so as to win the

life that is true life” (1 Timothy 6: 18-19). “Wealth quickly gotten dwindles away, but amassed

little by little, it grows” (Proverbs 13: 11). Success is not a 100-meter dash but a life-long

marathon. It takes time to reap the return of investments (ROI). We have the same equal

opportunity—24 hours a day and 7 days a week.

MONEY

When one pits the Kingdom of God against the money, the answers appear in the book of

Matthew: “No one can serve two masters. You cannot serve God and mammon” (Matthew 6:

Thomas Li-Ping Tang

24). Serving God implies having faith, doing the good works, and practicing good business

ethics—the bright side, whereas serving mammon does not—the dark side. It is essential to

practice the golden rule: “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you” (Matthew 7:

12).

CORRUPTION

In recent scandals, executives engaged in unethical behavior that violated core values,

including deceiving customers (Wells Fargo), lying to clients (Volkswagen), putting profits

ahead of public safety (China’s infant formula and 2018 vaccine scandals), and falsifying

financial reports (Enron, WorldCom, Italy’s Parmalat). Volkswagen’s deception has disastrous

consequences, costing not only money (€22.6 billion/$23.9 billion) but also the loss of brand

reputation (Jenkins & Delbridge, 2017), disruption of corporate sovereignty, and organizational

miasma (Gabriel, 2012). Most attribute these behaviors to greed.

Now, I raise the same question, again, about money: Are we managing our money, talents,

possession, time, and natural resources ethically and sustainably for future generations? “Those

who want to be rich are falling into temptation and into a trap and into many foolish and harmful

desires, which plunge them into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all

evils” (1 Timothy 6: 9-10). This verse in the Bible serves as one of the most fundamental

foundations for Monetary Wisdom. In 1992, I published my first article on the meaning of

money (Tang, 1992). I told Fr. Wiatt Funk. He immediately pointed out: “You are studying the

love of money.” Based on the Holy Bible, I developed a measure to tap on this individual

difference variable—the love of money—and quantify this construct empirically. This was the

start of my research on Monetary Wisdom.

ATTITUDE TOWARD MONEY

Mitchell and Mickel (1999) reviewed the literature on the meaning of money and published

their article in the Academy of Management Review. They stated that Tang’s money ethic scale

had become one of the most well-developed and systematically used constructs of money

attitude in the literature. It is associated with financial risk-tolerance (Tang, Chen, & Sutarso,

2008a), risk-taking behavior in an ERP study (Jia, Zhang, Li, Feng, & Li, 2013), and

materialism (Belk, 1985; Gentina, Tang, & Gu, 2017, 2018; Kasser, 2002; Tang, Luna-Arocas,

Quintanilla Pardo, & Tang, 2014). The love of money results in objectification. It reduces other-

oriented actions but increases self-focused behavior, self-other distinction, self-esteem, self-

efficacy, goal pursuit, and unethical orientation (Wang & Krumhuber, 2017; Wang, Chen, &

Krumhuber, 2020). It creates a winner-take-all mentality—the Matthew Effect, increasing pay

differentials favoring people with more power and authority (Tang, 1996; Tang, Furnham, &

Davis, 2003). It contributes to our understanding of pay satisfaction (Luna-Arocas & Tang,

2015; Tang, Luna-Arocas, & Sutarso, 2005; Tang, Tillery, Lazarevski, & Luna-Arocas, 2004;

Tang, Tang, & Homaifar, 2006). The love of money is more robust than the theory of mind in

predicting unethical consumer beliefs among French teenagers (Gentina & Tang, 2018).

Monetary Wisdom

RESEARCH FINDINGS

Scholars have substantiated the relationships between the love of money and outcome

variables in more than 45 countries across six continents. Outcomes include unethical intentions

or dishonesty, corruption (e.g., Tang & Chen, 2008; Tang & Chiu, 2003; Tang, & Liu, 2012),

unethical consumer beliefs, or consumer ethics (Gentina & Tang, 2018; Gentina, Tang, & Gu,

2017, 2018; Singhapakdi, Vitell, Lee, Nisius, & Yu, 2013; Vitell, Singh, & Paolillo, 2007),

helping behavior (OCB) (Tang, Sutarso, Davis, Dolinski, Ibrahim, & Wagner, 2008b), and pay

and life satisfaction (Tang et al., 2006; 2018a, 2018b). Besides behavioral intentions, this

avaricious monetary aspiration predicts cheating behaviors in experiments (Chen, Tang, &

Tang, 2014), college students’ poor grades in a business course (Tang, 2016), low stock

happiness, and actions in longitudinal studies (N. Tang, Chen, Li, & Tang, 2019; N. Tang,

Chen, Zhang, & Tang, 2018), and voluntary turnover 18 months later (Tang, Kim, & Tang,

2000). Avaricious monetary aspiration predicts not only behavioral intentions but also actions.

Tang and his associates have conducted several cross-cultural studies involving the

following political entities, e.g., Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Croatia,

Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, France, Hong Kong, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kyrgyzstan,

Macedonia, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Nigeria, Oman, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal,

Romania, Russia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Thailand,

Turkey, Ukraine, and the USA (Tang, 2020, 2021; Tang, Sutarso, Davis, Dolinski, Ibrahim, &

Wagner, 2008b; Tang et al., 2006, 2018a, 2018b, 2019, 2020). Besides, scholars have explored

the love of money attitude and other constructs in under-researched regions worldwide, e.g.,

Czech Republic (Lemrová et al., 2014), Indonesia (Wicaksono & Urmsah, 2016), Kazakhstan

(Erdener & Garkavenko, 2012), Macedonia (Sardžoska & Tang, 2015), Malaysia (Wong,

2008), Pakistan (Kashif & Khattak, 2017), Singapore (Lim & Teo, 1997), Swaziland

(Gbadamosi & Joubert, 2005), Thailand (Ariyabuddhiphongs & Hongladarom, 2011), Turkey

(Süer, Baklaci, & Kocaer, 2017), Uganda (Nkundabanyanga, Omagor, Mpamizo, & Ntayi,

2011), UK (Wang & Krumhuber, 2017), US (Vitell, Paolillo, & Singh, 2006), Uzbekistan

(Tynalie & Erdener, 2019), and Vietnam (Le & Kieu, 2019).

