The Paradox of Respectful Pluralism and Exclusivity

What?

Douglas Hicks makes a remarkable claim when he states that "...religion is a healthy, central part of an individual's identity" and that "workplace organizations can address religious diversity in healthy ways" (p 496). Why is this so remarkable? Well, the fact that this statement is found in a textbook is a good place to start. What have we all been told not to talk about since the dawn of time, it seems? Religion and politics. I find it rather refreshing that a textbook can address one of these topics with boldness and delicate respect. And since both topics are apparently taboo, let's just discuss one in this blog!

So What?

The concepts of respectful pluralism, non-compartmentalization and exclusivity are all at play when religious preferences intersect. Respectful pluralism is the extension of equal respect based on human dignity to all workers and therefore granting "employees the right to religious and other expression in the workplace" (p495). That being said, since humans all share common dignity, respect is due to individual preferences.

A compartmentalized approach

What I found almost ground-breaking, is Hicks discussion of a non-compartmentalization approach to religion. Finally someone calls a spade a spade. Religions were never intended to be one part of who we are - they are in fact a worldview that gives one a lens to discern all things; be it careers, relationships, finances, etc. GK Chesterton rightfully said that "A man can no more possess a private religion than he can possess a private sun and moon.” As I've spent the last decade or so interacting with college students, I find this non-compartmentalization approach to ring true. We are more than mere subcategories and most students long to live a life where thoughts and actions are in harmony, not conflict.

And finally, the paradox of this respectful pluralism is presented.  Differing religions make exclusive claims about reality, suffering and life's purpose. Yet pluralism allows exclusivity and respect to operate at the same time, allowing coworkers to work well together despite differing religious preferences.

Now What?

Hicks rightfully states that the workplace is not the forum to resolve religious claims. Companies have a rightful for-profit mission and resolving theological preferences is typically not a part of that mission. He upholds individuals' rights to expression as long as those expressions do not coerce or degrade others or create institutional preferences. Our very nation was birthed out of religious oppression and created a freedom of religion principle to uphold individuals' right to think and consider the deepest matters of life. While we have distinct Christian values in our national heritage, maybe the most defining Christian value we have is the respect for human dignity. Within that dignity is an inherent right to choose a religion and express it accordingly. Respectful pluralism allows differing exclusive religions to exist at the workplace and upholds the individual's right not fragment their religious preferences from other compartments of life.

Management Stereotypes with a dose of Wilberforce

What? A busy intersection

"In general, to change culture, you have to change people's hearts and minds. Therefore, culture is arguably the hardest thing to change through policy" (Haveman & Beresford, p 126). That's not religion talking. Nor philosophy. Nor idealistic, passionate, change-the-world politics. No, this is academia talking - a seemingly odd place to find inspiration. However counter intuitive it may be, policy doesn't bring about the kind of change that affects culture. The reason being is that policy is a single arm, one reach, into a culture - which is altogether a complicated mosaic of thoughts, feelings, and actions. Policy stands no chance against at such a busy intersection.

So What? A Refreshing Study with Disturbing Results

In a refreshing study, Booysen & Nkomo took an intersectional look at the combined effect of gender and race as it relates to management stereotypes. According to an intersectional perspective, "categories of difference like race and gender converge and impact each other, and thus should not be separately analyzed" (p 286). Race and gender are more than static, independent categories. They are interlocking and interdependent systems and much like culture, the cumulative effect of combined categories is beautiful and complicated.

Booysen & Nkomo's disturbing results were that both black and white men "perceived men as more likely to possess the characteristics necessary for a successful manager compared to women" (p 293). Race and gender still shape how individuals think about managers and it will take more than affirmative action politics to change hearts and minds. As significant as race and gender are as distinguishing qualities, we must deal with bigger categories to bring about the progressive change we long for.

Now What? May History Repeat itself

One of my heroes, William Wilberforce understood this well and now seems like as good a time as any for history to repeat itself. Wilberforce was born to "aristocracy and entitled to privilege, enormously talented, and encircled by rich and famous friends" (Eberly, p 1).  He is known for almost single-handily, through unmatched conviction, abolishing the British slave trade in 1807, marking the beginning of the end of slavery. Here we have a wealthy white male fighting for seemingly poor and undoubtedly oppressed black men and women.  Wilberforce saw an inextricable link between individuals and inherent value. He knew that individuals were more than demographic or socioeconomic categories. Seeing all people through the lens of inherent value brings all other categories together and creates a bigger, all-encompassing category. Race, gender, social class, marital class, etc - all the things that make up culture - converge when our defining category is broad enough.

