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.