Scholars have cited these constructs in influential reviews (Dittmar, Bond, Hurst, & Kasser,

2015; Kish-Gephart, Harrison, & Treviño, 2010; Lea & Webley, 2006; Mitchell & Mickel,

1999; Wang et al., 2020). Textbook writers have cited in numerous editions of books in 12

disciplines, e.g., compensation, human resource management, management, organizational

behavior, and psychology of money (Bateman & Snell, 2013; Colquitt, LePine, & Wesson,

2021; Furnham, 2014; Gerhart & Newman, 2020; Gowan, 2022; McShane & Von Glinow,

2021; Milkovich, Newman, & Gerhart, 2014; Newman, Gerhart, & Milkovich, 2017; Phillips,

2022; Phillips & Gully, 2019; Scandura, 2019). Practitioners have mentioned these constructs

in the news media (Bloomberg, 2016; CNN: Gillespie, 2016; Financial Times: Authers, 2016).

IMPLICATIONS RELATED TO MONEY, CORRUPTION, AND THE BIBLE

What can we learn from the Bible?1 The Lord is always with us. The Gospel in the book

of Matthew is not just a story that happened more than two thousand years ago in a faraway

1 I would like to thank Fr. Mark Sappenfield for his rich homily delivered on the Palm Sunday Mass, April 5, 2020,

at St. Matthew, Franklin, TN, the USA.

Thomas Li-Ping Tang

place, such as Bethlehem, Jerusalem, or the Sea of Galilee. It applies to every one of us in our

everyday lives and anywhere in the world. Jesus celebrated the Passover with his disciples.

“And while they were eating, he said, “Amen, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” “Deeply

distressed at this, they began to say to him one after another, “Surely it is not I, Lord?” Jesus

said in reply, “He who has dipped his hand into the dish with me is the one who will betray me

(Matthew 26: 21-23).

Judas was the treasurer for Jesus and his 12 disciples. “He was a thief and held the money

bag and used to steal the contributions” (John 12: 4-6). In today’s business vocabulary, Judas

was the CFO (Chief Financial Officer). We always consider Judas was the other person, a bad

guy, or the bad apple, not one of us. Judas also denied in front of Jesus and all the disciples. He

was not telling the truth. Following the notion that the love of money results in objectification,

Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, negotiated with the chief priests for thirty pieces of silver to

hand over Jesus to them. Judas considered the thirty pieces of silver more valuable than Jesus.

If we are not honest and telling the truth, then we all have a little bit of Judas in each one of us.

Do we put money above our spiritual, sacred, or self-transcendent values?

Judas (CFO) was stealing money from Jesus’ ministry. Corruption, dishonesty, cheating,

and stealing existed at that time. It is not new. Please recall, Enron CEO and the Top

Management Team (TMT) rigged the system and reaped the financial reward for their gains at

the expense of the corporation and their employees. Corruption helped them get rich quickly.

Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling received $132 million; his TMT, top five executives, raked in

$282.7 million.

Enron’s CEO and CFO had received their MBAs from the Harvard Business School and

Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, respectively, the US's top MBA

programs. They were extremely smart and Intelligent—serving Mammon but without

Wisdom. Corruption leads to the fall of Enron, Arthur Andersen, the loss of 110,00 jobs

worldwide, the death (caused by a heart attack) of the former Enron CEO, Kenneth Lay, before

sentencing, and the incarceration of the CEO and CFO. Serving the mammon helped them get

rich quickly, but only temporarily. Their actions led to the loss of their freedom, honor,

integrity, reputation, and their lives, becoming a stain in history. They were the have-nots,

leading to the dark side of the Matthew Effect—death and poverty. Following the Parable of

the Talents, “throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing

and grinding of teeth” (Matthew 25: 30). The poor get poorer.

Following the book of Proverbs, “Misfortune pursues sinners, but the just shall be

recompensed with good” (13: 21). “With me are riches and honor, enduring wealth and

prosperity. My fruit is better than gold, yes, than pure gold, and my revenue than choice silver”

(Proverbs 8: 18-19). “The slack hand impoverishes, but the hand of the diligent enriches” (10:

4). On the bright side, reducing one’s avaricious aspirations and becoming good stewards lead

to long-term stock happiness and high pay and life satisfaction (N. Tang et al., 2018, 2019;

Tang et al., 2018a). The rich get richer.

FAITH

Peter said to Jesus, “Though all may have their faith in you shaken, mine will never be.”

Jesus said to him, “Aman, I say to you, this very night before the cock crows, you will deny me

Monetary Wisdom

three times” (Matthew 26: 33-34). At the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus took Peter and the two

sons of Zebedee and asked them to “remain here and keep watch with me.” When he returned

to his disciples, he found them asleep. “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew

26: 36-41). Later, Judas led a band of soldiers and guards from the chief priests to the Garden

of Gethsemane. When they tried to arrest “Jesus the Nazorean,” Simon Peter, who had a sword,

drew it, struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave’s name was Malchus”

(John 18: 1-10).

Again, we all have a little bit of Peter in everyone one of us, too. Are we “brave” in some

situations and become a “coward” in other contexts? Do we act like Peter and deny Jesus three

times in front of some strangers? Do we think like Judas, hold the money bag close to our heart,

act like Peter with his courage, and behave unethically? When we face challenges, do we

behave like the disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane—the spirit is willing, but the flesh is

weak?

