“We, members of the human race, have clustered ourselves into groups that perceive each other as enemies, each with their own sets of values, rules, and regulations, with different degrees of spiritual awareness, and divergent perspectives on the essence of life. The common flaw of each “tribe,” however, is their failure to implement the “oneness” or interbeing that foundationally connects them with each other, leading to the major pitfall captured in the moral of this short story: one-sided solutions not only fail, but they actually make things worse”
(Mitroff, 2011, p. 1).
The term “interbeing” was coined by Thich Nhat Hanh, a renowned Zen Buddhist monk, who explains the concept as being interconnected with everything, based on the reality that we cannot exist without all the resources – human, non-human, living or non-living – that maintain us through life (Thich Nhat Hanh, 1988). Unfortunately, the awareness of our interbeing does not seem to come easily to us in the harshness of everyday life.
The social disruptions of 2020 are the most recent evidence of this fact. The commotion that started with the merciless slaying of George Floyd while in police custody (Goyette, 2020) rippled throughout the world, and riled up societal conscience toward an issue that has been kept low key for far too long: systemic social injustice, originating from a divisive, biased mindset, and manifesting itself in every echelon of society, not in the least in organizations. George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Rayshard Brooks and numerous other recent and past victims represent painful examples of this prejudiced system that rejects equity of race, gender, and any other possible distinction we can devise amongst us, and has adopted numerous shapes and forms, from blatant to subtle – almost unrecognizable – yet, prominent and consistent.
Diversity and inclusion in organizations
Key in organizational settings is the way managers handle social justice. Without proper guidance and awareness preparation, this important dimension of life will remain unaddressed and askew. In recent years, research teams have discovered an interesting blend of issues at the root of the persistent social injustice in organizations, varying from lack of constructive interaction amongst diverse individuals and groups (Bernstein, Bulger, Salipante & Weisinger, 2019) to impotence in elevating diversity to board levels (Rhode, 2014), and from lingering psychological exclusion of outgroup members (Lee & Chae, 2017) to severely outmoded and ineffective implementation of diversity training (Dobbin & Kalev, 2016).
These and other factors have formed a solid, almost impenetrable foundation for declining rather than rising diversity and inclusion tendencies, even in the most revered organizations. When organizations fail to properly address social justice issues, a pattern of dysfunctionality and unfairness emerges and takes hold of the day-to-day and strategic operations. Within this disturbing environment a negative effect is permeated upon the six domains that influence and sustain institutional balance and self-regulation: safety and trust; boundaries and differences; accountability; communication; hierarchical power; and task and role clarity (Braxton, 2010).
Spiritual approaches
Collins (2010) recommends a spiritual approach with a strong focus on ethical realignment and improvement, based on the awareness that all members of any organization are, by default, morally imperfect. In line with Collins’ recommendation, and reaching beyond the rules and limitations of religion, Guillory (2000) proposes an intrinsic origin view, affirming that spirituality is a principle that comes from within – beyond our programmed beliefs and values. Behavior that is calibrated through a spiritual approach therefore relies on one’s inner consciousness (Guillory), and awakens a sense of being connected with one’s complete self, others and the entire universe (Mitroff & Denton, 1999).
Supporting a spiritual approach in workplaces induces a convivial atmosphere toward diversity and inclusion, according to Lips-Wiersma and Mills (2002), who underscore that judgmental and divisive reactions to visible social identities such as race, gender and age no longer find support in a workplace that nurtures safety, equity, and a welcoming atmosphere. What could be a possible role for management scholars and practitioners in contributing towards social justice? In one of the professional development workshops (PDWs) at the 2021 annual Academy of Management meeting, the presenters mentioned above explored approaches that managers could implement, to contribute towards cultivating the ethical and spiritual realms.
Dialogue among scholars and professionals
In this workshop there was a dialogue between scholars and professionals. The leader of the session, Joan Marques, moderated the dialogue around the following three questions:
- What practices could we, as managers, or educators of managers apply in order to eliminate limiting mindsets and create a sense of “othering”?