The ironic fact of Wilberforce's movement is that he fought to change hearts and minds in Parliament - the policy makers of Britain. Arguably, it was British hearts and minds that changed first, then the policies.

Life is intersectional. And culture is a complicated entity. However, much progress is to be made if we'll read a page from Wilberforce's historical efforts. We may want to change the way race, gender and management stereotypes intersect, but we'll have to start with hearts and minds first.

The loose seal of authenticy

What: This is a good thing, right?
Authenticity is a good thing, right? It seems to be - there's no shortage of publications in academia or your local bookstore that espouses authenticity as a sought after strength. Hannum, McFeeters and Booysen discuss authenticity from two vantages. First, as a basic concept, authenticity is seen as "the consistency (or lack thereof) between what you value and how you act" (pg 166). Values here are defined as "concepts or beliefs about desirable end states or behaviors that transcend specific situations, guide selection or evaluation or behavior and events, and are ordered by relative importance" (pg 164). Second, authenticity can be viewed as having four components:
     1. Self-awareness (strengths & weaknesses)
     2. Unbiased processing of self-relevant information
     3. Behavior consistent with one's true self
     4. Relational authenticity (honesty in close relationships)

While this four component view of authenticity seems reasonable, I think most of us tend to think about authenticity along the lines of the first definition - the singular act of a life consistent with chosen values.

So What: But what do you value?
The Globe Study proves that universal leader characteristics exist. There's actually a fair amount of characteristics the world agrees upon - which is good news! Some of these characteristics double as values - honesty, positivity, justice, and trustworthiness. Many people across the world have agreed upon values. However, what happens to authenticity when one holds disagreeable values? Simply put, a person can value alcohol and violence and as long as their lives reflect those values, they've passed the test of authenticity. As stated by Olivier in his article How Ethical is Leadership, "inhumaneness lies dormant inside all of us." This leaves a rather large gap in what authenticity could mean versus what we hope it would mean. What's inside us, things we could potentially value, aren't always good. Speaking of our inner self, Dr. Richard Dawkins, an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, says our "DNA just is, and we dance to its music" (Out of Eden). Ironically, there are plenty of individuals throughout history who we wished had never heard their internal tune.

Now What: Baffled by Authenticity.
The potential for someone to remain authentic yet live by a set of values that can hurt others, physically or emotionally, baffles me. Unfortunately, such individuals have made authentic messes of people I love and have unintentionally or intentionally hurt me as well. Dinesh D'Souza says the 1960s led us to a "massive shift in the source of morality—away from the external order, toward the inner self." Philosopher Charles Taylor refers to this "morality of the inner self" as "the ethic of authenticity." D'Souza notes that human nature is flawed and sites Kant saying, "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made."

I agree that authenticity has a lot do with living up to the values we believe in. I'm baffled, however, when authenticity is attributed to values that mar society.  

Cultural Values and Human Virtue

What: Cultures observed

Ascertaining a new culture is difficult. We become products of our native culture to the extent that we can hardly peer through the fogginess of a new culture. With beauty surely in mind, cultures tend to slowly brew within us and then, when pressed, we simply spill over the values we've been soaked in. Shalom Schwartz terms this effect The Press of Culture. Pardon the coffee reference but one need look no further than a French Press to appreciate this effect at work.

Schwartz and Hofstede & Hofstede came up with separate systematic approaches to define cultural differences. Schwartzs' model is based on three bipolar preferences in which cultures lean towards one value or the other.  The opposing preferences are:

Autonomy vs Embeddedness: decisions made to benefit individuals or groups
Egalitarianism vs Hierarchy: power is evenly distributed or confined to specific roles
Harmony vs Mastery: resources are preserved or used to advance individuals

Hofstede & Hofstede's model rests on the five dimensions listed below. A more complete definition of the dimensions (except virtue) can be found here.
              Identity - collectivism vs individualism
              Hierarchy - large power distance vs small power distance
              Gender - care oriented vs achievement oriented
              Truth - uncertainty avoidance vs uncertainty tolerance
              Virtue - long-term oriented vs short-term oriented


So What: Cultures described
While reading through each system I reflected on the cultures I've observed. I've been fortunate enough to visit Australia, Mexico, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Spain, England, Germany and Canada. I immediately thought of how these cultures fit the given dimensions. Fond memories made me appreciate each culture, in their richness and differences.