Do we ASPIRE to please Jesus (2 Corinthians 5: 9; Tang & Liu, 2012)? How can we be

the light of the world (Matthew 4: 16; John 8: 12, 9: 5) and salt on earth (Matthew 5: 13) and

serve as a role model for others? Monetary Wisdom offers practical implications: Serving God

leads to growth and prosperity. Serving mammon leads to death and poverty.

A THEORETICAL MODEL OF MONETARY INTELLIGENCE/WISDOM

Monetary Wisdom asserts: Individuals select their deep-rooted personal values (the love-

of-money attitude) as a lens to frame critical concerns in the proximal-immediate and distal-

omnibus contexts to maximize expected utilities and ultimate serenity. Researchers must select

theoretically appropriate subconstructs for Monetary Wisdom and also outcome variables in

the immediate and the omnibus contexts.

Appendix A shows constructs and items. Researchers may use a formative theoretical SEM

model (Figure 1). In a simple construct, scholars may apply the love of money with Factors

Rich-affect, Motivator-behavior, Good/Important, and Power-cognition. Recent developments

allow scholars to consider attitudinal measures not only as a reflective model but also as a

formative model (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Podsakoff, 2011; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &

Podsakoff, 2003; Williams, Edwards, & Vandenberg, 2003). For a reflective model, scholars

treat affective, behavioral, and cognitive components as an imperfect reflection of the

underlying latent construct, Monetary Wisdom. The direction of the relationship flows from the

latent construct to the indicators. For a formative model, scientists consider the subconstructs

(motive, stewardship, and cognition) as non-interchangeable defining characteristics of the

Monetary Wisdom. The direction of the relationship moves from sub-constructs to the

Monetary Wisdom latent construct and, then, outcome variables. The construct is “nothing

more than a label for its dimensions considered collectively” (Edwards, 2011, p. 384).

Thomas Li-Ping Tang

Figure 1. A Theoretical Model of Monetary Wisdom.

A formative construct must emit paths to at least two unrelated latent constructs with

reflective indicators, theoretically appropriate reflective indicators, or one reflective indicator

and one latent construct with reflective indicators (Jarvis, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2003). The

formative theoretical SEM models provide many additional advantages (Gentina & Tang, 2018;

Gentina, Tang, & Dancoine, 2018a; Gentina, Tang, & Gu, 2017, 2018b; Tang, 2020, 2021;

Tang et al., 2018a). Figure 1 suggests that the latent construct of Monetary Wisdom is related

to two items (variables) in the immediate context and two reflective constructs in the omnibus

context. Researchers may investigate not only the direct path (Path 1) but also the indirect path

(Paths 2 and 3) simultaneously. When constructs fit well together, excellent discoveries prevail.

With large samples, scholars may also treat demographic variables (gender, culture) as

moderators in multi-group confirmatory factor analyses (MGCFAs). This chapter helps future

Monetary Wisdom

researchers apply formative theoretical models or other complex regression models to explore

money-related constructs and various outcome variables, expanding Monetary Wisdom and

behavioral economics.

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

Thanks to international collaboration and global supply chain management, people around

the world have enjoyed the fruits of economic development, human prosperity, and worldly

goods and services. Unfortunately, globalization has created a human-made crisis and

exacerbated the spread of the coronavirus pandemic (Farrell & Newman, 2020). As of March

6, 2021, globally, there were 117 million cases and 2.599 million deaths

(https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/). This pandemic had sadly destroyed many

people’s lives, families, dreams, and careers, disrupted the global supply-chain management

and the production of products and services, and caused dire health, safety, psychological, and

economic pressures to people around the world. Many excellent doctors in the medical

profession lost their own lives. Doctor Li Wenliang died in Wuhan, China, after contracting the

virus while treating patients.

Health-related experts have repeatedly warned us to wash hands, wear masks, and practice

social distancing (Haffajee & Mello, 2020, April 2). In 2021, Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson &

Johnson vaccines help prevent COVID-19 and lift the dark cloud covering the whole world.

Following the Matthew Effect, we must not only be agile and adaptable to survive new

challenges but also take actions immediately, adapt and learn new technologies, and develop

new skills so that we can surf on the next new big waves to the future. The rich with talents get

richer, healthier, happier, wiser, and the whole world back to normal.

Monetary wisdom theory offers implications for all decision-makers: your money or your

life (Furnham & Okamura, 1999). Most people want to win, but they hate losses (Thaler, 2015).

Following prospect theory (Kahneman, 2011), there is a four-fold preference. Risk-aversion in

the domain of gains and risk-seeking in the realm of losses will exist under the context of high

probability—the certainty effect, risk-seeking in the region of gains and risk-aversion in the

area of losses will prevail under the context of low probability—the possibility effect. Decision-

makers at the individual, organization, country, and global levels must balance the priority

between one force that protects citizens’ health, safety, and lives and the other force that

stimulates sustainable economic growth, prosperity, and activities at the local, country, and

global levels.

At the individual level, decision-makers must identify available resources

(cash/money/finance, food, water, masks, shelter, and transportation) so that they, themselves,

and their family members may survive. Evaluating the potential threats in the immediate and

omnibus contexts and decide whether they should stay home or go to work to maximize

expected utility and ultimate serenity. We must set our priorities and survive in stressful events.

The Persian Gulf War-related stress changed the importance and satisfaction of human

needs (Tang & Ibrahim, 1998; Tang & West, 1997; Tang, Ibrahim, & West, 2002). There were

significant changes in the importance and satisfaction of needs between peacetime,

retrospective peacetime, and wartime. These changes were different across cultures. Many

people have taken some of the essential things, e.g., food and water, basic needs, and the

Thomas Li-Ping Tang

security and safety needs of myself, my family, and my country, for granted during peacetime,

which became much more critical during the war. Other studies presented similar findings (e.g.,

Olivas-Luján, Harzing, & McCoy, 2004; Selmer & Littrell, 2010).