- How can we best reach inside ourselves to conjure greater desire to do the right thing, and assist others in awakening to the awareness of interbeing?
- What should we – as managers and/or management educators – commit to, going forward, to personally, professionally and collectively bring about the change we wish to see?
Some inspiring approaches
The approaches shared by the presenters and participants were self-exploratory and deeply reflective, aimed at inviting dialogue. The foundational approach reflected on our innate differences as revealed by the Myers-Briggs type indicator, giving rise to the awareness that our perspectives on life are largely influenced by our individual mindsets. Based on his previous work, Ian used the metaphor of Tribes referred to in the Myers-Briggs typology. In essence, he presented the idea that we are psychologically different but that we do not appreciate these inherent differences. Therefore we often lapse into considering “others” in negative terms instead of welcoming their diverse perspectives.
Joan invited us to cherish Thich Nhat Hanh’s teachings on “Interbeing”, which can elevate the awareness that we’re all interconnected, thus dependent on even those we will never meet or those that preceded us; thereby embracing and respecting the existence of all life. She guided the audience in a loving kindness meditation. She entailed an invitation to regularly focus on our breathing and reflect on the movement of arising (inhaling) and passing (exhaling), which represents all of life and its manifestations. This could enhance our awareness of the futility of entitlement and oppression of “others”. Ginger shared an institutionalized approach: only those who propose interdisciplinary collaborations would get research funding in her college. She thinks that an interdisciplinary collaboration makes people more aware of others people’s views. In this way, in her position as dean she can encourage scholars to become more aware and respectful of different viewpoints. Sharda referred to making students in a class aware of possible blind spots which they may carry. This was demonstrated by taking a simple cube and showing students the different sides of the cube. Each side represented the different worldviews that exist and how often we neglect those when positioning our own arguments for achieving certain objectives. Benito shared experiences with training managers to be active change agents in promoting humanistic and just workplaces — insider action researchers. This entails candid and empathetic dialogue among stakeholders in order to bring problematic workplace conditions and their causes to the surface, thereby enabling collaboration for transformational change.
This workshop was an initiative towards starting dialogues for encouraging social justice by introducing approaches grounded in spirituality. The scholars suggest that such dialogues when conducted over a long period of time and with diverse groups will create a more sustainable foundation for social justice in organizations and societies.
Readers of Om Rise magazine are invited to share their views related to the questions proposed by the scholars in this article.
References:
- Bernstein, R., Bulger, M., Salipante, P., & Weisinger, J. Y. (2019). From diversity to inclusion to equity: A theory of generative interactions: JBE. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-16.
- Braxton, E. T. (2010). Healing the Wounded Organization: The Role of Leadership in Creating the Path to Social Justice. Tamara Journal of Critical Organisation Inquiry, 8(3), 89-118.
- Collins, D. (2010). Designing ethical organizations for spiritual growth and superior performance: An organization systems approach. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 7(2), 95.
- Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016). Why diversity programs fail. Harvard Business Review, 94(7), 52–60.
- Goyette, J. (May 26, 2020). Hundreds demand justice in Minneapolis after police killing of George Floyd. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/usnews/2020/may/26/george-floyd-killing-minneapolis-protest-police
- Guillory, W.A. (2000). The Living Organization: Spirituality in the Workplace. Innovations International Inc., Salt Lake City, UT.
- Lee, K., & Chae, Y. J. (2017). LMX differentiation, diversity, and group performance. Career Development International, 22(2), 106-123.
- Lips-Wiersma, M., & Mills, C. (2002). Coming out of the closet: Negotiating spiritual expression in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(3), 183
- Mitroff, I. (2011). Tribes. Interbeing, 5(1), 1-3,68. Mitroff, I.I. & Denton, E.A. (1999). A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
- Rhode, D. L., & Packel, A. K. (2014). Diversity on Corporate Boards: How much Difference does Difference Make? Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 39(2), 377-425.
- Thich Nhat Hanh (1988). The Heart of Understanding. Parallax Press, Berkeley, CA.
EN 
NL