These models, however, lead to deeper reflection of whether or not they fully describe a culture or a people group. I realize neither approach was meant to fully capture all that a culture is, does, thinks and feels - people are so fascinating, with deep and complex emotions. While either dimension gives us a descriptive glance at a culture, I found myself wondering what we would find if we looked further still into these culture's values?


Now What: Cultures appreciated
Dr. Peter Kreeft, a Philosophy professor at Boston College explains that there are deeper, more pivotal cultural values to be observed. He simply sounds a message once delivered by Plato, that societies hinge on Cardinal Virtues: Justice, Prudence, Temperance and Fortitude.  In a clever article written by Kreeft, he says "Plato gives us virtue's grammar" and that all other virtues are corollaries of these. He describes the four Cardinal Virtues as "relevant to man in every age because they are relevant to man himself, not to the age. They fit our nature and our nature's needs."

What if we were to combine Schwartz, Hofstede's & Hofstede's, and Plato? At what depth could we then appreciate a culture? What if we could see if they are courageous, wise, just or self-controlled along with other cultural dimensions? A deeper look into the values of a culture should bring about a deeper appreciation. 

Girded by Values

What: Purpose & Values

"Purpose is so fundamentally tied up with leadership that it is almost invariably subsumed or taken for granted by leadership scholars" writes Jackson & Parry (pg 113). Ironically, only a few sentences earlier did the same authors refer to how often Hitler is brought up at leadership conferences. "What parts of Hitler's leadership will become part of your leadership?" they ask (pg 112). Would we emulate his "brutal bullying and extinction of those who disagree?" Would we lie? Exploit others? The list goes on and on...

While Hitler did convince a large number of people to follow him, his historical judgement certainly doesn't rest on his employed leadership theory. No, history sees no redeeming leadership qualities in Hitler because of his purpose. A purpose that, like anyone else's purpose in life, was girded by values. Unfortunately, Hitler's values lacked all virtue. 

So What: Theories & Values

Marion Jones was stripped of
her 5 Olympic medals for using
performance-enhancing drugs. 

There are leadership theories, however, that help us address this thought of values and purpose. Ethical leadership, authentic leadership (jump to a Harvard Business Review article), and spiritual leadership while varying in some degree, all seek to bind the leader and his/her integrity.

Hickman says "values suffuse the common elements of leadership" and he even refers to values as the very "heart of leadership" (pg 177). Just as leadership theories differ, leaders differ on the theories they commonly practice. There are many effective transformational leaders, path-goal leaders and transactional leaders. And while our leaders are critiqued by their chosen theory, their leadership style is not the only way we asses our leaders. Most companies or individuals that have fallen from societies' graces haven't done so necessarily through their leadership style, they've fallen primarily as a result of their values. A few who come to mind are Tiger Woods, Bernie Madoff, Marion Jones and the leaders of Enron. While some may choose values that have no virtue, it is those leaders who have stood on good and virtuous values that stand the tallest.

Now What: Fridges & Values
In the first book of Dr. Tim Elmore's Habitudes series, he asks his readers to "think of some words that could be your core values" (pg 16). Dr. Elmore has put together an incredibly tangible and practical leadership development curriculum through this series and I personally lead many of Virginia Tech's varsity athletic teams through his works. I've found it a profound exercise to ask others to write down their core values. Sure, they've thought of their values before, but few have actually prioritized and penned them out. The Habitudes series is a great, practical guide for anyone looking to identify their values.

For all of you who hope to lead, knowing your values will be crucial to your success. Circumstances may call for different styles of leadership but our values should transcend our style. Have you prioritized your values and written them down? My wife and I posted our values on our fridge - I encourage you to do the same.

More than Honesty

What: Trust Desired 
Tom Rath & Barry Conchie's latest work, Strengths Based Leadership, is an insightful, applicable, and energizing book that leaves readers with new found direction and purpose in their leadership journeys. One of the many topics I found interesting was the topic of followership. More specifically, as identified in the book,  what followers look for in leaders: Trust, Compassion, Stability and Hope. Dealing specifically with trust, the authors went on to say "At any level, whether you are a manager, CEO, or head of state, trust might be the 'do or die' foundation for leading" (pg 83). Following this, we see that those surveyed mentioned honesty, integrity and respect as significant distinctions within the area of trust. Trust, when talked of casually, typically settles on a definition like 'so-and-so is a trustworthy person.'  That is, they are honest and tell the truth. Here however, through the eyes of followers, we see something else. It seems that followers are looking for more than the absence of lies. 