The upside of the war against the COVID-19 is that it helps us keep our feet on the ground

and focus on the crucial values in our lives: What’s Important Now (WIN) (Holtz, 2006; see

Tang, 2021)? “See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2: 24).

We must love one another and help each other out in the war against coronavirus. “Let your

life be free from love of money but be content with what you have, for he has said, ‘I will never

forsake you or abandon you’” (Hebrew 12: 5).

In this chapter, I proposed a bold and provocative global theory of Monetary Wisdom.

Monetary Wisdom theory asserts that decision-makers select their deep-rooted personal values

as a lens of their executive cognitive functions and frame the critical concerns in the proximal

(immediate) and distal (omnibus) contexts to maximize their expected utilities and ultimate

serenity. I hope that Monetary Wisdom helps all decision-makers become healthier, happier,

and wealthier than before.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First of all, I thank my father, late Professor Kuan-Ying Tang, one of the four founding

fathers of the Psychology Department at National Taiwan University in Taiwan, for setting a

goal (Ph.D.) for me and sending me to the USA, and my mother, late Mrs. Fang Chen Tang for

her hard work, motivation, and perseverance. Many thanks go to my wife, Mrs. Theresa Li-Na

Tang, for her sacrifices, support, and inspiration, and my two Harvard-educated children:

daughter, Cindy S. Y. Tang Harris, M.D., Pediatrician, and my son, David S. H. Tang, Senior

Director of Development, International Mergers & Acquisitions for their families love and

patience.

I like to express my sincere appreciation to Late Herbert Hubben, Vice President

International, Eaton Corporation, for his kindness, generosity, and wise advice when I was a

Ph.D. student at Case Western Reserve University. I also thank the late Fr. Wiatt Funk, who

showed me the way from my research on the meaning of money to the love of money in the

Holy Bible and presented a Holy Bible to me as a gift on June 22, 2002. It is my great honor to

learn from late Prof. Marc Singer, former Chair of the Management Department at Middle

Tennessee State University, and late Dr. James M. Buchanan, the 1986 Nobel Prize Winner,

Economics Sciences, for the secrets to his success. I also thank Fr. Mark Sappenfield of St.

Matthew Catholic Church, Franklin, TN, and Fr. John Sims Baker of St. Rose of Lima Catholic

Church, Murfreesboro, TN, the USA, for their encouragement.

It was a great joy to work with scholars in more than 40 countries across all six continents

for several cross-cultural research projects on Monetary Wisdom. Professor Brigitte Charles-

Pauvers, Director, the France-China International Management Program at the University of

Nantes, Nantes, France, inspired me to launch this research in 1999. Alex Sherrod and Nguyễn

Ngọc Tùng provided their assistance. Thanks go to Editor-in-Chief, Professor Adebowale

Akande, for his contributions to my research and for inviting me to contribute to this profound

document in the literature.

Monetary Wisdom

APPENDIX A

I. Affect: The affective motive of money (why)

Good (Important)

1. Money is important

2. Money is valuable

3. Money is good

Evil

4. Money motivates people to perform unethically

5. Money is a major cause of people’s unethical and evil acts

6. The love of money (greed) leads to theft, corruption, and murder

7. Money undermines one’s ethical norms and standards

8. The love of money is the root of all evils

Rich

9. I want to be rich

10. It would be nice to be rich

11. Having a lot of money (being rich) is good

Motivator

12. Money reinforces me to work harder

13. I am motivated to work hard for money

14. I am highly motivated by money

Power

15. Money is power

16. Money gives one considerable power

17. Money controls and manipulates your behavior when you are paid

18. Money can buy the best products and services

II. Behavior: The behavioral stewardship of money (how)

Make money

19. I find smarter and better ways of making money

20. I look for new and legal ways to make money

21. I am proud of my ability to make money

Budget money

22. I budget my money very well

23. I use my money very carefully

24. I am proud of my ability to save money

Thomas Li-Ping Tang

Give/donate money to charity

25. I give generously to charitable organizations

26. I believe in charitable giving

27. I give money to the Church (religious organizations)

Make Contribution-the Matthew Effect

28. More money should be paid to people with a higher quality of performance

29. More money should be paid to people with more talent

30. More money should be paid to people with higher merit (performance)

III. Cognition: The cognitive meaning of money (what)

Happiness

31. Money can buy happiness

32. Money makes me feel happy

33. Money makes life a lot easier

Respect

34. Money makes people respect me in the community

35. Money helps me gain respect

36. Money allows me to express myself

Achievement

37. Money represents my achievement

38. Money is a symbol of my success

39. Money reflects my accomplishments

Freedom

40. Money gives you autonomy and freedom

41. Money can give you the opportunity to be what you want to be

42. Money in the bank is a sign of security

Non-Intrinsic

43. Money does NOT enhance the “love” of my job

44. Money does NOT make my job exciting, interesting, and challenging

45. Money offers less excitement than achievement on my job

A 5-Point Rating Scale with Anchors

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

REFERENCES

Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76 (5), 76–87.

Monetary Wisdom

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work

environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (5), 1154–1184.

Amabile, T. M., Hadley, C. N., & Kramer, S. J. (2002). Creativity under the gun. Harvard

Business Review, 80 (8), 52–61.

Ariyabuddhiphongs, V., & Hongladarom, C. (2011). Violation of Buddhist five percepts,

money consciousness, and the tendency to pay bribes among organizational employees in

Bangkok, Thailand. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 33, 325-344.

Authers, J. (2016, August 19). Is greed good? No, it’s seriously bad for your wealth.

Behavioural finance studies suggest a love of money weakens your ability as an investor.

Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/f16edc12-65d1-11e6-a08a-c7ac04ef00aa.

Bateman, T. S., & Snell, S. A. (2013). Management: Leading & Collaborating

in the competitive world (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world. Journal of

Consumer Research, 12, 265-280.

Bloomberg.com (2016). http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-08-10/investors-love-

of-money-can-t-buy-riches-here-s-why.

Chen, J. Q., Tang, T. L. P., & Tang, N. Y. (2014). Temptation, monetary intelligence (love of

money), and environmental context on unethical intentions and cheating. Journal of

Business Ethics, 123, 197-219.

Chen, Y. J., & Tang, T. L. P. (2013). The bright and dark sides of religiosity among university

students: Do gender, college major, and income matter? Journal of Business Ethics, 115

(3), 531-553.

Chiu, R. K., & Tang, T. L. P. (2015a). The temptation of money and monetary intelligence:

From the New Testament to social sciences. In Lam, J. K. C. & Huang, Y. S. (Eds.) Money,

finance and faith (133-139). Gospel Publishing Co., Hong Kong (in Traditional Chinese).

Chiu, R. K., & Tang, T. L. P. (2015b). The temptation of money and monetary intelligence:

From the New Testament to social sciences. In Lam, J. K. C. & Huang, Y. S. (Eds.)

Economics, finance and Christian Perspective (86-97). Shanghai, China: Shanghai

Academy of Social Science Publisher, Ltd. (in Simplified Chinese).

Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Wesson, M. J. (2021). Organizational behavior: Improving

performance and commitment in the workplace (7th ed). McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Devoe, S., & Pfeffer, J. (2007). When time is money: The effect of hourly payment on the

evaluation of time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104 (1), 1-

13.

Dittmar, H., Bond, R., Hurst, M., & Kasser, T. (2015). The relationship between materialism

and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

107, 879-924.

Edmans, A. (2011). Does the stock market fully value intangibles? Employee satisfaction and

equity price. Journal of Financial Economics, 101, 621-640.

Edwards, J. R. (2011). The fallacy of formative measurement. Organizational Research

Methods, 14 (2), 370–388.

Erdener, C., & Garkavenko, V. (2012). Money attitudes in Kazakhstan. Journal of International

Business and Economics, 12 (3), 87-94.

Farrell, H., & Newman, A. (2020, March 16). Will the coronavirus end globalization as we

know it? The pandemic is exposing market vulnerabilities no one knew existed.

Thomas Li-Ping Tang

Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2020-03-16/will-coronavirus-

end-globalization-we-know-it.

Furnham, A. (2014). The new psychology of money. London: Routledge.

Furnham, A., & Okamura, R. (1999). Your money or your life: Behavioral and emotional

predictors of money pathology. Human Relations, 52 (9), 1157-1177.

Gabriel, Y. (2012). Organizations in a state of darkness: Towards a theory of organizational

miasma. Organization Studies, 33, 1137-1152.

Gbadamosi, G., & Joubert, P. (2005). Money ethic, moral conduct and work-related attitudes:

Field study from the public sector in Swaziland. Journal of Management Development, 24,

754-763.

Gentina, E., & Tang, T. L. P. (2018). Does adolescent popularity mediate relationships between

both theory of mind and love of money and consumer ethics? Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 67 (4), 723-767.

Gentina, E., Tang, T. L. P., & Dancoine, P.-F. (2018). Does Gen Z’s emotional intelligence

promote iCheating (cheating with iPhone) yet curb it through reduced nomophobia?

Computers & Education, 126, 231-247.

Gentina, E., Tang, T. L. P., & Gu, Q. X. (2017). Does bad company corrupt good morals?

Social bonding and academic cheating among French and Chinese teens. Journal of

Business Ethics, 146, 639-667.

Gentina, E., Tang, T. L. P., & Gu, Q. X. (2018). Do parents and peers influence adolescents’

monetary intelligence and consumer ethics? French and Chinese adolescents and

behavioral economics. Journal of Business Ethics, 151 (1), 115–140.

Gerhart, B., & Newman, J. M. (2020). Compensation (13th ed.). Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Gilbert, J. A., & Tang, T. L. P. (1998). An examination of organizational trust antecedents.

Public Personnel Management, 27 (3), 321-338.

Gillespie, P. (2016, August 16). Don’t be greedy…it works against you.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/16/investing/love-of-money-state-street-survey/

index.html?

Gowan, M. (2022). Fundamentals of Human Resource Management for Competitive

Advantage. Chicago Business Press.

Gu, Q. X., & Tang, T. L. P., & Jiang, W. (2015). Does moral leadership enhance employee

creativity? Employee identification with leader and leader-member exchange (LMX) in the

Chinese context. Journal of Business Ethics, 126 (3), 513-529.

Haffajee, R. L., Mello, M. M. (2020, April 2). Thinking globally, acting locally—The U.S.

response to Covid-19. The New England Journal of Medicine. doi: 10.1056/

NEJMp2006740.

Holtz, L. (2006). Wins, losses, and lessons: An autobiography. HarperCollins.

Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct

indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research.

Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2), 199–218.

Jenkins, S., & Delbridge, R. (2017). Trusted to deceive: A case study of ‘strategic deception’

and the normalization of lying at work. Organization Studies, 38, 53-76.

Jia, S., Zhang, W., Li, P., Feng, T., & Li, H. (2013). Attitude toward money modulates outcome

process: An ERP study. Social Neuroscience, 8 (1), 43-51.

Monetary Wisdom

Jiang, W., Gu, Q. X., & Tang, T. L. P. (2019). Do victims of supervisor bullying suffer from

poor creativity? Social cognitive and social comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 157

(3), 865-884.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Strass and Giroux.

Kashif, M., & Khattak, A. (2017). Ethical intentions among frontline employees working in the

US-based fast food chains in Pakistan: The moderating role of love of money. British Food

Journal, 119 (7), 1547-1561.

Kasser, T. (2002). The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Killingsworth, M. A., & Gilbert, D. T. (2010). A wandering mind is an unhappy mind. Science,

330 (6006), 932.

Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad

barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 95, 1-31.