So What: Trust and Integrity 
The word integrity serves us well at getting at the author's point. Many have heard the saying (I'm not sure who coined it...) that "Integrity is what you do when no one's around." One of my favorite authors, Dallas Willard, a Philosophy professor at University of Southern California, looks at integrity this way:


"Integrity would mean, among other things, that you don’t have to run different processes in your life—that you’re transparent and all parts of who you are hang together, are consistent, so you don’t have to keep parts of yourself hidden."


Given Rath and Conchie's findings, it seems followers look at trust in a very holistic way - hence the accompanying features of honesty, integrity, and respect. Followers want an honest leader but they also want a leader who's life is consistent with the truth he/she tells. This idea of being 'transparent' means that not only can followers peer into a leaders life and see everything, it means that what they see is consistent with what the leader said would be there. That all parts of this person, this leader, are working together in a cohesive direction that is for the good of the follower. 


Now What: Trust as a Strength 
Rath and Conchie's work allows leaders to learn about their own strengths through a unique assessment that fits strengths into four domains of leadership. Whether trust is a measurable strength of ours or not, it is a strength that must be worked on if we are to lead. And trust, as perceived by followers means more than simply using our mouths to tell the truth. Followers have cast a deeper lot. In his book Spiritual Leadership, J. Oswald Sanders writes "...leader(s) must be sincere in promise, faithful in discharge of duty, upright in finances, loyal in service, and honest in speech" (pg. 62). It seems followers have given leaders a lot to work on.


My bet (and hope) is that leaders rise to the occasion. Followers, it seems, are hoping for the same thing.

ALR 3

What: An unfathomable tragedy. 

On the evening of April 16th, 2007 my wife and I lay in bed restless. Like everyone else in Blacksburg, our lives changed that day and sleep seemed impossible. That day our campus had been rocked by the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in US history. We questioned what we could do in response to so many in pain, but knew we wanted to help.

Dr. Zacharias at Burress
on 10/09/07.

Then, an odd moment of clarity struck us. We were deeply involved with students through campus ministries and knew our friends would have philosophical questions that needed practical answers. We also knew that Dr. Ravi Zacharias is perhaps the most gifted Christian apologist alive. We thought if he would visit Virginia Tech, he could help address our community’s pain with a loving hand. Our minds flooded with a million "What next?" questions, we knew this was our "What next?" That night we emailed Dr. Zacharias and invited him to address a shocked and grieving community.

So What: At the center of community change. 

Cassell Coliseum event on 10/10/07. 

Dr. Zacharias quickly agreed to come speak. We organized a 2-day, 4-event speaking engagement in which both Dr. Zacharias and his colleague addressed students, faculty, community members and had an intimate meeting with a widowed wife who lost her husband in the shootings. We found ourselves organizing the largest collaboration of churches in the NRV to date. We had over 20 pages of logistics and 100+ active volunteers, led by a steering committee that included us and four others. 

Over 8,000 individuals attended the events. We received donations from churches in Tennessee and a bus full of Pennsylvanians came. Both the Collegiate Times and the Roanoke Times ran stories covering the event. 

Now What: How our experience relates to leadership literature. 

Values drove the cohesion of the community and local church efforts. Hickman (2010) clearly communicates this notion when he wrote "...something needs to trigger [the sense of community] so that people mobilize resources. Most often this trigger takes the form of a clear threat to the community..." (p. 135). Our community certainly felt threatened to an extent that no university in our nation had ever experienced. Shared values within our community made our responsive cohesion effective, swift and efficient. 

Shared leadership abounded. Hundreds of individuals volunteered, and many churches supported our efforts. Though a small, strategic committee, we found ourselves blending in to a community effort with countless active members. 

Me, my wife Meredith, Dr. Zacharias,
his son Nathan, and Sandy Young, a
 local church pastor. 

We also experienced two of Gaventa's levels for power and participation - local and national (Hickman, 2010). Certainly the majority of change was felt locally, but given the notoriety of Dr. Zacharias, we received feedback from his organization that others were encouraged by the messages shared during the events. 

Given my brief experience as a community leader, I found community values at the center of our efforts. Those values gave cohesion and purpose, and allowed for a synergy that felt somewhat supernatural. While I hope to never be so close to such a tragic event again, I do hope to always help those in deep pain - and it will be values that drive those efforts.