Le, T. D., & Kieu, T. A. (2019). Ethically minded consumer behaviour in Vietnam. Asian

Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 31(3), 609-626.

Lea, S. E. G., & Webley, P. (2006). Money as tool, money as drug: The biological psychology

of a strong incentive. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 161-209.

Leclerc, F., Schmitt, B. H., Dubé, L. (1995). Waiting time and decision-making: Is time like

money? Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (1), 110-119.

Lemrová, S., Reiterová, E., Fatěnová, R., Lemr, K., & Tang, T. L. P. (2014). Money is power:

Monetary intelligence—love of money and temptation of materialism among Czech

university students. Journal of Business Ethics, 125 (2): 329-348.

Luna-Arocas, R., & Tang, T. L. P. (2015). Are you satisfied with your pay when you compare?

It depends on your love of money, pay comparison standards, and culture. Journal of

Business Ethics, 128, 279-289.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct measurement and

validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing

techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35 (2), 293–334.

McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2021). Organizational behavior (9th ed.). Boston:

McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56–63.

Milkovich, G. T., Newman, J. M., & Gerhart, B. (2014). Compensation (11th ed.). Boston:

Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Mitchell, T. R., & Mickel, A. E. (1999). The meaning of money: An individual difference

perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 568-578.

Newman, J. M., Gerhart, B., & Milkovich, G. T. (2017). Compensation (12th ed.). Boston:

Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Nkundabanyanga, S. K., Omagor, C., Mpamizo, B., & Ntayi, J. M. (2011). The love of money,

pressure to perform and unethical marketing behavior in the cosmetic industry in Uganda.

International Journal of Marketing Studies, 3 (4), 40-49.

Olivas-Luján, M. R., Harzing, A. W., & McCoy, S. (2004). September 11, 2001: Two quasi-

experiments on the influence of threats on cultural values and cosmopolitanism

International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4 (2), 211-228.

Özbek, M. F., Yoldash, M. A., & Tang, T. L. P. (2016). Theory of justice, OCB, and

individualism: Kyrgyz citizens. Journal of Business Ethics, 137 (2), 365-382.

Thomas Li-Ping Tang

Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Harvard

Business Review Press.

Phillips, J. M. (2022). Human Resource Management: An Applied Approach (3rd ed.). Chicago

Business Press.

Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (2019). Human Resource Management (2nd ed.). Chicago

Business Press.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method

biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended

remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

Sardžoska, E. G., & Tang, T. L. P. (2015). Monetary Intelligence: Money attitudes—unethical

intentions, intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction, and coping strategies across public and

private sectors in Macedonia. Journal of Business Ethics, 130 (1), 93-115.

Scandura, T. A. (2019). Essentials of organizational behavior: An evidence-based approach.

Los Angeles: Sage.

Selmer, J., & Littrell, R. (2010). Business managers’ work value changes through down

economies. Journal of Chinese Human Resource Management, 1 (1), 31-48.

Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., Lee, D. J., Nisius, A. M., & Yu, G. B. (2013). The influence of

love of money and religiosity on ethical decision-making in marketing. Journal of Business

Ethics, 114 (1), 183-191.

Süer, Ö., Baklaci, H. F., & Kocaer, E. (2017). Para Tutumunun Kariyer Hedefleri Üzerindeki

Etkisi: Üniversite Öğrencileri Üzerinde Bir Araştırma. Ege Akademik Bakis, 17(4), 527-

537. (Impact of money attitude on career goals: A survey of undergraduate students. EGE

Academic Review, 17(4), 527-537. (Turkish).

Tang, N. Y., Chen, J. Q., Li, Z., & Tang, T. L. P. (2019, March 7-9). Aspiration (love of money),

stock volatility, and stock happiness among city and country dwellers—A longitudinal

study. Paper presented at the International Convention of Psychological Science (ICPS),

Paris, France.

Tang, N. Y., Chen, J. Q., Zhang, K. L., & Tang, T. L. P. (2018). Monetary wisdom: How do

investors use love of money to frame stock volatility and enhance stock happiness? Journal

of Happiness Studies, 19 (6), 1831-1862.

Tang, T. L. P. (1992). The Meaning of Money Revisited. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

13, 197-202.

Tang, T. L. P. (1996). Pay differentials as a function of rater's sex, money ethic, and job

incumbent's sex: A test of the Matthew Effect. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17, 127-

144.

Tang, T. L. P. (2016). Theory of Monetary Intelligence: Money attitudes—religious values,

making money, making ethical decisions, and making the grade. Journal of Business

Ethics, 133, 583-603.

Tang, T. L. P. (2020). Monetary wisdom: A measure of attitude toward money—constructs and

items. Encyclopedia of Business and Professional Ethics. https://link.springer.com/

content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-23514-1_1205-1.pdf.

Tang, T. L. P. (2021). The lessons of The Last Supper: Creating inspirational, memorable, and

practical theories. In A. Akande, B. Adetoun, & M. Adewuyi (Eds.). Emerging trends in

global organizational science phenomena: Critical roles of politics, leadership, stress, and

context. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers in Conjunction with Springers

Publishing Company.

Monetary Wisdom

Tang, T. L. P., & Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Effects of personal values, perceived surveillance,

and task labels on task preference: The ideology of turning play into work. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 69, 99-105.

Tang, T. L. P., & Chen, Y. J. (2008). Intelligence vs. wisdom: The love of money,

Machiavellianism, and unethical behavior across college major and gender. Journal of

Business Ethics, 82, 1-26.

Tang, T. L. P., & Chiu, R. K. (2003). Income, money ethic, pay satisfaction, commitment, and

unethical behavior: Is the love of money the root of evil for Hong Kong employees?

Journal of Business Ethics, 46 (1), 13-30.

Tang, T. L. P., & Ibrahim, A. H. S. 1998. Importance of human needs during retrospective

peacetime and the Persian Gulf War: Mideastern employees. International Journal of

Stress Management, 5 (1), 25-37.

Tang, T. L. P., & Liu, H. (2012). Love of money and unethical behavior intention: Does an

authentic supervisor’s personal integrity and character (ASPIRE) make a difference?

Journal of Business Ethics, 107 (3), 295-312.

Tang, T. L. P., & Tang, T. L. N. (2010). Finding the lost sheep: A panel study of business

students’ intrinsic religiosity, Machiavellianism, and unethical behavior intention in a

public institution. Ethics & Behavior, 20 (5), 352-379.

Tang, T. L. P., & West, W. B. (1997). The importance of human needs during peacetime,

retrospective peacetime, and the Persian Gulf War. International Journal of Stress

Management, 4 (1), 47-62.

Tang, T. L. P., Chen, Y. J., & Sutarso, T. (2008a). Bad apples in bad (business) barrels: The

love of money, Machiavellianism, risk tolerance, and unethical behavior. Management

Decision, 46, 243-263.

Tang, T. L. P., Furnham, A., & Davis, G. M. W. (2003). A cross-cultural comparison of the

money ethic, the protestant work ethic, and job satisfaction: Taiwan, the USA, and the UK.

International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 6 (2), 175-194.

Tang, T. L. P., Ibrahim, A. H. S., & West, W. B. (2002). Effects of war-related stress on the

satisfaction of human needs: The United States and the Middle East. International Journal

of Management Theory and Practices, 3 (1), 35-53.

Tang, T. L. P., Luna-Arocas, R., & Sutarso, T. (2005). From income to pay satisfaction: The

love of money and pay equity comparison as mediators and culture (the United States and

Spain) and gender as moderators. Management Research: The Journal of the

Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 3 (1), 7-26.

Tang, T. L. P., Kim, J. K., & Tang, D. S. H. (2000). Does attitude toward money moderate the

relationship between intrinsic job satisfaction and voluntary turnover? Human Relations,

53, 213-245.

Tang, T. L. P., Tang, T. L. N., & Homaifar, B. Y. (2006). Income, the love of money, pay

comparison, and pay satisfaction: Race and gender as moderators. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 21 (5), 476-491.

Tang, T. L. P., Tollison, P. S., & Whiteside, H. D. (1987). The effect of quality circle initiation

on motivation to attend quality circle meetings and on task performance. Personnel

Psychology, 40, 799-814.

Tang, T. L. P., Tollison, P. S., & Whiteside, H. D. (1989). Quality circle productivity as related

to upper-management attendance, circle initiation, and collar color. Journal of

Management, 15, 101-113.

Thomas Li-Ping Tang

Tang, T. L. P., Luna-Arocas, R., Quintanilla Pardo, I., & Tang, T. L. N. (2014). Materialism

and the bright and dark sides of the financial dream in Spain: The positive role of money

attitudes—The Matthew Effect. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 63, 480-

508.

Tang, T. L. P., Tillery, K. R., Lazarevski, B., & Luna-Arocas, R. (2004). Research note: The

love of money and work-related attitudes: Money profiles in Macedonia. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 19 (5), 542-548.

Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Davis, G. M. T., Dolinski, D., Ibrahim, A. H. S., & Wagner, S. L.

(2008b). To help or not to help? The Good Samaritan Effect and the love of money on

helping behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 865-887.

Tang, T. L. P., Li, Z., Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Chou, W. J., Garber, I. E., Hung, M. P., Kim,

K. S., Lin, T. T., Málovics, E., Özbek, M. F., Popaitoon, P., Sato, Y., Sun, J. J. M., Tsai,

C. Y., Vlerick, P., Vynoslavska, O., Yokota, E., & Yoneyama, S. (2020, December 13-17).

Do nice guys finish last (first)? Money, power, and citizenship behavior in 12 countries.

Accepted for Presentation at an Invited Symposium: The Consequences of the Love of

Money, Centennial Congress of Applied Psychology (CCAP) of International Association

of Applied Psychology (IAAP), Cancun, Mexico.

Tang, T. L. P., Li, Z., Özbek, M. F., Vlerick, P., Lim, V. G. G., Teo, T. S. H., Chen, J. Q., Tang,

N. Y., Ansari, M. A., Sutarso, T., Garber, I., Chiu, R. K. K., Charles-Pauvers, B., Luna-

Arocas, R., Arias-Galicia, F., Tang, T. L. N., Garcia De La Torre, C., Akande, A., Allen,

M. W., Al-Zubaidi, A. S., Borg, M. G., Cheng, B. S., Correia, R., Du, L. Z., Ibrahim, A.

H. S., Jen, C. K., Kazem, A. M., Kim, K., Malovics, E., Moreira, A. S., Mpoyi, R. T.,

Nnedum, A. U. O., Osagie, J. E., Osman-Gani, A., M., Pholsward, R., Polic, M., Sardžoska,

E. G., Skobic, P., Stembridge, A. F., Urbain, C., Pereira, F. C., & Pitariu, H. D. (2019,

March 7-9). Corruption visualization: Aspiration and satisfaction on corruption across 32

countries in 3 levels of transparency (Corruption Perceptions Index). Paper presented at

the International Convention of Psychological Science (ICPS), Paris, France.

Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Akande, A., Allen, M. W., Alzubaidi, A. S., Ansari, M. A., Arias-

Galicia, F., Borg, M. G., Canova, L., Charles-Pauvers, B., Cheng, B. S., Chiu, R. K., Du,

L. Z., Garber, I., Garcia de la Torre, C., Higgs, R. C., Ibrahim, A. H. S., Jen, C. K., Kazem,

A. M., Kim, K., Lim, V. K. G., Luna-Arocas, R., Malovics, E., Manganelli, A. M., Moreira,

A., Nnedum, A. U. O., Osagie, J. E., Osman-Gani, A., Pereira, F. C., Pholsward, R., Pitariu,

H. D., Polic, M., Sardzoska, E., Skobic, P., Stembridge, A. F., Tang, T. L. N., Teo, T. S.

H., Tombolani, M., Trontelj, M., Urbain, C., & Vlerick, P. (2006). The Love of Money and

Pay Level Satisfaction: Measurement and Functional Equivalence in 29 Geographical

Entities around the World. Management and Organization Review, 2 (3), 423-452.

Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Ansari, M. A., Lim, V. K. G., Teo, T. S. H., Arias-Galicia, F.,

Garber, I. E., Chiu, R. K. K., Charles-Pauvers, B., Luna-Arocas, R., Vlerick, P., Akande,

A., Allen, M. W., Al-Zubaidi, A. S., Borg, M. G., Canova, L., Cheng, B. S., Correia, R.,

Du, L. Z., Garcia de la Torre, C., Ibrahim, A. H. S., Jen, C. K., Kazem, A. M., Kim, K.,

Liang, J., Malovics, E., Manganelli, A. M., Moreira, A., Mpoyi, R. T., Nnedum, A. U. O.,

Osagie, J. E., Osman-Gani, A., Özbek, M. F., Pereira, F. J. C., Pholsward, R., Pitariu, H.

D., Polic, M., Sardžoska, E., Skobic, P., Stembridge, A. F., Tang, T. L. N., Urbain, C.,

Trontelj, M., & Chen, J. Q., Tang, N. Y. (2018a). Monetary intelligence and behavioral

economics across 32 cultures: Good apples enjoy good quality of life in good barrels.

Journal of Business Ethics, 148 (4), 893-917.

Monetary Wisdom

Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Ansari, M. A., Lim, V. K. G., Teo, T. S. H., Arias-Galicia, F.,

Garber, I. E., Chiu, R. K. K., Charles-Pauvers, B., Luna-Arocas, R., Vlerick, P., Akande,

A., Allen, M. W., Al-Zubaidi, A. S., Borg, M. G., Cheng, B. S., Correia, R., Du, L. Z.,

Garcia de la Torre, C., Ibrahim, A. H. S., Jen, C. K., Kazem, A. M., Kim, K., Liang, J.,

Malovics, E., Moreira, A., Mpoyi, R. T., Nnedum, A. U. O., Osagie, J. E., Osman-Gani,

A., Özbek, M. F., Pereira, F. J. C., Pholsward, R., Pitariu, H. D., Polic, M., Sardžoska, E.,

Skobic, P., Stembridge, A. F., Tang, T. L. N., Urbain, C., Trontelj, M., Canova, L., &

Manganelli, A. M., Chen, J. Q., Tang, N. Y., Adetoun, B. E., & Adewuyi, M. F. (2018b).

Monetary intelligence and behavioral economics: The Enron Effect—Love of money,

corporate ethical values, Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), and dishonesty across 31

geopolitical entities. Journal of Business Ethics, 148 (4), 919-937.

Thaler, R. H. (2015). The making of behavioral economics: Misbehaving. New York: W. W.

Norton & Company.

Tynalie, U. M., & Erdener, C. (2019). Money attitudes survey of business students in

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Journal of International Education in Business,

12(2), 228-246.

Vitell, S. J., Paolillo, J. G. P., & Singh, J. (2006). The role of money and religiosity in

determining consumers’ ethical beliefs. Journal of Business Ethics, 64, 117–124.

Vitell, S. J., Singh, J. J., & Paolillo, J. (2007). Consumers’ ethical beliefs: The roles of money,

religiosity and attitude toward business. Journal of Business Ethics, 73 (4), 369-379.

Wang, X. J., & Krumhuber, E. G. (2017). The love of money results in objectification. British

Journal of Social Psychology, 56 (2), 354-372.

Wang, X. J., Chen, Z., & Krumhuber, E. G. (2020). Money: An integrated review and synthesis

from a psychological perspective. Review of General Psychology.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020905316.

Wicaksono, A. P., & Urmsah, D. (2016). Factors influencing employees to commit fraud in

workplace: Empirical study in Indonesian hospitals. Asian Pacific Fraud Journal, 1 (1), 1-

18.

Williams, L. J., Edwards, J. R., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2003). Recent advances in causal

modeling methods for organizational and management research. Journal of Management,

29 (5), 903–936.

Wong, H. M. (2008). Religiousness, love of money, and ethical attitudes of Malaysian

evangelical Christians in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 169-191.

Zhou, Z. C., Luo, B. N. F., & Tang, T. L. P. (2018). Corporate social responsibility excites

“exponential” employee attitudes: The Matthew Effect in CSR and sustainable policy.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environment Management, 25, 339-354.

Thomas Li-Ping Tang

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Thomas Li-Ping Tang (Ph.D., I/O Psychology, Case Western Reserve University) is a

Professor in the Department of Management, Jennings A. Jones College of Business, Middle

Tennessee State University (MTSU). He has taught industrial and organizational psychology

at National Taiwan University and MTSU. Among his 183 articles/chapters published in 6

languages, 32 are on the Financial Times’ top-50-business-journal list. He has offered seminars

to EMBA/MBA/undergraduate students in China, France, HK, and Spain and presented more

than 263 papers in 27 countries. He serves/has served on the editorial board of 14 journals, as

an associate editor for 2, and as an ad hoc reviewer for 76. He has received the Outstanding

Career Achievement Award at MTSU and Outstanding Alumni Award. Authors have cited his

research in more than 124 textbooks across 12 fields and in news media (Bloomberg, CNN,

Financial Times, Voice of America/Economics Forum). Köseoglu, Yildiz, and Ciftci (2018)

ranked Prof. Tang the 8th in the world for his contributions to the field of business ethics

research (1960-2015) (Business Ethics: A European Review). He is a Fellow of Economic

Psychology, International Association of Applied Psychology (IAAP). He and his wife have

two children, both graduated from Harvard University, and three grandchildren.